Citation
Gentrification

Material Information

Title:
Gentrification the private market revitalization of Denver's oldest neighborhoods : a "Studio II Project
Alternate title:
Private market revitalization of Denver's oldest neighborhoods
Alternate title:
Gentrification study, Denver
Creator:
Guss, Chris
Clark, Thomas
Place of Publication:
Denver
Publisher:
University of Colorado at Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
iv, 132 leaves : charts, maps ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Urban renewal -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
Real property -- Valuation -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
Neighborhoods -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
Neighborhoods ( fast )
Real property -- Valuation ( fast )
Urban renewal ( fast )
Colorado -- Denver ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 128-132).
Thesis:
Planning and community development
Statement of Responsibility:
by Advanced Students in the Graduate Program in Planning and Community Development, College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado at Denver ; Chris Guss [and others] ; directed by Thomas Clark.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
11693647 ( OCLC )
ocm11693647
Classification:
HT177.D4 G45 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

GENTRIFICATION: ; DEC
THE PRIVATE MARKET REVITALIZATION
OF DENVER'S OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS
Chris Guss
Eric Johnson
Guy Moussalli
Livinus Ogbonna
Jay Pierce
Don Seten
Ann Weiner
A "Studio II" Project by
Advanced Students in the
Graduate Program in Planning
and Community Development,
Co Liege of Design and Planning,
University of Colorado at Denver,
Directed by Professor Thomas Clark
Spring 1984


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION....................................................... 7
PHASE ONE MACRO-SCALE APPROACH: REGION-WIDE POPULATION
AND HOUSING TRENDS
PART A GENERAL PROFILE: SOCIOECONOMIC AND HOUSING
CHARACTERISTICS......................................... 10
PART B INTERPRETATION OF HOUSING DEMAND TRENDS,
DENVER AND THE SMSA......................................20
PART C FACTORIAL. ECOLOGY........................................25
PHASE TWO MICRO-SCALE APPROACH: REVITALIZATION AND TRENDS
AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL
PART A THE "GUSS-WEINER" METHOD.................................33
PART B AN OVERVIEW: REVITALIZATION AND CHANGE IN THREE
DENVER NEIGHBORHOODS.................................... 38
PART C STUDY OF SELECTED NEIGHBORHOODS
1. FIVE POINTS............................................ 51
2. HIGHLAND AND JEFFERSON PARK............................ 66
3. BAKER.................................................... 83
PHASE THREE - POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS..................................104
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A CENSUS DEFINITIONS...................................115
APPENDIX B HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS: METHODOLOGY...............118
APPENDIX C - FACTORIAL ECOLOGY MAPS..............................121
APPENDIX D T-TEST METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS FOR
HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK............................127
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................... <>128
i


LIST OF FIGURES
Page
FIGURE 1 1970 CENSUS TRACT MAP FACTOR 1........................ 28
FIGURE 2 1980 CENSUS TRACT MAP FACTOR 1........................ 31
FIGURE 3 GENTRIF1CATION POTENTIAL BY CENSUS TRACT 1980........ 35
FIGURE 4 NEIGHBORHOODS SELECTED FOR STUDY........................ 37
FIGURE 5 U.S. HOUSING STARTS AND MORTGAGE RATES................ 41
FIGURE 6 SINGLE FAMILY, MULTI-FAMILY, AND CONDOMINIUM
TRANSACTIONS, 1972-80: DENVER AND SELECTED
NEIGHBORHOODS........................................ 42
FIGURE 7 AVERAGE SALES PRICES, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNITS,
1979-80: DENVER AND NEIGHBORHOODS HAVING HIGH OR
MODERATE GENTRIFICATION POTENTIAL.................... 44
FIGURE 8 PERCENTAGES OF TWO OR MORE SALES OF SINGLE FAMILY
HOUSING UNITS FOR DENVER AND SELECTED
NEIGHBORHOODS, 1974 1982............................ 45
FIGURE 9 HOUSEHOLD INCOME SHIFT, 1970-80, BY
GENTRIFICATION POTENTIAL.............................. 47
FIGURE 10 GENERAL LAND USE MAP FIVE POINTS
NEIGHBORHOOD.......................................... 53
FIGURE 11 AVERAGE SALES PRICE FOR DENVER AND FIVE POINTS,
1972 1982........................................... 62
FIGURE 12 GENTRIFICATION LOCATION MAP FIVE POINTS
NEIGHBORHOOD.......................................... 64
FIGURE 13 GENERAL LAND USE MAP HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK
NEIGHBORHOODS......................................... 67
FIGURE 14 AVERAGE SALES PRICE FOR DENVER AND HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON
PARK, L972 1981..................................... 75
FIGURE 15 NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY UNITS SOLD FOR HIGHLAND/
JEFFERSON PARK, 1972 1981........................... 76
FIGURE 16 VOLUME OF SINGLE FAMILY UNITS SOLD FOR DENVER AND
HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK IN SELECTED YEARS............. 77
ii


Page
FIGURE 17 GENTRIFICATION LOCATION MAP HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON
PARK NEIGHBORHOOD..................................... 78
FIGURE 18 SALES HISTORY FOR SIX PROPERTIES IN HIGHLAND/
JEFFERSON PARK, 1971 1981........................... 80
FIGURE 19 GENERAL LAND USE MAP BAKER NEIGHBORHOOD.............. 94
FIGURE 20 AREAS OF CHANGE BAKER NEIGHBORHOOD................... 87
FIGURE 21 VOLUME OF SALES BY HOUSING TYPE FOR DENVER,
1972 1981.......................................... 92
FIGURE 22 VOLUME OF SALES BY HOUSING TYPE FOR BAKER,
1972 L981........................................... 93
FIGURE 23 1970 CENSUS TRACT MAP - FACTOR 2......................121
FIGURE 24 1970 CENSUS TRACT MAP - FACTOR 3......................122
FIGURE 25 1970 CENSUS TRACT MAP - FACTOR 4......................123
FIGURE 26 1980 CENSUS TRACT MAP - FACTOR 2......................124
FIGURE 27 1980 CENSUS TRACT MAP - FACTOR 3.................... 125
FIGURE 28 1980 CENSUS TRACT MAP - FACTOR 4......................126
ill


LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1 PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD BY RACE FOR DENVER AND
THE SMS A, 1980...................................... 1
TABLE 2 INCOME CHARACTERISTICS FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA,
1979................................................. 12
TABLE 3 PERSONS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA,
1980.................................................. 13
TABLE 4 EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR DENVER AND THE
SMSA, 1980............................................ 15
TABLE 5 OCCUPATION OF EMPLOYED PERSONS FOR DENVER AND THE
SMSA, 1980............................................ 16
TABLE 6 FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSING FOR DENVER AND
THE SMSA, 1980...................................... 18
TABLE 7 INDICATORS OF TOTAL HOUSING DEMAND FOR DENVER.......... 21
TABLE 8 INDICATORS OF TOTAL HOUSING DEMAND FOR THE DENVER-
BOULDER SMSA........................................ 24
TABLE 9 GENERAL SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR FIVE POINTS
AND CENSUS TRACT 25, 1970 and 1980................... 57
TABLE 10 COMPARATIVE HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS FOR DENVER,
FIVE POINTS AND CENSUS TRACT 25, 1970 AND 1980........ 60
TABLE 11 SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS FOR HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK,
1970 1980........................................... 69
TABLE 12 INCOME PROFILE FOR HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK,
1970 AND 1980......................................... 73
TABLE 13 MEDIAN VALUE OF SPECIFIED OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING
UNITS FOR DENVER AND BAKER, 1970 AND 1980............ 91
TABLE 14 VOLUME OF SALES FOR SINGLE FAMILY UNITS FOR DENVER
AND BAKER IN SELECTED YEARS......................... 96
TABLE 15 GENERAL POPULATION, HOUSING, AND SOCIOECONOMIC
CHARACTERISTICS FOR BAKER, 1970 AND 1980.............. 99
iv


- EXECUTIVE. SUMMARY -
MSentrification is the upgrading of average resident incomes in older,
inner-city neighborhoods through the displacement or replacement of lower
income households by higher income households^/This analysis of the gentri-
fication process in Denver, Colorado, is divided into three phases: a macro
-scale study, a micro-scale study, and policy recommendations. Phase One
consists of a macro-scale study of region-wide population and housing trends.
It is divided into 2 parts. Part A is a general profile stressing the dif-
ferences between Denver and the Denver-Boulder SMSA^ in terms of population
and housing characteristics. Such characteristics as race, income, education,
and housing financial characteristics set the context for regional and city
-wide housing demand trends presented in Part B.
It is important to keep in mind that the process of gentrification
cannot be isolated from the regional and metropolitan context. The increased
cost of suburban housing as well as the mounting pressure on housing supply
have made existing urban housing look increasingly attractive and competitive.
The purpose for analyzing housing demand trends is to illustrate changes in
the various income groups of families and unrelated individuals in order to
assess their implications for the housing markets in the City and its suburban
ring. As detailed later, demand characteristics for Denver and the SMSA are
somewhat different. The number of high income families in Denver declined
rapidly with low imcome families remaining constant between 1970 and 1980.
However, during the same time period, the number of high and moderate income
^Besides Denver, the SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area) is com-
prised of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Gilpin, and Jefferson counties. Clear
Creek County is not included in the analysis. Refer to Appendix A for a
definition of the SMSA.
-1-


families in Denver declined rapidly with low income families remaining
constant between 1970 and 1980. However, during the same time period, the
number of high and moderate income individuals increased rapidly. The
surrounding counties saw an increase in total families and individuals with
those in the low income groups changing the least for both groups between
1970 and 1980.
In an attempt to characterize temporal trends in the spatial structure of
Denver's neighborhoods, a technique called factorial ecology was used and
is the subject of Part C. Socioeconomic and housing variables were examined
and reduced by factorial analysis into summary factors. Those summary factors
indicate a dichotomy between the eastern and western parts of the City. The
pattern is one of an east-west polarization with the eastern part of Denver
displaying high positive scores (i,e., high income, high level of education,
and the like) and the western part displaying low negative scores (less
affluent and less educated residents). Maps detailing the summary factor
scores for all the census tracts in the City have been developed. Because
housing supply is a function of housing demand, those city-wide trends using
the factorial ecology method illustrate where the need for low income housing
is greatest. Paradoxically, those areas of greatest need are also the areas
most apt to encounter and undergo private reinvestment. Older, declining
areas are often improving but at the expense of the lower income residents.
Part two examines gentrification at the neighborhood level. It is divided
into three parts. Part A identifies the neighborhoods experiencing some
reinvestment activity and therefore worth studying. The selected neighborhoods
conform to the following criteria: 1. They should be from as many parts of
the City as possible* 2. They should be located close to downtown. 3. They
-2-


should be in the middle stage of gentrification. The selected study neighbor-
hoods are Five Points, Highland/Jefferson Park, and Baker.
Part B consists of an overview of revitalization and change in the
selected neighborhoods and suggests a model of gentrification. The strength
and direction of gentrification within central cities is fueled by nation-wide
economic forces influencing local housing markets. An appropriate indicator
for the measurement of gentrification is the rate of turnover of existing
housing stock, meaning the amount of speculation actually occurring in a
neighborhood. In the long term, the turnover of housing stock brings about
shifts in population and income distribution. Furthermore, the gentrification
model suggests that a lack of social cohesion and the absence of neighborhood
organizations involved in the political process can accelerate neighborhood
change.
In Part C, the study neighborhoods are examined in detail. The major
socioeconomic trends in each of the neighborhoods for the period 1970-1980 are
described. Housing market components such as volume of sales, median value
of owner-occupied housing units, and sales of single family housing units are
studied. A detailed investigation is made of the volume of transactions on
specific parcels randomly chosen within arbitrarily selected areas of concen-
trated private reinvestment. For each neighborhood, conclusions are given as
to the strength, extent, and direction of gentrification. Finally in Phase
Three, a policy statement recommends approaches for dealing with the consequences
of gentrification. Six policies are recommended with an emphasis on community
and neighborhood oriented solutions.
-3-


MAJOR CONCLUSIONS
1) Prerequisites for the gentrification of inner-city neighborhoods
include a strengthening of demand for housing unTts within
neighborhoods having the potential for gentrification, a sufficient
supply of appropriate units, and a pliant public sector.
2) The time of gentrification's onset is marked by "spot" rehabilitation
leading to resident income succession. But the character of the initial
phase of the process varies considerably among neighborhoods. Within
individual cities the first neighborhoods to commence gentrification
within a cycle of overall economic revitalization will be most likely
to experience the "standard" developmental scenario.
3) Expansion and restructuring of the CBD's employment base in the
current cycle of urban economic resurgence has played a significant
role in three ways. It has drawn many new middle and upper income
workers to the core area workplace, leading to the further congestion
of radial arterials and a heightening of the appeal of residential
locations more accessible to the CBD. It has reduced the relative,
and perhaps the absolute, availability of job opportunities for less
skilled, lower wage workers both in and near the CBD. This may have
weakened the flow of earned income into adjacent neighborhoods while
reducing their overall access to available jobs. And finally, the CBD
and allied functions have begun to intrude into adjacent residential
areas. The result has been lower income displacement through redevelopment
of residential sites and office conversions, and some appreciation in
residential property values. These events have served in some cases
as a prelude and stimulus to gentrification, displacing households,
weakening the will to resist, and heightening speculation.
4) The pace and process of gentrification vary considerably among neighborhoods.
Pace is determined by these factors: degree of spatial concentration of
upgrading; number, size and diversity of alternative neighborhoods
simultaneously undergoing upgrading; and rate of increase in households
amenable to residence in these areas. Two additional factors probably
play a significant role, but their effect must be inferred from available
evidence. One is the appeal of investment in gentrifying neighborhoods.
In theory, capital will flow to opportunities whose expected discounted
capital yields are greatest. As gentrification progresses, perceived
risks may diminish and capital costs would decline under lower-risk
conditions. In practice, sweat equity substitutes for capital in early
rounds of investment in gentrifying neighborhoods. As the process
accelerates, small scale speculators reap speculative gains by flipping
units, and local renovators improve and sell properties. These capital
interests tend not to consider opportunity costs, and do not behave as
theory would suggest. Larger scale investors and developers probably
come closer to the theoretical standard, but their involvement is often
later in the process and more sporadic.
-4-


5) A second additional factor governing the pace and sequential process
of gentrification is tied to the flow of information and expectations
among gentrifying neighborhoods in single cities. Those first to
begin the process are probably most likely to experience the standard
scenario, but others starting later or proceeding more slowly may be
decisively influenced by events in others. Those having the greatest
momentum may siphon off demand in others. Late gentrifiers may also
skip phases of the process or move quickly through them as market
stimuli, information and investor and resident expectations spill over
neighborhood boundaries. Of course some spillover effects may slow
or prevent the process. Witnesses to initial rounds of gentrification
may perfect techniques of opposition in other areas.
6) Over the course of gentrification in case study Denver neighborhoods,
onset was marked by low level speculation, gradual increase in sales
transactions involving single and multi-family properties, and gradual
price appreciation. Property reassessments were of little consequence
in initial years, in raising occupancy costs and displacing renters and
homeowners on fixed incomes.
7) During initial phases of gentrification, the process was apparently
strongly influenced by the economic recession of the mid-1970's.
Recovery, coupled with rapid expansion in Denver's CBD in the late
1970's released latent demand and all the critical indices rose rapidly:
prices, speculative activity, overall number of transactions, and low
income displacement.
8) Since 1970, socioeconomic upgrading in Denver's neighborhoods has
occurred primarily through a substantial loss in lower income households,
linked to much smaller gains in higher income households. Lower income
loss cannot be wholly attributed to displacement or even replacement by
higher income households, rough one-to-one correspondence between the
two should not be expected. Some multi-family structures, of course,
are converted to single family use. A potent ancillary force must
therefore be the intrusion of nonresidential functions, plus the removal
of properties from the market by speculators awaiting an appropriate
time to sell or to renovate and sell. Loss of lower income housing, \
not displacement per se, is potentially the most serious consequence of ^
gentrification in the City of Denver.
9) In none of the Denver neighborhoods examined had gentrification reached
its final phases. It is therefore not possible to conclude from available
evidence exactly how later trendlines will evolve. But it seems likely
that the process will continue. In Denver, the processes of individual
neighborhoods will remain distinctive due to differences in pace and
internal conditions. However, there is also reason to expect some
movement towards convergence of seperate neighborhood trendlines since
all are linked to the core area's "engine" of change which is the CBD
economy, the pervasive impact of national economic cycles, and the
emergence of local public policies fostering convergence.


10) If the national economy again slows, the Denver CBD falters and public
policies are adopted which inhibit gentrification, then the current
round of urban revitalization in the city may come to an end. And
if these conditions persist, the process may be gradually reversed as
neighborhoods revert to lower income status.
11) The role of public policy is endogenous to the process of urban
revitalization. In Denver, public policy has probably not yet played
a major role in stimulating gentrification, and has likely had
only a moderate role in incumbent upgrading residential areas.
Changing socioeconomic structure within the city as a whole is the
prime governor of the shape and direction of public policy initiatives.
Vigorous revitalization, in which gentrification oftens plays an
essential role, ensures socioeconomic upgrading and the emergence of
public policies which will attempt to sustain the process, possibly to
the disadvantage of less well represented lower income segments. In
Denver, the presence of many middle and upper income neighborhoods
insures that a strong voice of the prosperous will persist even if
gentrification does not. But this presence will tend to foster support
for public policies which are at least neutral, and not hostile toward
gentrification. In some other cities, vigorous gentrification may first
have to occur before there can be a strong voice supporting the process.
Today, the perceived developmental and fiscal benefits of gentrification
generally more than offset the perceived costs involving displacement
and loss of lower income housing, even in cities where substantial
gentrification has occurred.
-6-


- INTRODUCTION -
Gentrification is the appreciation of housing costs and the attendant
displacement or replacement of low income households in older inner-city
areas. It is variously attributed to free market economics, to the breakdown
of non-economic "reciprocity" in relations between landlords and tenants, or
to the capture of surplus value by capital owners in response to the increase
in expected investment yields in "underdeveloped" residential areas.
Larger cities are more likely to undergo housing renovation than smaller
ones. A 1975 survey by the Urban Land Institute (1975) found that 73 percent
of central cities with populations of 500,000 or more are undergoing private
market renewal activity. Schill and Nathan (1983) observed for each city of
over 200,000 in population, at least one neighborhood is experiencing gentrifi-
cation. Hartman, Keating, and Le Gates (1982) claim displacement affects 2.5
million Americans each year, resulting in the loss of as. many as a half million
low rent units. Contrary to widely accepted belief, the vast majority of
gentrifiers are urban residents moving into a neighborhood from another part
of the city, rather than suburbanites.
Neil Smith (1979, p. 540) pointed out that,
"The so-called urban renaissance has been stimulated
more by economic than cultural forces... Few would even
consider rehabilitation if a financial loss were to be
expected. A theory of gentrification must therefore explain
why some neighborhoods are profitable to redevelop while
others are not,"
-7-


According to the "rent gap" thoery of gentrification, rehabilitation
begins in areas where the biggest returns on reinvestment are available.
Such areas are found in neighborhoods close to a financially strong
Central Business District (CBD) which has been through a long sequence
of decline and disinvestment. While the back to the city movement is mainly
fueled by economic forces, it is important to consider the values and images
conveyed by the inner-city. The historic and architectural characteristics
of some neighborhoods have been a key to the rediscovery of the central city.
Other benefits of these areas include living close to work, experiencing
the flavor of urban neighborhoods, and reducing air pollution by eliminating
long commuting trips. The areas surrounding city centers have additional
assets such as nearby educational,, cultural, recreational, and shopping facilities
serving as further Inducement to reinvestment.
The National Urban Coalition (1979a) indicated that those displaced tend
to relocate in nearby housing, similar to or better than the housing they
were forced to leave either in their original neighborhood or in similar
neighborhoods within the city. In the long run, however, many families who
made short moves may be forced to move again as gentrification spreads.
This trend in neighborhood revitalization suggests there will be less available
low income housing in the inner-city. As Michael Lang (1982, p. 33) notes,
"dislocation of the poor is not a one-time process." As long as sizable
numbers of the affluent desire "geographically distinct areas," the poor
will be kept on the move and pushed into less desirable areas.
-8-


- PHASE ONE -
MACRO-SCALE APPROACH:
REGION-WIDE POPULATION AND HOUSING TRENDS
-9-


PART A GENERAL REGION-WIDE PROFILE: SOCIOECONOMIC AND HOUSING
CHARACTERISTICS
1) General Socioeconomic Characteristics:
Tables 1, 2, and 3 show that Blacks and Hispanics, persons with
low and moderate incomes of $15,000 and below, non-family type households
composed of unrelated individuals with a high percentage of households headed
by females are found in greater proportions within the City and County of
Denver than in the SMSA,
In turn, the SMSA as a whole has larger percentages of Anglos, persons
with incomes between $20,000 and $50,000 or more, and more family-type
households than the City does* Also, a smaller proportion of households
appear to be headed by females in the SMSA than in Denver, Therefore,
characteristics in terms of race, household composition, and income contrast
sharply between the central city and suburban ring. Minorities and low income
persons are more concentrated in Denver than in the surrounding counties.
-10-


TABLE 1 PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD BY RACE FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1980
Persons in Household as a % of Denver-Boulder SMSA as a % of Denver
total total
TOTAL PERSONS 100.0 1,642,384 100.0 506,952
Anglo 85.0 1,395,489 71.0 357,831
Blackd 4.6 75,554 11.4 57,996
2 Hispanic 10.4 171,341 18.0 91,125
Estimates for persons in black households are not available for
Gilpin County in the 1980 Census.
2
Mexican, Cuban, Puerto-Rican, Spanish. Can be of any race.
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1982. Census of Population 1980:
Characteristics of the Population, General Population
Characteristics, Colorado (PC80 1 B7). Washington, D.C.
U.S. Government Printing Office. Table 47.
-11-


TABLE 2 INCOME CHARACTERISTICS FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1979
Income in 1979 in Households 1 SMSA (No. of c individuals, as a 1,000's) t0tal Denver (No. of individuals, 1,000*s) as a % of total
TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS 10 100.0 212 100.0
Less than $5,000 56 9.2 30 14.2
$7,500 to $9,999 37 6.0 18 8.4
$10,000 to $14,999 87 14.3 36 17.1
$15,000 to $19,999 | 85 14.0 5 31 14.7
$20,000 to $24,999 82 13.4 24 11.2
$25,000 to $34,999 114 18.8 29 13.8
$35,000 to $50,000 109 i 18.0 * 26 | 12.0
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1983. Census of Population 1980:
Characteristics of the Population, General Social and Economic
Characteristics. Colorado. (PC80-1-C7). Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, Table 180.
-12-


TABLE 3 PERSONS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1980
Household Type and Relationship SMSA (No. of individuals, 1,000's) as a % of total Denver (No. of individuals, 1,000) as a % of total
TOTAL PERSONS 1,621 100.0 492 100.0
in Households 1,590 98.0 480 97.4
Family Householder
Male 347 21.8 92 19.2
Female 67 4.2 27 5.7
Non-Family Householder
Male 95 6.0 42 8.9
Female 100 6.3 50 10.5
Female Householder
No Husband Present 53 3.3 22 4.7
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983, 1980 Census of Population:
Characteristics of the Population, General Social and Econcomic
Characteristics, Colorado (PC80-1-C 7), Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office. Table 173.
-13-


Educational and occupational patterns for Denver and the SMSA are
more or less similar in Tables 4 and 5. However, some points can be brought
to attention.
First, Denver has a higher percentage of persons 25 years old and over
having completed zero to eight years of elementary school (12.7%) than the
SMSA does (8.4%). Second, the percentage of people engaged in service
occupations is somewhat higher for Denver (14.7%) than it is for the SMSA
(12.1%). Service occupations include food service occupations and cleaning
and building service occupations.
-14-


TABLE 4 EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1980
Years of School Completed, Persons 25 yrs. old & over SMSA as a % of total Denver i j as a % of total
TOTAL PERSONS 949,973 100.0 309,627 100.0
(25 yrs. old +)
Elementary (0 to 8 yrs.) 80,246 8.4 39,214 12.7

High School (1 to 4 yrs.) 400,613 42.1 132,218 1 43.0
College
1 to 4 yrs. 338,386 35.7 100,350 32.4
5 or more yrs. 115,136 12,1 37,845 12.2
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983. Census of Population, 1980:
Characterist res of the Population, General Social and Economic
Characteristics. Colorado Government Printing Office (PC80-1-C-7). Table 175. Washington, D.C. : U.S.
-15-


TABLE 5 OCCUPATION FOR EMPLOYED PERSONS FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1980
Employed Persons SMSA 16 yrs. and over (lj000'a) as a % of total Denver (1,000's) as a % of total
TOTAL EMPLOYED 820 100.0 245 100.0
Managerial and Professional Speciality Occupations i 28.0 68 1 27.8
Technical, Sales, and Administrative 281 support Occupations i 34.2 82 1 33.7
Service Occupations 99 12.1 36 14.7
Farming, forestry, g fishing Occupations .96 2 .72
Precision production, craft, repair 99 Occupations 12.2 25 10.4
Operators, fabricators, and 103 laborers 12.7 31 12.9 L
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983. Census of Population. 1980:
General Characteristics of the Population, General Social and
Economic Characteristics, Colorado (PC80-1-C-7). Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office. Table 177.
-16-


2) General Housing Characteristics
Table 6 (a and b) shows that housing values and rents are lower in
Denver than in the SMSA.
According to the data, Denver has more housing units in the low-to-
moderate income categories, therefore making it easier for private
reinvestment to enter vulnerable or "at risk" neighborhoods.
-17-


FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1980
VALUE for specified PRICE ASKED for specified
Owner-Occupied H.U. Vacant for Sale H.U.
SMSA No. of indiv. (1,000's) as a % of total Denver No. of indiv. (1,000s) as a % of total SMSA No. of indiv. (1,000's) as a % of total Denver No. of indiv. (1,000s) as a % of total
Total 313 100.0 87 100.0 7 100.0 1 100.0
Less than $10,000 1 .3 . * .3 .3 .5
$10,000 to $29,999 9 3.0 5 6.0 1.5 4.0
$30,000 to $59,999 84 27.0 35 40.0 1 18.0 1 37.0
$60,000 to $99,999 168 53.7 37 42.3 4 53.0 1 44.0
$100,000 or more 52 16.5 10 11.4 2 27.0 14.8
*Negligible
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1982. Census of Housing 1980; Characteristics
of Housing Units. General Housing Characteristics. Colorado (HC80-1A-7).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, Table 48.


FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1980
CONTRACT RENT RENT ASKED
o jcj j d n .I Specified Vacant for Rent H.U.
Specified Renter-Occupied H.U._____________________________________________
SMSA No. of indiv. (1,000's) as a % of total Denver No. of indiv. (1,000's) as a % of total SMSA No. of indiv. (1,000's) as a % of total Denver No. of indiv. (1,000's) as a % of total
Total 220 100.0. 103 100.0 19 100.0 10 100.0
$50 to $150 31 14.2 22 21.5 2 12.6 2 20. 1
$150 to $250 84 38.3 42 40.8 6 31.3 3 30.7
$250 to $400 81 37.0 32 31.0 8 41.7 3 32.7
$400 or more 18 8.3 5 5.0 2 10.0 1 8.0
SOURCE: See Table 6a


PART B INTERPRETATION OF HOUSING DEMAND TRENDS: DENVER AND THE SMSA
This phase of the study examines housing demand trends for the City
and County of Denver, and for the surrounding counties forming the Denver-
Boulder SMSA. The purpose is to illustrate changes in the various income
groups of families^ and unrelated individuals since 1970 to assess their
implications for the housing markets in Denver and the SMSA. An aggragate
of the seven counties in the Denver-Boulder SMSA was employed to insure exact
comparability of the area boundaries used for both 1970 and 1980.
The City of Denver
There are some very marked trends in Denver's population since 1970, as
distributed by income categories (See Table 7). These trends hold significant
implications for the City's housing market, and the potential for the gentrifi-
cation of Denver's neighborhoods. For instance, the total number of families
has declined slightly in Denver, while the total number of individuals increased
substantially. In both cases, the absolute amount of those in the low income _\
group changed the least, remaining quite stable. Families in the high income
group declined at roughly three times the rate of the decline in total Denver
families during the same period. Both the high and moderate income individuals
increased at a faster rate than the 50 percent increase in total individuals
(at 82 percent and 74 percent respectively).
The Census definitions of the terms "families" and "unrelated individuals"
are included in the Appendix A. See footnote 1 at the bottom of Table 7
for definitions of low, moderate, and high income categories.
-20-


TABLE 7 INDICATORS OF TOTAL HOUSING DEMAND FOR DENVER
(Numbers in 1,000's)
Families*" 19702 19803 1984 1990 1995
Low income 16 16 16 16 16
Moderate income 101 95 93 89 86
High income 10 8 7 6 5
TOTAL 127 119 116 111 107
Individuals
Low income 29 36 32 34 35
Moderate income 48 87 102 124 CM
High income 4 8 9 11 13
TOTAL 83 126 143 169 190
Families and Individuals
Low income 37 39 41 42 44
Moderate income 136 159 171 184 197
High income 13 14 14 15 16
TOTAL 185 212 226 241 257
Low income families are those at or below 125 percent of the poverty level.
High income families earned $50,000 + in 1980, with adjustments for inflation
for other years (see Appendix B for methodology). Moderate income families
are the remaining portion of the total. The same breakdown applies to
individuals, except high income individuals earned $25,000 + in 1980.
2
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983. Census of Population, 1970;
General Social and Economic Characteristics, Colorado (PC(l)-C-7).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, Tables 89 and 124,
3
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983. Census of Population, 1980:
Characteristics of the Population, General Social and Economic
Characteristics, Colorado (PC 80-1-C-7). Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, Tables 180 and 181.
4
The figures for "Families" and for "Individuals" do not add up to equal
the figures for "Families and Individuals" because an additional calculation
was introduced to adjust the figures for individuals who share living
quarters (see Appendix B).
-21-


The combined total of families and unrelated individuals (the "demanders"
of housing units) is utilized as the measured unit of demand. While this combined
total cannot be said to equate directly to demand for housing units, fluctua-
tions of this total do impact the housing market and serve as an indicator of
demand. An adjustment for the tendency of individuals to share living quarters
has been made (as detailed in the methodology section in Appendix B) enabling
this unit of demand to more precisely indicate true market changes.
An examination of the combination of families and individuals shown in
Table 7 reveals a 14 percent increase in total housing demand for the City of
Denver from 1970 to 1980. In comparison, total demand in the low and high
income groups of families-plus-individuals increased only 7 percent,each.
Of most significance is that total demand in the moderate income group here
increased 17 percent for the same period. Keeping in mind that families of all
income levels declined, the Table shows that any demand pressure on Denver's
low income housing market can be primarily attributed to the increases in the
number of moderate income individuals.
This has the most relevance for gentrification potential, especially
considering that another section of this study shows persons aged 25 to 34
contributed to a large portion of Denver's net population increase, The "urban
pioneers" who initiate the gentrification process are typically described as
jroung, moderate income professionals buying homes for the first time. Thus,
Denver's large influx of moderate income individuals and its rapid growth
in the number of persons ages 25 to 34 means a substantial increase in the
area's pool of potential gentrifiers. Any remaining pressure on the supply of
lower cost homes is the result of increases in the number of high income
individuals.
-22-


The Denver-Boulder SKSA
Table 8 gives a somewhat different picture for the larger SMSA area.
Total families Increased 35 percent, and the number of families in the low
income groups changed the least for both SMSA families and individuals. The
increase in the number of low and moderate income families exceeded the rate
of increase in total families. The absolute number of high income individuals
nearly tripled, and the moderate income individuals also increased at a faster
rate than did total individuals (a total which more than doubled, 136,576 in
1970 as compared to 282,990 in 1980).
In terms of the combined total SMSA housing demand, Table 8 shows a 55
percent increase in combined families and individuals (from 391,972 units of
demand in 1970 to 609,257 in 1980). In this combined category, the moderate
and high income housing demand grew the most (59 percent and 57 percent
respectively), with the least change in demand for housing by the low income
group. This data shows that most of the Metropolitan area growth occurred
outside of the central city.
-23-


TABLE 8 INDICATORS OF TOTAL HOUSING DEMAND FOR THE DENVER-BOULDER SMSA
Families*' CM O r-- CTn 1980 3 1984 1990 1995
Low income 29 34 36 39 41
Moderate income 252 347 385 442 490
High income 25 33 36 41 45
TOTAL 307 414 457 522 575
Individuals
Low income 46 67 75 87 97
Moderate income 84 198 243 310 365
High income 7 18 24 33 41
TOTAL 137 283 342 429 503
Families and Individuals
Low income 58 80 89 104 117
Moderate income 305 483 559 676 776
High income 29 46 53 66 77
TOTAL 392 609 701 845 970
*For definitions see footnotes "1" and "4" of Table 7.
2
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972. Census Population. 1970: General
Social and Economic Characteristics. Colorado (PC(l)-C-7).
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Tables 80 and
124.
3
SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983. Census of the Population, 1980:
Characteristics of the Population, General Social and Economic
Characteristics, Colorado (PC 80-1-C-7). Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office. Tables 180 and 181.
-24-


PART C FACTORIAL ECOLOGY
1) Purpose:
Factor analysis is a technique used to eliminate statistical redundancy
among variables. Its application to census tract data yields a "factorial
ecology" which demonstrates variation in composite variables across an urban
region. To do so, several variables are combined and reduced into summary
factors. These summary factors can then be identified and characterized.
For each of the variables within a summary factor, a factor score coefficient
is derived. Each variable's coefficient may range from positive one to negative
one. Thus, the summary factor reflects several variables and their complex
inter-relationships with one another. For example: median household income,
percentage of families below poverty level, gross rent as a percent of income,
and median contract rent could all be combined into one factor, that could
be called the "economic" characteristics. Within this summary factor, median
contract rent would probably have an inverse relationship with percentage of
families below the poverty level. While median contract rent increases, the
percentage of families below the poverty level would decrease within the census
tract.
In order to characterize each census tract, a score is derived for each
summary factor and the score can range from positive to negative. This rating
can then be used to compare census tracts relative to one another or to the
city as a whole. 2
2) Results:
Twelve socioeconomic and housing variables were examined and reduced by
-25-


the factorial analysis into summary factors. The variables used were:
median household income, percentage of families below the poverty level,
median education, percentage of single family units and duplexes, percentage
of structures over 30 years in age, percentage of movers who arrived within
the last five years, percentage of gross rent as a percentage of income for
families earning less than $10,000, median value of owner-occupied housing units,
median contract rent, percentage of persons aged 25 through 34, percentage of
persons aged 60 and over, and mean household size.
The variables did not load solely within a single family factor. For
example, in 1970, median household income loaded significantly within factors
one, two, and four. Within factor one, median household income loaded positively
with percentage of persons over 60 years of age. However, within factor two,
median household income loaded negatively against the same age variable. To
further complicate the characterization, both these variables appeared again
within factor four. This same type of contradiction occurred within the 1980
factor analysis. There the variable, percentage of persons 25-34 years of age,
appears significant within all four summary factors. Two of the variables in
factor two, median household size and percentage of persons 25-34 years of age,
loaded together positively. While in factor three median household size
loaded negatively against this same age group.
Due to these inconsistencies, some of the spatial distributions created
by the factorial ecology resulted in inconclusive findings. However, the first
summary factors for 1970 and 1980 were consistent within themselves and deemed
significant.
-26-


In 1970, the first summary factor accounted for 54 percent of the total
variance within the Immediate set, a matrix of 124 tracts, and twelve variables.
This summary factor was comprised of the following four variables: median
household income, median years of education, percentage of persons sixty
years of age and older, and median household value. Median household income
loaded the highest with a loading of .60 followed by median years of education
which had a loading of .32. The percentage of persons 60 years of age and
older loaded at .28 and closely following was median housing value with a
loading of .21.
All of the variables were related positively, which indicates that there
is a direct relationship between them, as one increased, the others followed.
Clearly, housing value and education are a reflection of income earned. It
would seem that income increases with age, and then peaks once a person reaches
his/her fifties or sixties. Their increased income would then be expected to
affect their choice of housing.
Certain general patterns emerged in an analysis of summary factor one's
spatial distribution throughout the City and County of Denver. The higher
factor scores appeared in the eastern portion of Denver, while the lower scores
appeared in the western portion (see Figure 1). This pattern exhibits a
significant east-west polarization. In the east portion of Denver, the higher
factor scores create an arc from the Stapleton and Montbello neighborhoods in
the northeast, through Cherry Creek and Washington Park in central Denver, to
the Hampden and Hampden South neighborhoods in the southeast. In the western
portion of Denver there appears to be an inner band of neighborhoods with very
high negative scores. In each succeeding band to the west the scores decrease
-27-


b?.qi ~ 5
i h o
1


in intensity, but remain negative. The scores for Five Points, Highland,
Jefferson Park, and Baker neighborhoods all fall within the innermost band,
which exhibits the highest negative scores. It is apparent that within this
inner band live Denver's younger, less affluent and less educated residents.
In 1980, the first summary factor accounted for 43 percent of the total
variance. This summary factor was comprised of the following five variables:
median contract rent, percentage of single family and duplex units, median
household income, percentage of households below the poverty level, and percentage
of persons 25-34 years of age. Contract rent loaded the highest with a loading
of .54 followed by percentage of single family and duplex units which had a
loading of -.35. Median household income loaded at .32, percentage of house-
holds loaded at -.27 and percentage of persons 25-34 years of age followed with
a loading of -.22.
The relationship of the variables in 1980 is more complex than the one
previously discussed for 1970, because of the many inverse relationships involved.
Clearly, income and the dollar amount paid for rent are positively linked;
they are both inversely related to the percentage of households below the poverty
level. It would appear that income increases with age and it is significant
that within this factor both rent and persons 25-34 years of age are combined
within this single factor. This age group has yet to achieve its potential
income level and generally does not have the income to own a home. The recession
of the 1970's coupled with high mortgage interest rates further stifled this
age group's ability to own a home.
In an analysis of summary factor one's spatial distribution throughout
Denver, some of the same general patterns emerged. The higher factor scores
-29-


appeared in the eastern portion of Denver (see Figure 2), while the lower
scores appeared in the western portion. This pattern again exhibits a
significant east-west dichotomy. In the eastern portion, bands of increasing
intensity radiate out from the central core. In the western portion of the
city, a pattern develops in which the most intensely negative scores are
wrapped around the Platte River and its parallel railroad and industrial
corridor. Bands of decreasing negative intensity then radiate westerly until
they become positive. The scores for Five Points, Highland, Jefferson Park,
and Baker all fall Within the innermost band which exhibits the highest negative
scores. It is apparent that the lowest income groups and the lowest available
rents are present in this innermost band.
While these general patterns and conclusions could be arrived at from the
2
factorial ecology, other conclusions from the results were not as fruitful.
Further attempts included:
An attempt to compare the summary factors of 1970 with 1980 to derive
some meaning proved futile due to the fact the summary factors for
the two years were comprised of different variables.
An attempt to identify neighborhoods that had begun gentrification
between 1970 and 1980 by searching for substantial increases in
median household income over that period proved ineffective. The
vast majority of neighborhoods experienced an actual decline in their
median household income.
An attempt to identify neighborhoods for the subsequent case studies
by mapping them according to the derived summary factor scores proved
ineffective because of the previously mentioned contradictions among
the summary factors.! Therefore, a second methodology was devised
solely to do this task.
Additional Factorial Ecology Maps are found in Appendix C.
-30-


-31
1 H 0
1


- PHASE TWO -
MICRO-SCALE APPROACH:
REVITALIZATION AND TRENDS AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL
-32-


PART A THE "GUSS-WEINER" METHOD
Determining Areas of Gentrification
The purpose of this method is to identify census tracts and neighborhoods
where gentrification is occurring. Twelve socioeconomic and housing variables
were selected from both the 1970 and 1980 Census (U.S. Bureau of the Census
1972b and 1983b) for all tracts within the City of Denver. It was reasoned
that if certain conditions made a neighborhood a likely candidate for gentrifi-
cation, these conditions would be reasonably consistent over time. Therefore,
by examining the characteristics of neighborhoods known to have begun gentrify-
ing in the early seventies, we were able to reason that in the eighties
neighborhoods with similiar characteristics could just as well be gentrifying.
In practice this meant selecting the neighborhoods that had undergone
gentrification in the early seventies and examining their data for the 12
variables. These neighborhoods were selected by primary knowledge of the
areas, and from DiGiovanni's (1983) prior study which included neighborhoods
undergoing gentrification in Denver. The neighborhoods selected were City
Park West, North Capitol Hill, Five Points, and Capitol Hill. For each
variable the highest and lowest numbers were recorded to establish a range for
the gentrifying neighborhoods in 1970. The ranges were converted to 1980
equivalents using a straight ratio technique and then calibrated one more
time to make sure the ranges were open enough to allow for some variation.
Once the ranges were established, a computer was programmed to filter every
census tract in the City of Denver through these 12 ranges and list the ones
having a perfect fit, those fitting except for one variable, and those fitting
except for two variables.
-33-


As we calibrated the ranges for the variables, two ranges were so wide
that they ceased to filter or discriminate between any neighborhoods. They
were therefore not included in the program; the variables were household size
and percent of recent movers. Of the ten tracts used to develop the ranges*
six tracts were perfect fits, ten tracts fit nine of the ten variables, and
15 tracts fit eight of the ten variables. Of the four neighborhoods (City
Park West, Capitol Hill, North Capitol Hill, and parts of Five Points), three
remained in 1980 as perfect fits. Only Capitol Hill, which has received the
most gentrification, ceased to be a perfect fit (see Figure 3). The neighbor-
hoods identified after agglomerating the census tracts were:
-ten variable fit-
Civic Center, North Capitol Hill, City Park West (north side), Five Points
(north of 23rd and east of Champa)
-nine variable fit-
City Park West (south), Cole, Five Points (the remainder), Baker, La Alma/
Lincoln Park (east of Kalamath, south west of Speer, and north of 6th Ave.),
West Colfax (west half), Jefferson Park, Highland (east of Tejon)
-eight variable fit-
Swansea, Globeville, Clayton, Skyland, Whittier, La Alma/Lincoln Park (the
remainder), Sun Valley, Valverde, Westwood (east half), West Colfax (east half),
Sloans Lake (east portion), Sunnyside (south of 44th Ave.), Highland (west
portion), Capitol Hill (north of 10th and west of Pearl)
Conclusions:
Neighborhoods experiencing gentrification in the 70's may still be
experiencing it. Many diverse factors can have an effect upon the
rate at which gentrification occurs and the length of time required
before an area's demographics are changed substantially.
While many neighborhoods may become saturated with gentrification,
other existing neighborhoods become attractive as the next best site.
-34-


ENVfRONMENTA DESIGN
fllin/inn
GENTRIFICATION STUDY/DENVER STUDIO II


fl H 0
1


While many neighborhoods may fit the identified socio-economic and
housing varibles, the likelihood of their gentrifying is small
because of their distance from downtown.
Selecting Neighborhoods for Study
Due to time constraints, it was necessary to narrow down the number of
neighborhoods to be used for case studies. While the previous method did
provide a smaller pool of neighborhoods to select from, it soon became clear
that only three or four could be pursued in depth. Three criteria for selection
were established:
1) The neighborhoods should be from as many parts of the city as
possible.
2) The neighborhoods should be located near downtown Denver.
3) The neighborhoods should be in the middle stages of gentrification,
(therefore number nines).
The selected neighborhoods were Jefferson Park and Highland (which were studied
as a single neighborhood) to the immediate northwest of downtown, Five Points
to the immediate northeast, and Baker to the south (see Figure 4).
-36-


FIGURE 4
NEIGHBORHOODS SELECTED FOR STUDY
industrial neighborhoods
Q selected neighborhoods
37-


PART B AN OVERVIEW: REVITALIZATION AND CHANGE IN THREE DENVER NEIGHBORHOODS
During the 60's and early 70*s, the primary concern facing those charged
with managing America's urban centers was the decline of the inner-city
neighborhoods. There were multiple causes leading up to this situation.
The housing stock within the central cities was aging and deteriorating. At
the same time, less dense, newer housing was available in the suburbs. Ease
of commuting, facilitated by the large expressway systems, made relocation to
these areas more attractive. Forced bussing to Integrate schools and higher
crime rates within the central cities were "push" factors contributing to the
"white flight" that eroded the financial strength of the older neighborhoods
and the central city as a whole. In addition, federal housing programs were
primarily geared towards assisting ownership of new homes through low interest
mortgages, with comparatively little assistance for the upgrading of existing
housing. The private sector behaved similarly towards the inner-city, by
restricting reinvestment in these older, high risk areas through a practice
known as "redlining".
Today the situation is entirely different. A combination of factors
have stemmed the flow of the middle class to the suburbs, and have rekindled
the attractiveness of the inner-city residences to today's generation of
homebuyers. In response to the deterioration of these areas, public actions
under the Department of Housing and Urban Development and public programs
such as urban renewal were designed to rehabilitate existing housing and
revitalize core city areas. Private market forces also aided in this transi-
tion. Inflation and spiraling interest rates made the suburban housing
increasingly hard to afford, while the central city housing remained inexpensive
-38-


In comparison. Even the cost of land In the suburbs Increased; home
buyers were purchasing smaller and more expensive lots* Low density sprawl
coupled with rising fuel prices made long distance commuting unappealing,
consuming greater amounts of time and money. Thus, the concern that the urban
area's inner-neighborhoods are deteriorating is being heard less frequently.
The new concern being voiced by more and more neighborhood organizations is
that the renewed interest and speculation of the wealthier groups is raising
the cost of their housing beyond their ability to pay. This creates a paradox
for today's city officials; older, declining neighborhoods are often improving,
but at the expense of the lower income residents, who may be displaced as a
result.
Gentrification is the term given to the return of private market housing
activity to central city residential areas. It involves the rehabilitation
of the housing stock in such areas, accompanied by an Increase in the number
of middle and upper income residents who move into vacant or previously occupied
housing. Displacement is of two types. Residents may be directly replaced or
indirectly forced to move because of increasing housing costs.
Gentrification is widely recognized as a phenomenon currently taking place,
and numerous studies investigating this situation are now available. Micheal
H. Lang's (1982) study identifies some physical characteristics acting as
prerequisites for gentrification. Unique architectural styles, safety,
centrality, good vistas, and amenities are a few examples. According to his
theory, young, professional urbanites moving from other areas within the central
city pioneer the declining neighborhoods. Their improvements are highly
noticeable in these areas, and they form a critical mass that begins the trend
-39-


of revitalization. Important components in his theory are:
1. Renters are at higher risk of diplacement.
2. Gentrification effects small portions of neighborhoods at any one
time resulting in a gradual and Insidious process.
3. Public investments may promote secondary displacement by improving
one area, thus attracting private speculators to invest in nearby
areas.
Another gentrification study by Frank F. DeGiovanni (1983) analyzes four
stage theories of gentrification. The theories describe the gentrification
process as beginning slowly, growing, and increasing in distinct phases.
He believes the stage theories to be inadequate descriptions of the process.
Also, changes in gentrification indicators such as the amount of renovation
activity, sales prices, sales volume, and conversion of rental properties from
renter to owner occupancy are often abrupt, discontinuous, and simultaneous.
DeGiovanni concludes that gentrification activity can be tracked by monitoring
these and other indicators, but these indicators do not illustrate a sequential
framework of the process of change. In fact, he notes the failure to observe
the expected sequence of changes is due to the influence of nationwide economic
forces on local housing markets.
DeGiovanni's conclusion about the influence of national trends on local
housing markets is evident within Denver and Denver's neighborhoods. The
resurgence in the national housing market during the 1976 to 1979 period
(see Figure 5) strongly influenced the housing markets examined here. Figure
6 graphically shows this peak period. The recession that followed is again
reflected as sales volume drops sharply for these local markets. The same
holds true for the increased cost of housing, Housing nationwide has rapidly
-40-


Housing Starts Thousand Units
FIGURE 5
U.S. HOUSING STARTS AND MORTGAGE RATES
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
Sources: Standard and Poors Corporation. 1983 Standard and Poors
Industry Surveys (Oct. 1983, Vol. 1 Page B and FP 77).
New York: Standard Poors Corp. using data from
Federal Home Loan Bank Board, Dept, of Commerce
Mortgage Rates Percentage


FIGURE 6 SINGLE FAMILY (s), MULTI-FAMILY (m), AND CONDOMINIUM (c)
TRANSACTIONS, 1972-80: DENVER AND SELECTED NEIGHBORHOODS
HIGHLAUl/
JErPERSON PARK
NORTH
CAPITOL
SOURCE: Denver Planning Office. 1977, 1978, and 1982. Housing Detail
Reports. available from the Denver Planning Office.


become more expensive, and Figure 7 shows this to be the case in Denver and
the Denver neighborhoods.
The vitality of the national housing market during this peak period
facilitated speculation and stimulated the inner city markets. DeGiovanni's
study considered speculation to be an indicator of gentrification. While
this is an appropriate indicator, it is necessary to use as large a sample
size as possible. This report utilized comprehensive coverage of all housing
sales in Denver (Denver Planning Office 1977, 1978, and 1982). During the
five year period preceeding 1978, for instance, 8.3 percent of Denver's single
family housing stock was sold twice or more, while comparable percentages for
the three neighborhoods studied were less than this 8.3 percent. Four years
later during the peak period of housing sales, 7.9 percent of Denver's single
family housing had been sold twice or more during the preceeding five year
period. At this time, however, the percentage of single family units sold
twice or more in each of the neighborhoods easily exceeded the Denver percentage.
In fact, Baker's percentage reached 15.0 percent, almost twice that of Denver.
Figure 8 illustrates this trend.
The high degree of housing sales during the peak period had an effect on
the neighborhoods' populations. Key questions in relation to gentrification
are, what percent of an area's residents have not recently moved, and for those
who moved, where did they come from? In all three of the case study neighbor-
hoods examined here, only about one-third of the residents remained in the
same house from 1975 to 1980 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1983b). More than
half of the residents who had moved came from within the City of Denver.
Less than a third moved into the neighborhoods from areas outside the central
-43-


AVERAGE SALE PRICE (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
FIGURE
6 0-
5 0-
4 0-
3 0
2 0-
I 0
SOURCE:
AVERAGE SALE PRICE, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNITS, 1970-80:
DENVER AND NEIGHBORHOODS HAVING HIGH OR MODERATE
GENTRIFICATION POTENTIAL
DENVER-
(CITY)
ORDER
VILLA PARK
HIGHLAND
JEFFERSON PARK
WHITTIER
COLE
BAKER
LA ALMA/LINCOLN PARK
FIVE POINTS/CURTIS PARK
i-----------1-----------1----------1-----------1-----------r
*7 0 *72 *74 '76 *78 '80
YEAR
Denver Planning Office. 1977, 1978, and 1982. Housing Detail
Reports. available from the Denver Planning Office.
-44-


Ln
I
---IME.1UHBUKHUUDS># 19/4-1982.
P
E
L
fl
'[
0
F
I wo or .: !: sales of
\
i-5
_£*"-"
12.5]
1
c '
1 V.* 1
cr
j


tifi v£x
- 4==5
->! rtntr
*^~y*--
a-=


B~-.

J&r

::::^
-EDenvei
F
(I
2.5 i
3
li7*t n WUi lYiu to 1979 [\ii to 1980 H7V to i98i 1973 to 198?
Fm 9ear Periods
G Denver a EakerO -j*iFoiiii:- II Hi SOURCE: Denver Planning Office. 1977, 1978, and 1982. Housing Detail
Reports, available from the Denver Planning Office.


city. This supports Lang's (1982) assertion that the major contributor of
new residents is not the suburbs, but the central city.
If gentrification is truly a significant component of the change taking
place in the case study areas, the new residents would be of a higher income
group. Figure 9 reveals that such a shift in income has occurred. All the
case study neighborhoods are located in the lower right quadrant, meaning they
experienced a decline in the number of households earning $30,000 and an
increase in the number of households earning $30,000 or more.
The influx of newcomers is often attributed to the attraction the CBD
offers both in terms of social activities and employment. Clearly, the cultural
amenities exist and can serve to draw in residents. The employment factor,
however, and the desire to avoid the disadvantages of commuting is more fre-
quently cited as a reason for inner city living. The Census provides insight
into this situation by revealing where the residents of the case study neighbor-
hoods are employed. In all three areas, only about 10% of the workers are
employed in the CBD, and this figure declined slightly from 1970 to 1980 (U.S.
Bureau of the Census 1972b and 1983b). The bulk of those employed do work
within the City of Denver proper, but outside the CBD. Thus, while they are
not working in the CBD in greater numbers, locational advantages in commuting
time may still apply.
2) A Suggestive Model of Gentrification
The model developed here examined gentrification from two levels, a macro
and micro level. First, national trends serve to focus gentrification pressures
on regions. The national migration trend, from the industrial northeast to the
-46-


FIGURE 9 HOUSEHOLD INCOME SHIFT, 1970-80, BY GENTRIFICATION POTENTIAL
(MEASURED IN CONSTANT 1980 DOLLARS)
SOURCE: Denver Regional Council of Governments. 1983. Profiles of 1970-1980
Socioeconomic Change by County and Census Tract, Denver, CO:
Public Affairs Office, Denver Regional Council of Governments.
-47-


southwest sunbelt states, has resulted In large population Increases within
the Denver region, and has Increased the pressure on local housing markets.
The most mobile individuals are those aged 25 to 34, and growth in this group
has increased the pool of potential gentrifiers within the region.
As previously mentioned, the national housing market seriously affects
the ability of these potential gentrifiers to participate in the market and
become homeowners. Thus, whenever there is a strong housing market, gentrifica-
tion activities increase. This was the case in the Denver market during
the 1976 to 1979 period. Without this type of boom, gentrification would
have occurred, but certainly at a much reduced scale.
Second, when these factors come together (population increases, rising
demand, and a healthy housing market) and gentrification pressures exist in
a given region, those neighborhoods that are particularly vulnerable may be
identified. To begin with, the neighborhoods experiencing increased market
pressures are those with aging, deteriorating housing available at a lower
price than new suburban homes. Along with the criteria of low cost, certain
lifestyle preferences have emerged as factors in gentrified neighborhoods.
Proximity to the CBD, the existence of colorful architectural styles, amenities
such as parks, speciality retail shops, and Irregular street patterns all
influence preference.
Many neighborhoods may fit the above description. The ones eventually
gentrifying have additional characteristics. They are unable to deter
encroachment because they lack the capacity for organized resistance. Social
cohesion is low and organized political activity is also usually ladking.
-48-


Areas with strong neighborhood organizations and a sense of cultural and
community identity are better suited for resistance to outside pressures.
The additional factor relates to the goals of the city administration.
If they are interested in upgrading residential areas to strengthen the tax
base and are inclined to be pliant to the desires of those who profit from
urban revitalization, the neighborhoods targeted by these parties have a high
probability of gentrifying. This interrelates with the other factors, particu-
larly the strength of the neighborhood organizations.
Baker exemplifies this additional factor well, as the "One Broadway"
development demonstrates the relationship between the city and the developers.
The neighborhood also seems to lack a high degree of community identity and
social interaction, given the large amount of rental units and the significant
traffic flows that partition the area. Five Points best demonstrates the
centrality criteria, as it has the feeling of actually being a part of the CBD.
Its streets are merely extensions of the downtown's angled street pattern;
in no other neighborhood does this extension occur.
Highland and Jefferson Park exemplify the same factors but in the opposite
manner. The viaducts across the Central Platte Valley make trips to the CBD
easy, but this valley and the neighborhood's higher elevation create psycho-
logical barriers making it seem further away from downtown than it really is.
In terms of the neighborhood's social cohesion, the Hispanic community has
concentrated in this area, increasing its ability to resist gentrification.
The area is also politically active, and has many efforts in process to stem
the pressures created by gentrification. These efforts are being carried out
-49-


by several non-profit housing corporations, neighborhood associations, and
the district councilman's office. These two factors help to explain why
gentrification in the area has been minimal. The following section discusses
in greater detail the study neighborhoods and the forces of change operating
in these three neighborhoods.
-50-


PART C STUDY OF SELECTED NEIGHBORHOODS
1. FIVE POINTS
Location
The Five Points neighborhood is bounded on the north by the South Platte
River and 38th Street, on the east by Downing Street, on the south by East
20th Avenue and Park Avenue, and on the west by 20th Street. The neighborhood
is northeast and adjacent to the Central Business District. The terrain slopes
gently to the west providing panoramic views of mountains. Living in this
neighorhood is almost like living downtown; Five Points has the same diagonal
street pattern as the CBD does.
History and Description^
Five Points was one of the first residential neighborhoods in Denver.
The southwest section of the neighborhood was part of the Congressional Grant
establishing Denver in 1859. The remainder of the neighborhood became part of
the City under the Territorial Session Laws of 1874 and the State Session Laws
of 1883.
The name "Five Points" originated as a description of the peculiar inter-
section of Welton Street, Washington Street, 27th Street, and 26th Avenue;
which together form an imaginary five-pointed star. The Five Points neighborhood
is one of Denver's most transitional and largest with its 1,123 acre area
1
Sources for the history of Five Points were from Denver Planning Office
(1974) and Harris (1984).
-51-


(see Figure 10). A detrimental mixture of land uses, an abundance of public
housing, noise and air pollution, and poor traffic circulation have greatly
contributed to maintaining Five Points as one of the lowest income neighborhoods
in the City.
Prior to the 1920's, Five Points was a respectable middle class neighbor-
hood. However, the Depression marked the beginning of the decline of the
neighborhood. During the period of the Depression and World War II the neighbor-
hood was very overcrowded. At the end of World War II, many of the returning
black soldiers used their military savings to move out of Five Points into the
more attractive residential neighborhoods to the east. This pattern of out-
migration continued as black families became more affluent. When these families
moved from the Five Points neighborhood, they retained ownership of their homes;
however, these single family units often were converted to multi-units for
rental purposes. This switch in tenure and type of housing unit increased
the tendency toward dilapidation and blight and generally contributed to the
deterioration of the neighborhood. As housing units severely deteriorated, they
were abandoned and/or demolished. As a result, the number of housing units
decreased by 40 percent between 1950 and 1974 from 7,090 units to 4,357 units.
Although the elimination of many of the more marginal units was favorably
viewed, the neighborhood remained a picture of poverty and blight. In 1969,
over half of the families in Five Points had incomes below the $4,000 per year
poverty level and the average value of owner occupied homes was only $9,500,
as compared to $16,800 for the city of Denver. In spite of these figures,
the neighborhood exhibited some excellent examples of Victorian, Gothic, and
Italianate architecture.
-52-


I
Ln
LO
I
V.
legend
single family
public housing
mixed use
quasi-public
park
commercial
Industrial
study area
/----------------\
Five Points
Neighborhood
s_______________*
I I
north


Recent Public Investments
In 1970, a private non-profit organization was founded in Denver called
Historic Denver Inc. The main thrust of Historic Denvers efforts has been
the preservation and restoration of architecturally significant structures
in Denver; much of this effort in turn has been directed towards single-family
homes in the Five Points neighborhood. Historic Denver has helped raise and
channeled over $2 million in improvements into Five Points.
More specifically, Historic Denver acquired and distributed $500,000 in
grants to low-income residents for facade and structural improvements. This
program provided A3 homes with fresh paint, new roofs, fences, and sidewalks.
A $75,000 revolving fund was established to buy houses abandoned by their
owners. The houses are then resold to persons for the same price; however,
the new owners must agree to certain restrictive covenants (i.e., owner
occupancy, rehabilitation and maintenance), get Historic Denver approval of
all exterior changes, and prohibit demolition. So far ten homes have been
bought using the revolving fund. A sum of $230,000 was acquired and distributed
for original flagstone sidewalk repairs and replacements, as well as sod and
wrought iron fences for homes.
Additionally, Historic Denver was given four homes (scheduled for demolition)
by the Denver Housing Authority and moved these homes to sights purchased
from the Denver Urban Renewal Authority at a bargain price, renovated them,
^Source for information about public investments by Historic Denver was
Ditmer (1984).
-54-


and sold them to low-income families. Historic Denver has also been
Instrumental in strengthening the neighborhood's residential fabric by
actively lobbying city officials to prevent industrial intrusion.. Their
efforts have convinced the City to buy 3/4 of a block from the Greyhound Bus
Company, for a proposed bus maintenance facility, and then reselling it to a
developer to build contemporary townhouses with a Victorian flavor.
In addition, $440,000 was made available to the Five Points commercial
district by the Denver Community Development Agency as part of their Neighbor-
hood Business Revitalization Program (Community Development Agency 1984).
These funds originated from Community Development Block Grants. Of these
funds, $211,000 went for public improvements and $229,000 went for new building
facades. The Five Points commercial district is on Welton Street between
25th Street and 28th Street. This commercial district had greatly deteriorated
over the years, and it was generally agreed that in order to preserve some
of the neighborhood's minority identity then the Welton commercial strip would
need revitalization. This effort has been successful.
Socioeconomic and Housing Trends
The Five Points neighborhood had experienced significant and measurable
change in its housing and socioeconomic fabric since 1970. Data for both the
neighborhood and Census Tract 25 is analyzed. Census Tract 25 has been singled
out because it is a particularly small tract (containing only 43 single family
homes in 1982) and it was felt that by disaggregating the data in this fashion
then some of the more radical fluctuations occuring in the neighborhood
would become more apparent.
-55-


The most easily-recognizable change has been socioeconomic. Table 9
compares 1970 and 1980 U.S. Census data on socioeconomic indicators. 1970
dollar ranges have been converted to 1980 dollars using the historic Consumer
Price Indexes for the Denver/Boulder SMSA (Denver Regional Council of
Governments 1983) Table 9 quickly affirms the highly transitional nature
of the neighborhood, beyond any gentrification-induced change. Population and
households decreased by 22.7 percent and 1.3 percent respectively between 1970
and 1980. However, the racial composition of the neighborhood has remained
virtually unchangeds Slightly higher percentage decreases in population and
households were experienced in Census Tract 25.
An analysis of income distribution data for Five Points and Census Tract
25 yields evidence of the gentrification-induced change occuring. The number
of households earning less than $30,000 per year decreased from 4,760 to 3,738,
a loss of 1,022 households for a net change of -27.3 percent. Interestingly
enough, the neighborhood lost 1,,037 households between 1970 and 1980. Of those
1,037 households, 98.6 percent were lower income households. In contrast,
the number of households earning in excess of $30,000 per year increased 25.2
percent. A look at Census Tract 25 magnifies these figures. In Tract 25,
those households earning less than $30,000 decreased 42.9 percent. This is
significant, however, not as significant as the changes occuring in upper
income categories. Those households earning over $30,000 per year increased
by 1200 percent.
Similar trends in occupational distribution are occuring. Specifically,
two occupational categories were compared; professional and service. Census
data shows that the number of persons employed in managerial, professional,
-56-


Five Points Census Tract 25
Data Item 1970 1980 % 1970 1980 %
Total Persons 13,067 10,100 -22.7 1,349 1,004 -25.6
Anglo 1,881 1,591
Black 5,122 3,912
Hispanic 5,476 4,146
Other 588 451
25-34 672 1,550 130.7
bu-r 1,882 1,621 -16.1
Total Households 4,875 3,838 -21.3 760 515 -32.2
Year-Round Housing Units 5,380 4,488 -16.6
Vacant Housing Units 505 650 28.7
Owner-Occupied Housing Units 757 766 1.2
Renter-Occupied Housing Units 4,118 3,072 25.4
Houshold Income^
Less than $15,000 4.120 3.202 -22.3 667 424 -36.4
$15,000 to $29,999 640 536 -16.3 91 48 -47.3
$30,000 to $49,999 73 110 50.7 2 13 550.0
$50,000 to $74,999 20 24 20.0 0 7
$75,000 and More 22 10 54.5 0 6
Occupation
Managerial, Professional
Technical, Sales & Administration 750 1,095 46.0 231 279 20.8
Service Occupations 1,364 822 -39.7 182 42 -76.9
Years of School Completed
Elementary 0-8 yrs. 3,436 2,012 -41.4 497 197 -60.4
High School 3 yrs. 1,651 1,356 -17.9 209 186 -11.0
High School 4 or more yrs. 1,218 1,190 - 2.3 155 132 -14.8
College 1-3 yrs. 240 577 140.4 27 73 170.4
College 4 or more yrs. 110 325 195.5 18 43 138.9
Income is adjusted for Inflation.
SOURCE: Denver Regional Council of Governments. 1983. Profiles of 1970-80 Socioeconomic Change by County
and Census Tract. Denver, CO: Public Affairs Office, Denver Regional Council of Governments.


technical, sales, and administration professions increased by 20.8 percent
in Census Tract 25. These figures become even more meaningful when coupled
with the loss in the service professions. Those persons employed in service
professions declined 39.7 percent in Five Points and 76.9 percent in Census
Tract 25.
An analysis of the educational background of persons in the neighborhood
will complete the socioeconomic profile of Five Points. The number of people
with a high school education or less decreased from 6,305 persons in 1970,
to 4,558 persons in 1980, a 27.7 percent decline. Those persons with one or
more years of college increased form 350 to 902 persons or 157.7 percent.
Similar losses and gains appeared in Census Tract 25.
Housing data in Table 9 is concise, but says a lot. While the number
of housing units is declining, the number of vacancies are increasing
alarmingly fast. The most significant housing figure in Table 9, however,
is the rapid decline in the number of renter-occupied housing units. This
loss is most attributable to the demolition of many resident hotels in the
neighborhood.
An overview of the socioeconomic data provides us with a profile of the
type of change occuring in Five Points. Let's first look at the losses.
Between 1970 and 1980, Five Points declined by 2,967 persons and 1,037 house-
holds. In addition, households earning less than $30,000 per year declined
in number by 1,017. There were 524 fewer persons working in service occupations
and 1,747 fewer persons with high school or less education. The less educated,
lower income individuals and households are leaving the neighborhood in
significant numbers.
-58-


Conversely, during this same time period, many well-educated, high-income
professional individuals and households are appearing in the neighborhood.
Not only are gentrifiers moving into Five Points, but a disproportionate number
of incumbants seem to be leaving.
Housing Market Activity
There are several significant housing trends occuring in the Five Points
neighborhood. Although Table 10 highlights housing sales volume in Denver,
Five Points, and Census Tract 25, the most radical changes taking place are
those connected with the number of housing units in existence. Five Points
lost more than 1/3 of its multi-family housing units between 1977 and 1981.
In Census Tract 25, A2.6 percent of multi-family units were lost. Most of
these multi-family units were lost due to demolitions; however, several were
converted to single family units. As proof, the number of single family units
is increasing in the absence of any new construction of single family homes in
the neighborhood.
With regards to single family housing sales volume, Five Points has been
relatively active. In 1977, Five Points lagged slightly behind Denver in its
single family housing sales (as a percentage of total units); however, the
neighborhood had appreciably higher percentages of units sold in the years
1978 and 1981. A look, at the single family sales volume trends occuring in
Census Tract 25 is a good illustration of the radical fluctuations occuring at
the disaggregated level.
More significant than the above changes is the increasing average sales
price of single family homes in the neighborhood, especially in comparison to
-59-


TABLE 10 COMPARATIVE HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS FOR DENVER,
FIVE POINTS, AND CENSUS TRACT 25 IN SELECTED YEARS
1977 1978 1981
Denver
Total Single Family Housing Units 108,645 110,125 111,644
Single Family Housing Units Sold 13,367 13,119 7,416
Percent of Single Family Units Sold 12.3 11.9 6.6
Total Condos Condos Sold 2,533 17,964 2,824
Percent of Condos So Ld Total Multi-Family Housing Units Multi-Family Housing Units Sold 1,740 88,209 972
Percent of Multi-Family Units Sold
Five Points
Total Single Family Housing Units 953 1,075 1,148
Single Family Housing Units Sold 105 180 100
Percent of Single Family Units Sold 11.0 16.7 8.7
Total Condos 0 0 31
Condos Sold 0 0 1
Percent of Condos Sold 0 0 3.2
Total Multi-Family Housing Units 3,112 2,716 1,982
Multi-Family Housing Units Sold 102 64 29
Percent of Multi-Family Units Sold 3.3 2.4 1.5
Census Tract 25
Total Single Family Housing Units 31 44 41
Single Family Housing Units Sold 5 1 9
Percent of Single Family Units Sold 16.1 2.3 22.0
Total Condos 0 0 6
Condos Sold 0 0 1
Percent of Condos Sold 0 0 16.7
Total Multi-Family Housing Units 629 581 361
Multi-Family Housing Units Sold 3 1 3
Percent of Multi-Family Units Sold 0.5 0.2 0.8
SOURCE: Denver Planning Office. 1977, 1978, and 1982. Housing Detail
Reports. Available from the Denver Planning Office.
-60-


the city of Denver. The average sales price of a single family home, in Denver,
rose by 183 percent between 1974 and 1982 (see Figure 11). In Five Points,
over the same time period, the average sales price of a single family home
rose 637 percent. In Census Tract 25, the average sales price of a single
family home increased 787 percent between 1975-1981. Although Denver's
average sales price remains higher than Five Points, the gap is narrowing
quickly.
Housing Transactions: Case Studies
In an attempt to isolate gentrification-related housing activity, ten
single family homes were randomly chosen and sales activity for these homes
recorded. In the Five Points neighborhood, 50 homes were identified as showing
signs of gentrification (i.e., renovation activity) and from these 50, the
ten homes were randomly chosen. Of the ten homes, seven of them had two or
fewer sales between 1970 and 1984 (Denver Assessor's Office 1984). Of the
remaining three homes, two had three sales and one had four sales. Oddly
enough, the one home that was sold four times between 1970 and 1984 (seemingly
indicating speculation-related activity), had very slight increases in its sales
price. The home in question was sold in 1973 for $6,500, sold in 1977 for
$7,000, sold again in 1977 for $7,300, and then sold for a considerable profit
two years later in 1979 for $37,500. Two other homes had sales activity which
reflected gentrification activity. The first one was purchased in 1978 for
$22,500 and sold in 1983 for $85,000, and the second was purchased in 1976 for
$24,000 and resold in 1981 for $93,000. These examples reflect significant
increases in sales price; however, speculation per se does not seem to have
been a factor.
-61-


140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Sing
£
FIGURE i1 AVERAGE SALES PRICE FOR DENVER AND
FIVE POINTS, 1972 19821
Census Tract 25
72
74
76
78
80
82
Family
Un J t s.
enver Planning
mailable from
Office, 1977, 1978, and 1982.
the Denver Planning Office.
Housing Detail Reports.
-62-


One possible reason why more speculation did not occur in this
sample is that gentrifiers are choosing to maintain possession of their
homes following renovation. Perhaps the accrued appreciation in value of the
home is not felt to equal the sweat-equity put into the renovation. Maybe
gentrifiers are viewing their renovated homes as good investments which will
only increase in value as time passes and hence are choosing to retain posses-
sion. For whatever reason, speculative sales do not appear to be occurring
as much as anticipated.
Gentrification in Five Points; Some Observations
Gentrification appears to have a stabilizing effect on the Five Points
neighborhood. The neighborhood now has three historic districts encompassing
approximately 26 square blocks (see Figure 12). As mentioned earlier, the
residential fabric of the neighborhood is being closely guarded by Historic
Denver and area residents. Recently an area within the Curtis Park Historic
District was downzoned from R-3 to R-2. Although this downzoning effort was
opposed by some of the long-time neighborhood residents because R-2 zoning
prohibits renting-out a portion of single family homes, resident incumbants
still view the gentrification process as beneficial.
The potential for additional gentrification-related activity in the
neighborhood remains high. Numerous single and multi-family structures are
awaiting renovation. The question of gentrification-induced displacement
looms ominously as the neighborhood enters the later stages of gentrification.
As the potential profit to be made from the sale of one's home increases,
more and more resident incumbants will be lured into selling. This will in
turn speed-up the gentrification process.
-63-


uvvauuii iviap
legend
9|C gentrlflcatlon
nodes
study area
. historic district
s school
c church
p park
h hospital
V- __________
/------------------'N
Five Points
Neighborhood
<______________*
FIGURE 12
't'
north
V__________________/


There remains two forces which are keeping gentrificatlon somewhat
in check in Five Points. The first is a growing awareness of the disruptive
nature of displacement, and the second is the large number of public housing
units in the neighborhood. If for some reason, the public housing projects
were demolished or relocated, then that would signal the outright proliferation
of gentrification in Five Points. Only an increased public awareness of the
disruptive nature of gentrification will save these public housing projects
and preserve the present mixed socioeconomic fabric of the neighborhood.
-65-


2. HIGHLAND AND JEFFERSON PARK
Physical Characteristics
The Highland and Jefferson Park neighborhoods are located northwest of
downtown Denver. The area is on a bluff, allowing good views of downtown.
Federal Boulevard, Speer Boulevard, and the Valley Highway link Highland and
Jefferson Park with the rest of Denver (see Figure 13).
The eastern portion of Highland and most of Jefferson Park were included
in the study. Jefferson Park is bounded by Federal Boulevard on the west,
Speer Boulevard to the north, the Valley Highway to the east, and 20th Avenue
to the south. The east portion of Highland is bordered by Tejon Street to
the west, 38th Avenue on the north side, Inca Street to the east, and the
Valley Highway to the southeast. The two areas are connected by an area
bounded by North High School, 32nd Avenue, Speer Boulevard, and the Valley
Highway, known as the Scottish Village and the Highland Bluffs area.
Historical Background
The histories of Highland and Jefferson Park are described in the Neighbor-
hood Plans prepared by the Denver Planning Office (1976a and 1976b). The area
of study was originally part of the town of Highland, which was first settled
in 1859. Part of Highland merged with the towns of Denver City and Auraria
to form the city of Denver in 1861. The remainder of Highland was incorporated
in 1875, and was annexed to Denver in 1896, In the 1890's, Irish, German, and
English Immigrants contributed to the large influx of population into the area.
-66-


UUUl
I
on
I
_J i_J l_11_l
rnonon
(
3 DODDDOOi
nrnna
nm:i3"
legend
residential
mixed use
n comm./ind.
park
quasi-public
study area
highland /
jefferson park
neighborhoods
Beale
FIGURE 13
'1'
north


In the early 1900's, the five acre Jefferson Park was built on an old
city dump site at the corner of 23rd Avenue and Clay Street. Housing in the
area dates from the 1890's, 1910's, 1920's, and 1940's, leaving very little
vacant property after World War II. The population has become increasingly
Hispanic during the past 30 years.
At present, the area is dominated by residential land uses interspersed
with some commercial uses. Intensive commercial uses are found along 32nd
Avenue, Tejon Street, Speer Boulevard, and Federal Boulevard, Business and
commercial developments have been especially active between Speer Boulevard
and 32nd Avenue on the Valley Highway side of the area. Mile High Stadium,
on the south end of Jefferson Park, creates periodic traffic and parking
congestion.
Socioeconomic and Housing Trends
During the 1970-1980 decade many major trends occurred in Highland and
Jefferson Park, but as a whole the trends did not clearly indicate that
gentrification had occurred. Some trends were neutral in their indication of
gentrification, some were indicative of it, and others were not. The trends
are as follows:
A decreasing total population
An increasing Hispanic population
A decreasing Anglo population
From 1970 through 1980, the neighborhoods experienced several changes in
population composition (see Table 11). Total population decreased by 16 percent
as compared to a four percent decline in Denver. However, the Hispanic
population increased in the neighborhoods. This represented a ten percent
-68-


TABLE 11 SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS FOR HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK,
1970 AND 1980
19701 19802 PERCENT NET CHANGE 1970-1980
Total Population 14,721 12,301 -16.4
Racial Composition
-Hispanic 6,931 7,605 9.7
-Anglo and others 7,770 4,606 -40.7
-Blacks 20 90 350.0
Young Adult Population 1,716 2,319 35.0
(25-35 yrs) Elderly Population 2,558 1,918 -25.0
(60 and over) Number of Families 3,493 2,777 -20.5
Number of Childless Couples 1,269 826 -34.9
Number of Singles 2,814 2,913 3.5
Number of Housing Units
-Total Housing Units 5,483 5,076 - 7.4
-Owner-Occupied Housing 1,729 1,595 - 7.8
-Renter Occupied Housing 3,446 2,990 -13.2
-Vacant 308 492 59.7
Median Housing Values and Rents (range between 3 tracts) -Value Owner Occupied 9,500-12,600 37,200-50,400 291.6-315.6
-Gross Rent 84-95 212-229 141.1-154.5
SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1972. Census of Population and Housing
1979: Census Tracts. Denver, Colorado SMSA. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
2
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983. Census of Population and Housing
1980: Census Tracts, Denver, Colorado SMSA. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office.
-69-


increase within the area. The out-migration of Anglos further lowered the
total population in the area by 41 percent.
Possibly influencing the in-migration of Hispanics was displacement
caused by the downtown urban renewal and the construction of the Auraria
Higher Education Center. The out-migration of Anglos was influenced by the
enactment of court ordered desegregation of Denver's public schools.
An Increasing mumber of people having incomes below the poverty level
The percentages of people below the poverty level increased by three percent
between 1970 and 1980. This indicates that available housing continued to
exist within the neighborhood, and that displacement due to gentrification had
not been a significant problem in Highlands and Jefferson Park.
A slight increase in the number of single persons within the population
A decreasing number of families and childless couples
More single peopLe (over 15 years of age) make up the neighborhood
population while the number of families has declined substantially. However,
the increase in single persons has been significantly less than for Denver and
the SMSA, while the number of families and childless couples has decreased
at a much greater rate than for Denver or the SMSA.
The childless couples that are expected to be moving into a gentrifying
neighborhood are in fact decreasing in numbers. Even though many of these
couples have had children, they have not .been replaced by more childless couples
as of 1980. The single population is increasing, but not as rapidly as in
Denver. While the effect of "maturing baby boomers" has a great influence on
-70-


the number of singles in Denver, a large influx of young urban professionals,
the typical gentrifiers, into the area is not apparent.
A decreasing elderly population
An increasing young adult population, but the rate is slower than that
for either Denver of the SMSA
The elderly population declined 25 percent in Highland and Jefferson Park,
while the City and the SMSA both experienced positive increases. This is a
trend often associated with gentrification, because the elderly are often on
fixed budgets and cannot afford substantial housing cost increases. At the
same time though, the number of young adults would be expected to increase,
as they replace the elderly. This is not the case, while the young adult
population is increasing, the rate of increase is well below that for Denver
and the SMSA. Again, the large influx of young professionals in not apparent.
A significant decrease in housing units, specifically in rental units
Values for owner-occupied housing units increasing at a higher rate
than for Denver or the SMSA
Contract rents increasing at a higher rate than Denver but lower than
the SMSA
The number of housing units decreased by seven percent. The largest
decrease was in the number of rental units, a decrease of 13 percent. Only
the number of vacant units increased. Housing values and rents have increased
drastically during the 1970-1980 decade. Median values for owner-occupied
housing units increased at a higher rate in the neighborhoods than for Denver
or the SMSA.
The number of renter occupied housing units decreased, but it is not clear
that gentrification is the principal cause of this change. Commercial redevelopment
-71-


of residential properties is also occurring which has reduced the housing
stock. This is gentrification of a sort but not the residential succession
that is the focus of this examination.
A significant increase in the percentage of households with incomes
between $30,000 and $74,999 in Highland
Incomes in Highland and Jefferson Park increased at a slower rate than
in Denver or the SMSa (see Table 12). Highland however, experienced
an appreciable increase in households with incomes between $30,000 and $74,999
during the decade. In the western portion of the neighborhood, the percentage
of households with incomes between $50,000 and $74,999 increased over 250
percent. In the eastern portion, the increase was not as dramatic, but the
percentage of households with incomes between $30,000 and $49,000 increased
17 percent and the percentage between $50,000 and $74,999 increased by 25
percent. At the same time, all other income classifications experienced
declining percentages of households. These trends seem to indicate either an
inclination by higher income households to move into the area, and/or a rise
in the Incomes of current residents, who desire to remain in the area.
The neighborhood trends, rather than indicating gentrification, reflect
a combination of forces, at work requiring further analysis.
Housing Market Activity
In addition to the census data for 1970 and 1980, data was collected from
the Denver Planning Office (1977, 1978, and 1982) for the average sales price
of single family units and the number of sales of single family units for each
census tract from 1972 through 1982. Despite controversy concerning the
helpfulness of census data (Henig 1980), it was hoped that gentrification, if
-72-


TABLE 12 INCOME PROFILE FOR HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK,
]970 AND 1980
JEFFERSON PARK
INCOME
Number of
persons
HIGHLAND
Number of
persons
1980 1970 Change 1980 1970 Change
Less than $15,000 728 739 -1.5 2259 2294 -9.4
$15,000 $29,999 258 374 -31.0 961 1209 -20.5
$30,000 $49,999 31 40 -22.5 230 284 -19.0
$50,000 $74,999 0 2 -100.0 34 12 +183.3
$75,000 and More 0 2 -100.0 0 6 -100.0
Income is adjusted for inflation.
SOURCE: Denver Regional Council of Governments. 1983. Profiles of 1970-80
Socioeconomic Change by County and Census Tract. Denver: Public
Affairs Office, D.R.C.O.G.
-73-


It was occurring, would be detectable at the census tract level.
The first step of the analysis was an examination of the average sales
price of single family units within each of our three census tracts and for
the City of Denver.(see Figure 14). From 1972 through 1977, Denver and the
census tracts experienced a gradual increase In average sales price. After
1977, however, the rate of growth skyrocketed. Sales price increased at
a rate of six to 14 percent per annum from 1972 to 1977,in Denver, but from
1977 to 1978 the rate jumped to 29 percent. Following this jump, the rate
slowly declined to 13 percent by 1982. In the three census tracts, the rate
of Increase from 1977 to 1978 was also substantial, and only In tract 11.02
(Highland east to Tejon) was it not the highest rate for the ten year term;
1978 to 1979 was the highest growth year for sales prices.
The same market change also affected the number and volume of single family
units that were sold (see Figures 15 and 16). Again, Denver and the three tracts
experienced their greatest quantity of sales during the years, 1977 and 1978,
and then experienced a gradual decline in sales activity.
Clearly, these increases were not a sub-metropolitan phenomenon, but
rather were reflective of metropolitan, regional, and national housing market
changes. These findings are collaborated by similiar findings in the work of
Frank DeGiovanni (1983).
Housing Transactions: Case Studies
In an attempt to better understand what was occurring within the tracts,
four "hotspots" were identified for closer study, (see Figure 17). These
-74-


I
L/l
I
4
l
M
(
.i
l
)
l.
3
0
750
675
600
525
450
375
300
225
150
75
0

T
i---------------------r
JR
R

v^'.
M -
>i

T
i
; 1972 1373 1.974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
G Denver G Highland CH) 0 Highland (E) II Jefferson Park
SOURCE: Denver Planning Office. 1977, 1978, and 1982. Housing Detail Reports.
Available from the Denver Planning Office.
For single
family units.


-76
r iUUMj 1J NUriDLlV Ur JIHULiL rm'llLtl UlllU JWUU l Ul\ uxunuuiL/f UDI i Ui\wvn
1972-1981
153
i
125
f! i * O/

e i j
r
s 50
0
i
A os
:(
0
a
&
a
y^
S-_
o*-_
1972
M T
r!
.4
1975 1976 1977
1978
1979 1980
HUfhlandl(W) *1 Jeff. Park v Higlilan-iKE)
SOURCE: Denver Planning Office 1977, 1978, and 1982. Housing
Detail Reports. Available from the Denver Planning
Office.
*Tm
1981


rj-UUKi; lb
VOLUME OF SINGLE FAMILY UNITS
IN SELECTED YEARS
SOLD FOR DENVER AND HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK
I
I
if [VrvvVr.1 L1 Hi-jhlaricKU) b fi i^'IilaruK E) jj] Jpffgpbcn Park
SOURCE: Denver Planning Office 1977, 1978, and 1982. Housing
Detail Reports. Available from the Denver Planning
Office.


JULJI_I LSIII
Od
iuuuuuuuv
ODmi
i-----,-r ------1.!-1-* i-----Si------Lr------1.----, ,--------,5,---. n&//
legend
gentriflcatlon
nodes
^ 'enclosed
^street structure
(Cohesive
Neighborhood)
YA ^
open
street structure
(Random Gentrif.)
__ study area
b school
c church
p park
v views of
downtown
historic district ^
highland: /
jefferson park
neighborhoods!
scale
00
' N
FIGURE 17
north V


"hotspots" contained numerous rehabilitated houses and a high number of homes
for sale. Within these areas, 96 houses exhibiting physical characteristics
of gentrification, were identified. Assumed characteristics includes features
such as: a recently painted house with refinished trim and woodwork, storm
windows, skylights, wrought-iron.bars on the window, Levelor blinds, significant
landscaping, and other features distinctly uncharacteristic of the area.
From these 96 properties, a stratified random sample of 16 properties
was chosen for this phase of the study. The emphasis in this phase was on
how the rehabilitated properties had been affected by speculation and the
changing housing market. To do this, records of sales transactions were ob-
tained from the Denver Assessor's Office (1983). The records contained the
dates and the sales price for each sale of a property from 1970 on.
Of the 16 properties examined, six properties had been sold from two to
six times since 1970 (see Figure 18). The remainder had been held by individuals
or by families, who had not been induced, by the market changes, to sell out of
home ownership. Most of the improvements to the houses in this group, it
would appear from the records, were the result of code enforcement. Of the
six "market" properties identified, a large number of their transactions
occurred during the peak period of 1976-1979. This period corresponds, as
it should, with the pceviously identified periods of high sales activity and
increasing sales prices.
Following up on the significance of these results, a T-test was performed
to determine if housing improvements and rehabilitation had an equal chance of
being done by either an incumbent or a new owner (gentrifier). Given a 95
-79-


SALES PRICE (in thousands)
FIGURE 18 SALES HISTORY FOR SIX PROPERTIES IN HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK
1971-1981
1-70
60
SO

30
20_J-r
ttk
-10
tC
Ui
a.
o
ot
(k.
o
o
Ui
o
AC
K
UI
*
D
75* 74 7/ 76 SI *1 70
YEAR OF
7/ 7# 7? 7/ 71 70 70 70
TRANSACTION
77 0/
7? 77 70
SOURCE: Denver Assessor's Office. 1984. Master Property Files.
Available :or inspection at the Denver Assessor's
Office.
-80-
CAITHNESS PL, rnorcKTY


percent confidence level it would appear that this is true (see Appendix D).
This indicated the quantity of gentfifIcation to be approximately half of
what had been identified,, and incumbent upgrading to be more prevalent than
anticipated in Highland and Jefferson Park. It is also Important to note
that the housing improvement and rehabilitations identified did not exist
in a random pattern throughout the neighborhoods. Rather the existence of
"hotspots" was much more the case. Apparently, this type of activity occurred
only when special ammenities were present. The existence of irregular or
enclosed street patterns, distinctive architecture, scenic vistas, proximity
to open space, nearby neighborhood shopping areas, as well as other ammenities
influenced the location selection of newcomers. As indicated earlier by the
Census data, the actual number of upper income people moving into these
neighborhoods is small. Upon examination of the neighborhoods, a great many
homes appear to be "gentrifled", but after further research, it became evident
that a significant percentage of these homes were being rehabilitated by in-
cumbent owners.
Gentrification in Highland and Jefferson Park: Some Observations
The phenomenon of gentrification in Highland and Jefferson Park appears
to be limited at a small number of properties in specific areas. Part of this
is related to the availability of housing bargins. Without a significant
difference between the asking price and the value (monetary or other) of the
properties it is doubtful that widespread gentrification will occur.
In 1975, mortgage rates started to decline and the number of new housing
starts began to rise. This in turn created a housing market which could be
-81-


It can be expected that buyers will be
characterized as a "buyers market",
aware before sellers of changes in the housing market, because they are
usually more active. Therefore, given an element of control ( a large supply
and selection) and a headstart in the market, it is a reasonable deduction that
both a differential and a presence of "bargains" existed in the housing market
at this time.
Clearly, the amount of gentrification found in Highland and Jefferson Park
has been influenced by these national trends. Metropolitan trends and conditions
can be also of great Influence on these neighborhoods' housing markets. Of
particular significance in Highland and Jefferson Park is the coordinated
effort by several non-profit housing corporations, neighborhood associations,
and the councilman's office to maintain and stabilize the neighborhoods.
This effort guards against residential displacement by present and future market
pressures. Partly because of these efforts and partly because of the other
factors mentioned earlier in the overview, gentrification has been sparse to
data in these two neighborhoods. There is no indication what future housing
markets and perceptions of the community will be. They have been changeful
in the past and probably will continue to be in the future. Therefore, the
potential for greater gentrifIcation in Highland and Jefferson Park still exists.
-82-


3. BAKER
Location
Baker is an inner-city neighborhood near Denver's Central Business
District. It is bounded by West 6th Avenue on the north, Broadway Avenue on
the east, West Mississippi Avenue on the south, and the South Platte River on
the west. As an early and stable working class neighborhood, Baker offers
some interesting examples of distinctive Victorian homes built with stone
and masonry. The average year the homes were built was 1895. (Westside
Neighborhood Planning Team and Denver Planning Office 1981).
Historical Background
Since Baker developed in the 1880's, it was subject to obsolescence and
disrepair earlier than the other neighborhoods that developed later. The
"white flight" to the suburbs during the sixties and seventies accelerated this
phenomenon of decline because lower income residents who lacked the resources
to repair the deteriorating homes moved in. This prompted the City to designate
the area as blighted in 1972 (Westside Neighborhood Planning Team and Denver
Planning Office 1981). The decline enabled non-residential uses such as
the industrial and utility areas to the west and south, and the commercial
uses along Broadway and Sante Fe Drive to encroach heavily upon the residenttial
areas. Figure 19 shows the location of these land uses. The result was a
loss In housing units; while there were 3,292 housing units in Baker in 1970,
this number decreased to 2,791 units in 1980.(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1972b
and 1983b) The neighborhood also experienced some population loss. The
7,646 persons in Baker in 1970 decreased to 6,177 ty 1980.(U.S. Bureau of the
Census 1972b and 1983).
-83-


00
I
use Map

legend
single-family
multi-family^'
commercial
industrial
study area
(------------->
Baker
Neighborhood
v.____________________________

FIGURE 19
't' north


Census data for 1970 and 1980, as well as 1977 estimates from the Denver
Planning Office (1977, 1978, and 1982), illustrate the changes in racial
composition that occurred during this period.
1970 1977 1980
Hispanic 49.2% 75.5% 52.9%
Anglo 50.4% 23.3% 42.2%
Black .4% 1.2% 1.9%
The median family income for Baker in 1970 was $5,691, well below the median
family income of $9,654 for Denver,(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1972b and 1983b).
While total population in the area decreased overall, the above information
shows an increase of the minority population between 1970 and 1977 and a
decrease in Anglos of almost 50 percent. This was not a wealthy population.
During this period, the neighborhood was experiencing stagnation and decline.
The trends were reversed with a return of wealthier residents and a
decrease in the minority population after 1977. Those changes in terms of
the ethnic composition of Baker are an expression of changes taking place at
the regional level and city-wide level, and changes at the general neighborhood
level. Even though the degree of ethnicity in Baker rose and then dropped off
sharply, the 52.9 percent Hispanic component remains much greater than Denver's
19 percent.
The western energy boom brought tremendous growth to the Denver Metropolitan
area during the mid-70's. The CBD also grew at an exponential rate, being the
site of related major office development. Consequently, housing markets exhib-
ited the same patterns of growth. As decentralized and unbridled suburban
sprawl presented developers and investors with growing constraints and diminishing
-85-


profits, inner-city neighborhoods close to the CBD appeared more desirable
for two reasons.
The first reason is location. Location of residences near such an activity
center is an amenity by itself, and it eliminates the need for long distance
daily commuting. The second reason is that public facilities and amenities
are already in place (i.e., public schools, parks, recreation centers) therefore
making neighborhoods such as Baker appear more desirable.
As a result of the neighborhood being declared blighted, Baker was targeted
for extensive public reinvestment. The Denver Community Development Agency
(CDA) has been responsible to a large degree for this reinvestment activity.
Operating under the Housing and Community Development Acts of 1974 and 1978,
CDA funnelled large sums of federal dollars into the various deteriorating
inner-city neighborhoods in Denver for housing rehabilitation, public facilities,
and public works improvements.
Recent Public Investments
A) The Baker Innovative Grant program was funded through the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and administered by CDA. It was
an intensive two-year neighborhood rehabilitation project implemented
from September 1979 to September 1981, It focussed on an 18 block
residential target area. The boundaries of this area are shown in
Figure 20. Total HUD expenditures for the project were $640,984, which
leveraged a total $3.7 million investment by public and private sources
(Community Development Agency 1982).
-86-


I
00
I
legend
HI Areas of active
private reinvestment
Baker Neigh.
Rehabilitation Projed
Area (CDA)
Neigh,
Bus. Revitalization
(NBR Program, CDA)
One Broadway
Plaza Mixed Use
Project (CDA)
s schools
(-------------^
Baker
Neighborhood
s_____________*
FIGURE 20
north


The project objective was to promote neighborhood preservation and
revitalization by conserving and upgrading the existing low and moderate
income housing stock. The intention was to stabilize the supply of lower
income housing that was becoming subject to private market speculative
interests during Bakers "upswing" in the late 70's. Follow-up studies
reveal that the rehabilitated properties were indeed stabilized (only
three percent were sold after the project was completed; Community
Development Agency 1982). At the same time, however, the funds improved
Baker's aesthetic appearance, and may have promoted private investment of
adjacent properties.
B) The Neighborhood Business Revitalization program (NBR), also administered
by CDA, is located along South Broadway from 2nd Avenue to Bayaud Street
(see Figure 20). The Broadway Plaza NBR program began in 1979. It con-
sists of low interest loans made to local businesses as well as the Imple-
mentation of public improvements and facilities in the target area. The
public-funded loans totalled $409,500, which was leveraged to $14 million
in private investments. This is the largest amount of funds in any of
Denver's NBR areas. Sales tax increased 66 percent between 1979 and 1982.
Employment increased 70 percent in the area during the same period
(Community Development Agency 1984a).
C) The One Broadway project is a $6.5 million mixed use development currently
under construction. The formerly vacant block, located between Broadway
and Acoma Street and bounded by West Ellsworth and Irvington Place, was
purchased by CDA in 1979. This project consists of 38 condominium townhome
units ranging in price from $60,000 to $90,000, and includes 38,000 square
-88-


feet of office and commercial space surrounding a public plaza (Community
Development Agency undated). The development was designed with sensi-
tivity to the residential area abutting Acoma, so as to avoid obtrusiveness
with the townhomes adjacent to the present residential structures. The
development goals are to reinforce the established residential areas,
complement the >JBR Broadway Plaza area, and to augment the overall economic
vitality of the area by expanding long and short term job opportunities.
Theoretical Framework for Analysis
These intensive public investments coupled with the rising demand for
inner-city housing, caused in part by the large population growth of the
Denver Metro area, may have prompted the start of private reinvestment,
speculation, and gentrification in Baker. The question that follows is, do
these changes constitute a stabilizing or destabilizing factor for Baker ^
residents? If destabilization followed, changes in the socioeconomic make-up
of the neighborhood population, in the structural appearance of the housing
stock, and in the market activity for this housing stock should be measurable.
The following comparative analysis of the socioeconomic factors and housing
market activity in Baker and in Denver demonstrates the magnitude of the
changes and how they affect Baker residents as a whole.
Because private reinvestment is often a highly localized, sub-neighborhood
activity, this study also defines two areas within Baker which seem to contain
the most concentrated private reinvestment. Figure 20 illustrates these two
areas. The southern five block area was selected because it is surrounded
by amenities and major public improvement projects; such as Daily Park, the
-89-


CDA innovative grant area, the Broadway NBR, and the One Broadway mixed use
development. The northern four block site was chosen because the Baker
neighborhood plan cited it as an area of "resurgent renovation" coupled with
an influx of younger middle and upper income first-time home buyers. Further-
more, a tour of these two areas confirmed revitalization; most of the properties
appeared to have undergone recent repairs, landscaping and yardwork, and/or
received new paint. These two areas have a pleasant overall appearance.
Housing Market Activity
Table 13 indicates how property values have changed from 1970 to 1980.
While absolute values remain lower in Baker and in the Baker sub-areas A
and B (the two areas of concentrated private reinvestment described earlier)
than in Denver in 1980, this difference is smaller than it was in 1970.
Denver values, for instance, increased 269%, while Baker and Baker sub-areas
increased much faster, at 337% and 431% respectively. Sub-area C in Table 13
is comprised of five blocks arbitrarily selected from the CDA rehabilitation
area. It is located at the opposite end of the neighborhood from the revital-
ized sub-areas A and B for purposes of contrast. Here housing values have
increased more slowly than in the neighborhood as a whole, but still at a
faster rate than In Denver. In summary, Table 13 shows the housing market
to be more dynamic in Baker, and the property values in the neighborhood to
be appreciating at a faster rate than in the City overall.
Figures 21 and 22 show the total volume of housing sales in Denver and
Baker respectively in terms of total sales, and by housing type (single family,
multi-family, and condominium units). Note that the market trends for both
-90-


TABLE 13 MEDIAN VALUE OF SPECIFIED OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING
UNITS FOR DENVER AND BAKER, 1970 AND 1980
19701 CM O 00 cr> Percent Increase
Denver $16,800 $62,000 269%
Baker $ 6,200 $40,200 337%
Sub-Areas 3 A and B | $10,875 (combined) 4 $57,711 431%
Sub-Area C j $ 8,080 $32,820 306%
SOURCES: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1972. Census of Population and Housing
1970: Census Tracts, Denver, Colo. SMSA. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
2
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1983. Census of Population and Housing
1980: Census Tracts, Denver, Colo. SMSA. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
3
For Sub-areas:
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1972. Census of Population and
Housing 1970: Block Statistics. Denver. Colo. SMSA.
on microfiche,- U.S. Bureau of the Census.
4
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983. Census of Population and Housing
1980: Block Statistics. Denver. Colo. SMSA. on microfiche U.S.
Bureau of the Census.
-91-


FIGURE 21 VOLUME OF SALES BY HOUSING TYPE FOR DENVER, 1972-1981
Total Housing Units Sold--------------
Single Family Homes ------------------
Multi-Family Housing Units ..........-
Condominium Units r*
umber
Units
SOURCE: Denver Planning Office. 1977, 1978, and 1981. Housing Detail
Reports. Available from the Denver Planning Office.
-92-


FIGURE 22 VOLUME OF SALES BY HOUSING TYPE FOR BAKER,
1972-1981
Total Housing Units Sold -
Single .'amily Homes-----------------
Multi-family Housing Units............
Condominium Units + tht*-
Number
-93-


are quite similar; sales peak during the late 1980's and then fall off from
1979 to 1980. While volume of sales increased sharply in both areas from 1976
to 1979, the increase is more dramatic in Baker. From 1976 to 1977, for
example, total housing units sold increased 116 percent in Baker (from 102
220 units) but increased only 62 percent in Denver (from 10,401 to 16,865),
Then sales declined at about the same rate in both areas from 1979 to 1980,
reflecting the influence of the nation-wide housing trend of reduced sales
activity. The most significant difference in the two trends is shown in 1981.
While total volume of sales continue their decline in Denver, there is a
resurgence of sales activity beginning in Baker.
The percentages at the bottom of Figures 21 and 22 show the amount of
housing units sold as a percent of all housing units. Comparing these reveals
that a larger proportion of Baker's housing stock was sold during the late
1970's than the proportion of Denver's housing stock during the same period.
In 1978, for example, 9.5 percent of all housing units in Baker were sold, as
compared to 7.9 percent in Denver. The proportion of Baker housing units
sold then drops slightly below that of Denver, but by 1981 it again exceeds
Denver's proportion. Of all the housing units in Baker, 7.2 percent were sold
in 1981, but only 5.0 percent for all of Denver.
The percentages for Baker apply only to the existing housing stock,
but in Denver the total amount of sales includes many additions to the housing
stock (residential infill, new condos, and conversions). In Baker, the only
new units added to the existing housing stock, thus increasing sales volume,
were a total of 22 condominium units sold in 1980 and 1981, Therefore, the
-94-


Full Text

PAGE 1

. ,, ,/' ................ -..... . ... _._ .............. '-' ""'t 1 Uat<: C!.Art ; :. ..... ;-.-. NOV 2 9 'jgi--.. 1 .. -... .. ._.. ......... ..., ; JAN 1987 t"; .. F-E-:-B-: I 9 8 7 + (v $ 1 Q 1 .! c .r. . . : '" -. '(IJ f" 1 .:; tJJb GENTRIFICATION: t DEC 3 0 1991 I' AUG 111SU : PRIVATE MARKET REVITAd:ZATION . -I THE OF DENVER'S OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS Chris Guss Eric Johnson Guy Moussalli Livinus Ogbonna Jay Pierce Don Seten Ann Weiner A "Studio II" Project. by Advanced Students in the Graduate Program in Planning and Community Development, College of Design and Planning, University of Colorado at Denver, Directed by Professor Thomas Clark Spring 1984

PAGE 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE o 1 INTRODUCTION o 7 PHASE ONE APPROACH: REGION-WIDE POPULATION AND HOUSING TRENDS PART A -GENERAL PROFILE: SOCIOECONOMIC AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS 10 PART B -INTERPRETATION OF HOUSING DEMAND TRENDS, DENVER AND THE SMSA 20 PART C FACTORIAL ECOLOGY 25 PHASE TWO MICRO-SCALE APPROACH: REVITALIZATION AND TRENDS AT THE KEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL PART A PART B THE "CUSS-WEINER" METHOD 33 AN OVERV1EW: REVITALIZATION AND CHANGE IN THREE DENVER NEIGHBORHOODS 38 PART C STUDY OF SELECTED NEIGHBORHOODS 1. FIVE POINTS o o 51 2. HIGHLAND AND JEFFERSON PARK 66 3. B.AK.ER. .. 83 PHASE THREEPOLICY RECOMMENDATIONSl04 APPENDICES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D CENSUS DEFINITIONSll5 HOUSING DEMAND ANALYSIS: METHODOLOGY ll8 FACTORIAL ECOLOGY MAPSl21 T-TEST METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS FOR HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARKl27 BIBLIOGRA.PHY Q"' ol28 i

PAGE 3

LIST OF FIGURES Page FIGURE 1 1970 CENSUS TRACT MAP FACTOR 1o 28 FIGURE 2 1980 CENSUS TRACT MAP FACTOR 1 31 FIGURE 3 GENTRIFICATION POTENTIAL BY CENSUS TRACT 1980 35 FIGURE 4 NEIGHBORHOODS SELECTED FOR STUDY 37 FIGURE 5 U.S. HOUSING STARTS AND MORTGAGE RATES 41 FIGURE 6 SINGLE FAMILY, MULTI-FAMILY, AND CONDOMINIUM TRANSACTIONS, 1972-80: DENVER AND SELECTED NEIGHBORHOODS 42 FIGURE 7 AVERAGE SALES PRICES, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNITS, 19 79-8(1: DENVER AND NEIGHBORHOODS HAVING HIGH OR MODERATE GENTRIFICATION POTENTIAL 44 FIGURE 8 PERCENTAGES OF TWO OR MORE SALES OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING UNITS FOR DENVER AND SELECTED NEIGHBORHOODS, 19741982 45 FIGURE 9 HOUSEHOLD INCOME SHIFT, 1970-80, BY GENTRIFICATION POTENTIAL 47 FIGURE 10 GENERAL LAND USE MAP -FIVE POINTS NEIGHBORHOOD 53 FIGURE 11 AVERAGE SALES PRICE FOR DENVER AND FIVE POINTS, 1972 1982 62 FIGURE 12 GENTRIFICATION LOCATION MAP -FIVE POINTS NEIGHBORHOOD 64 FIGURE 13 GENERAL LAND USE MAP -HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK NEIGHBORHOODS 67 FIGURE 14 AVERAGE SALES PRICE FOR DENVER AND HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK, L 972 -1981 75 FIGURE 15 NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY UNITS SOLD FOR HIGHLAND/ JEFFERSON PARK, 1972 1981 76 FIGURE 16 VOLUME OF SINGLE FAMILY UNITS SOLD FOR DENVER AND PARK IN SELECTED YEARS 77 ii

PAGE 4

Page FIGURE 17 GENTRIFICATION LOCATION MAP -HIGHLAND/ JEFFERSON PARK NEIGHBORHOOD 78 FIGURE 18 SALES HISTORY FOR SIX PROPERTIES IN HIGHLAND/ JEFFERSON PARK, 1971 1981 80 FIGURE 19 GENERAL GAND USE MAP -BAKER NEIGHBORHOOD 94 FIGURE 20 AREAS OF CHANGE-BAKER NEIGHBORHOOD 87 FIGURE 21 VOLUME OF SALES BY HOUSING TYPE FOR DENVER, 1972-1981 92 FIGURE 22 VOLUME OP SALES BY HOUSING TYPE FOR BAKER, 1972 L981 93 FIGURE 23 1970 CENSUS TRACT MAPFACTOR 2 121 FIGURE 24 1970 CENSUS TRACT MAP FACTOR 3 122 FIGURE 25 1970 CENSUS TRACT MAPFACTOR 4 123 FIGURE 26 1980 CENSUS TRACT MAP FACTOR 2 124 FIGURE 27 1980 CENSUS TRACT MAPFACTOR 3 125 FIGURE 28 1980 CENSUS TRACT MAP FACTOR 4 126 iii

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1 PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD BY RACE FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1980....................................... 1 TABLE 2 INCOME CHARACTERISTICS FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1979 .. 12 TABLE 3 PERSONS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1980 13 TABLE 4 EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1980 . . 15 TABLE 5 OCCUPATION OF EMPLOYED PERSONS FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1980 16 TABLE 6 FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSING FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1980 o 18 TABLE 7 INDICATORS OF TOTAL HOUSING DEMAND FOR DENVER 21 TABLE 8 INDICATORS OF TOTAL HOUSING DEMAND FOR THE DENVER-BOULDER SMSA 24 TABLE 9 GENERAL SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR FIVE POINTS AND CENSUS TRACT 25, 1970 and 1980 57 TABLE 10 COMPARATIVE HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS FOR DENVER, FIVE POINTS AND CENSUS TRACT 25, 1970 AND 1980 60 TABLE 11 SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS FOR HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK, 1970 -1980......................................... 69 TABLE 12 INCOME PROFILE FOR HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK, 1970 AN"D 1980....................................... 73 TABLE 13 MEDIAN VALUE OF SPECIFIED OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS FOR DENVER AND BAKER, 1970 AND 1980 91 TABLE 14 VOLUME OF SALES FOR SINGLE FAMILY UNITS FOR DENVER AND BAKER IN SELECTED YEARS 96 TABLE 15 GENERAL POPULATION, HOUSING, AND SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR BAKER, 1970 AND 1980............ 99 iv

PAGE 6

-EXECUTIVE. SUMMARY is the upgrading of average resident incomes in older, / neighborhoods through the displacement or replacement of lower income households by higher income analysis of the gentrification process in Denver, Colorado, is divided into three phases: a macro study, a micro-scale and policy recommendations. Phase One consists of a macro-scale study of region-wide population and housing trends. It is divided into 2 parts. Part A is a general profile stressing the dif-1 ferences between Denver and the Denver-Boulder SMSA in terms of population and housing characteristics. Such characteristics as race, income, education, and housing financial characteristics set the context for regional and city -wide housing demand trends presented in Part B. It is important to keep in mind thE;! J>rocess of cannot be isolated regional and context. The increased cost of suburban housing as well as the mounting pressure on housing supply have made existing urban housing look increasingly attractive and competitive. The purpose for analyzing housing demand trends is to illustrate changes in the various income groups of families and unrelated individuals in order to assess their implications for the housing markets in the City and its suburban ring. As detailed later, demand characteristics for Denver and the SMSA are somewhat different. The number of high income families in Denver declined rapidly with low imcome families remaining constant between 1970 and 1980. However, during the same time period, the number of high and moderate income 1Besides Denver, the SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area) is com prised of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Gilpin, and Jefferson counties. Clear Creek County is not included in the analysis. Refer to Appendix A for a definition of the -1-

PAGE 7

families in Denver declined rapidly with low income families remaining constant between 1970 and 1980. However, during the same time period, the number of high and moderate income individuals increased rapidly. The surrounding counties saw an increase in total families and individuals with those in the low income groups changing the least for both groups between 1970 and 1980. In an attempt to characterize temporal trends in the spatial structure of Denver's neighborhoods, a technique called factorial ecology was used and is the subject of Part c. Socioeconomic and housing variables were examined and reduced by factorial analysis into summary factors. Those summary factors indicate a dichotomy between the eastern and western parts of the City. The pattern is one of an east-west polarization with the eastern part of Denver displaying high positive scores (i,e., high income, high level of education, and the like) and the western part displaying low negative scores (less affluent and less educated residents). Maps detailing the summary factor scores for all the census tracts in the City have been developed. Because housing supply is a function of housing demand, those city-wide trends using the factorial ecology method illustrate where the need for low income housing is greatest. Paradoxically, those areas of greatest need are also the areas most apt to encounter and undergo private reinvestment. Older, declining areas are often improving but at the expense of the lower income residents. Part two examines gentrification at the neighborhood level. It is divided into three parts. Part A identifies the neighborhoods experiencing some reinvestment activity and therefore worth studying. The selected neighborhoods conform to the following criteria: 1. They should be from as many parts of the City as possiblec 2. They should be located close to downtown. 3. They -2-

PAGE 8

should be in the middle stage of gentrification. The selected study neighborhoods are Five Points, Highland/Jefferson Park, and Baker. Part B consists of an overview of revitalization and change in the selected neighborhoods and suggests a model of gentrification. The strength and direction of gentrification within central cities is fueled by nation-wide economic forces influencing local housing markets. An appropriate indicator for the measurement of gentrification is the rate of turnover of existing housing stock, meaning the amount of speculation actually occurring in a neighborhood. In the long the turnover of housing stock brings about shifts in population and income distribution. Furthermore, the gentrification model suggests that a lack of social cohesion and the absence of neighborhood organizations involved in the political process can accelerate neighborhood change. In Part C, the study neighborhoods are examined in detail. The major socioeconomic trends in each of the neighborhoods for the period 1970-1980 are described. Housing market components such as volume of sales, median value of owner-occupied housing units, and sales of single family housing units are studied. A detailed investigation is made of the volume of transactions on specific parcels randomly chosen within arbitrarily selected areas of concentrated private reinvestment. For each neighborhood, conclusions are given as to the strength, extent, and direction of gentrification. Finally in Phase Three, a policy statement recommends approaches for dealing with the consequences of gentrification. Six policies are recommended with an emphasis on community and neighborhood oriented solutions. -3-

PAGE 9

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS 1) Prerequisites for gentrification of inner-city neighborhoods include a strengtheningof demana-for housing -unTis wll11Th neighborhoods having the potential for gentrification, a sufficient supply of appropriate units, and a pliant public sector. 2) The time of gentrification's onset is marked by "spot" rehabilitation leading to resident income succession. But the character of the initial phase of the process varies considerably among neighborhoods. Within individual cities the first neighborhoods to commence gentrification within a cycle of overall economic revitalization will be most likely to experience the "standard" developmental scenario. 3) Expansion and restructuring of the CBD's employment base in the current cycle of urban economic resurgence has played a significant role in three ways. It has drawn many new middle and upper income workers to the core area workplace, leading to the further congestion of radial arterials and a heightening of the appeal of residential locations more accessible to the CBD. It has reduced the relative, and perhaps the absolute, availability of job opportunities for less skilled, lower wage workers both in and near the CBD. This may have weakened the flow of earned income into adjacent neighborhoods while reducing their overall access to available jobs. And finally, the CBD and allied functions have begun to intrude into adjacent residential areas. The result has been lower income displacement through redevelopment of residential sites and office conversions, and some appreciation in residential property values. These events have served in some cases as a prelude and stimulus to gentrification, displacing households, weakening the will to resist, and heightening speculation. 4) The pace and process of gentrification vary considerably among neighborhoods. Pace is determined by these factors: degree of spatial concentration of upgrading; number, size and diversity of alternative neighborhoods simultaneously undergoing upgrading; and rate of increase in households amenable to residence in these areas. Two additional factors probably play a significant role, but their effect must be inferred from available evidence. One is the appeal of investment in gentrifying neighborhoods. In theory, capital will flow to opportunities whose expected discounted capital yields are greatest. As gentrification progresses, perceived risks may diminish and capital costs would decline under lower-risk conditions. In practice, sweat equity substitutes for capital in early rounds of investment in gentrifying neighborhoods. As the process accelerates, small scale speculators reap speculative gains by flipping units, and local renovators improve and sell properties. These capital interests tend not to consider opportunity costs, and do not behave as theory would suggest. Larger scale investors and developers probably come closer to the theoretical standard, but their involvement is often later in the process and more sporadic. -4-

PAGE 10

5) A second additional factor governing the pace and sequential process of gentrification is tied to the flow of information and expectations among gentrifying neighborhoods in single cities. Those first to begin the process are probably most likely to experience the standard scenario, but others starting later or proceeding more slowly may be decisively influenced by events in others. Those having the greatest momentum may siphon off demand in others. Late gentrifiers may also skip phases of the process or move quickly through them as market stimuli, information and investor and resident expectations spill over neighborhood boundaries. Of course some spillover effects may slow or prevent theprocess. Witnesses to initial rounds of gentrification may perfect techniques of opposition in other areas. 6) Over the course of gentrification in case study Denver neighborhoods, onset was marked by low level speculation, gradual increase in sales transactions involving single and multi-family properties, and gradual price appreciation. Property reassessments were of little consequence in initial years, in raising occupancy costs and displacing renters and homeowners on flxed incomes. 7) During initial phases of gentrification, the process was apparently strongly influenced by the economic recession of the mid-1970's. Recovery, coupled with rapid expansion in Denver's CBD in the late 1970's released latent demand and all the critical indices rose rapidly: prices, speculative activity, overall number of transactions, and low income displacement. 8) Since 1970, socioeconomic upgrading in Denver's neighborhoods has occurred primarily through a substantial loss in lower income households, linked to much smaller gains in higher income households. Lower income loss cannot be wholly attributed to displacement or even replacement by higher income households, rough one-to-one correspondence between the two should not be expected. Some multi-family structures, of course, are converted to single family use. A potent ancillary force must therefore be the intrusion of nonresidential functions, plus the removal of properties from the market by speculators awaiting an appropriate timedto 1sell or to renovate and se111 1 Loss of lower income housing, f )' not isp acement per se, is potentia y the most serious conseguence o 1 \ gentrification in the City of Denver. 9) In none of the Denver neighborhoods examined had gentrification reached its final phases. It is therefore not possible to conclude from available evidence exactly how later trendlines will evolve. But it seems likely that the process will continue. In Denver, the processes of individual neighborhoods will remain distinctive due to differences in pace and internal conditions. However, there is also reason to expect some movement towards convergence of seperate neighborhood trendlines since all are linked to the core area's "engine" of change which is the CBD economy, the pervasive impact of national economic cycles, and the emergence of local public policies fostering convergence. -5-

PAGE 11

10) If the national economy again slows, the Denver CBD falters and public policies are adopted which inhibit gentrification, then the current round of urban revitalization in the city may come to an end. And if these conditions persist, the process may be gradually reversed as neighborhoods revert to lower income statuso 11) The role of public policy is endogenous to the process of urban revitalization. In Denver, public policy has probably not yet played a major role in 3timulating gentrification, and has likely had only a moderate role in incumbent upgrading residential areas. Changing socioeconomic structure within the city as a whole is the prime governor of the shape and direction of public policy initiatives. Vigorous revitalization, in which gentrification oftens plays an essential role, ensures socioeconomic upgrading and the emergence of public policies which will attempt to sustain the process, possibly to the disadvantage of less well represented lower income segments. In Denver, the presence of many middle and upper income neighborhoods insures that a strong voice of the prosperous will persist even if gentrification does not. But this presence will tend to foster support for public policies which are at least neutral, and not hostile toward gentrification. In some other cities, vigorous gentrification may first have to occur before there can be a strong voice supporting the process. Today, the perceived developmental and fiscal benefits of gentrification generally more than offset the perceived costs involving displacement and loss of lower income housing, even in cities where substantial gentrification has occurred. -6-

PAGE 12

INTRODUCTION -Gentrification is the appreciation of housing costs and the attendant displacement or replacement of low income households in older inner-city areas. It is attributed to free market economics, to the breakdown of non-economic "reciprocity" in relations between landlords and tenants, or to the capture of surplus value by capital owners in response to the increase in expected investment yields in "underdeveloped" residential areas. Larger cities are more likely to undergo housing renovation than smaller ones. A 1975 survey by the Urban Land Institute (1975) found that 73 percent of central cities with populations of 500,000 or more are undergoing private market renewal activity. Schill and Nathan (1983) observed for each city of over 200,000 in population, at least one neighborhood is experiencing gentrifi-cation. Hartman, Keating, and Le Gates (1982) claim displacement affects 2.5 million Americans each year, resulting in the loss of as. many as a half million low rent units. Contrary to widely accepted belief, the vast majority of gentrifiers are urban residents moving into a neighborhood from another part of the city, rather than suburbanites. Neil Smith (1979, p. 540) pointed out that, "The so-called urban renaissance has been stimulated more by economic than cultural forces Few would even consider rehabilitation if a financial loss were to be expected. A theory of gentrification must explain why some neighborhoods are profitable to redevelop while others are not," -7-

PAGE 13

According to the "rent gap" thoery of gentrification, rehabilitation begins in areas where the biggest returns on reinvestment are available. Such areas are found in neighuorhoods close to a financially strong Central Business District (CBD) which has been through a long sequence of decline and disinvestment. While the back to the city movement is mainly fueled by economic forces, it is important to consider the values and images conveyed by the inner-city. The historic and architectural characteristics of some neighborhoods have been a key to the rediscovery of the central city. Other benefits of these areas include living close to work, experiencing the flavor of urban neighborhoods, and reducing air pollution by eliminating long commuting trips. The areas surrounding city centers have additional assets such as nearby educatioml., cultural, recreational, and shopping facilities serving as further inducement to reinvestment. The National Urban Coalition (1979a) indicated that those displaced tend to relocate in nearby housing, similar to or better than the housing they were forced to leave either in their original neighborhood or in similar neighborhoods within the city. In the long run, however, many families who made short moves may be forced to move again as gentrification spreads. This trend in neighborhood revitalization suggests there will be less available low income housing in the inner-city. As Michael Lang (1982, p. 33) notes, 11dislocation of the poor is not a one-time process." As long as sizable numbers of the affluent desire "geographically distinct areas," the poor will be kept on the move and pushed into less desirable areas. -8-

PAGE 14

PHASE ONE MACRQ-SCALE APPROACH: POPULATION AND HOUSING TRENDS -9-

PAGE 15

PART A -GENERAL REGION-WIDE PROFILE: SOCIOECONOMIC AND HOUSING CH-ARACTER[ STICS 1) General Socioeconomic Tables 1, 2, and 3 show that Blacks and Hispanics, persons with low and moderate incomes of $15,000 and below, non-family type households composed of unrelated individuals with a high percentage of households headed . by females are found in greater proportions within the City and County of Denver than in the SMSA. In turn, the SMSA as a whole has larger percentages of Anglos, persons with incomes between $20,000 and $50,000 or more, and more family-type households than the City does. Also, a smaller proportion of households appear to be headed by females in the SMSA than in Denver, Therefore, characteristics in terms of race, household composition, and income contrast sharply between the central city and suburban ring. Minorities and low income persons are more concentrated in Denver than in the surrounding counties. -10-

PAGE 16

TABLE 1 PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD BY RACE FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1980 Persons in Household as a % of Denver-Boulder SMSA l as a % of J total Denver total TOTAL PERSONS 100.0 1,642,384 100.0 506,952 Anglo 85.0 1,395,489 71.0 : 357,831 : l i Black 4.6 75,554 ll.4 I 5?,996 i Hispanic2 10.4 171,341 18.0 1 Estimates for persons in black households are not available for Gilpin County in the 1980 Census. 2 Mexican, Cuban, Puerto-Rican, Spanish. Can be of any race. SOURCE: u.s. Bureau of the Census, 1982. Census of Population 1980: Characteristics of the Population, General Population Characteristics, Colorado (PC801-B7). Washington, D.C. u.s. Government Printing Office. Table 47. -11-

PAGE 17

TABLE 2 INCOME CHARACTERISTICS FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1979 I SMSA I I Denver Income in 1979 I in Households (No. of a % of (No. of a % of individuals, as individuals, as 1, 000 's) total 1,0001s) total I TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS I 10 100.0 212 I 100.0 I I Less than $5,000 56 9.2 30 I I 14.2 $7,500 to $9;999 37 6.0 18 I 8.4 j I $10,000 to $14,999 I 87 14.3 36 I 17.1 I $15,000 to $19,999 I 85 14.0 31 14.7 I I $20,000 to $24,999 82 I 13.4 24 I 11.2 I I : $25,000 to $34,999 114 18.8 29 I 13.8 $35,000 to $50,000 109 I 18.0 26 I 12.0 I I I SOURCE: u.s. Bureau of the Census 1983. Census of Population 1980: Characteristics of the Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics, Colorado. (PC80-1-C7). Washington, D..: U.S. Government Printing Office, Table 180. -12-

PAGE 18

TABLE 3 PERSONS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1980 SMSA Denver Household Type (No. of as a % of (No. of as a % of and Relationship individuals, total individuals, total 1,000's) 1,000) I TOTAL PERSONS 1,621 100.0 492 100.0 ; in Households 1,590 98.0 480 i 97.4 Family Householder I Male 347 21.8 92 : 19.2 Female 67 4.2 27 I 5.7 i Non-Family i I Householder i Male 95 6.0 42 8.9 Female 100 6.3 50 10.5 Female Householder No Husband Pres.ent 53 3.3 22 4.7 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983, 1980 Census of Population: Characteristics of the Population. General Social and Econcomic Characteristics, Colorado (PC80-1-C 7), Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Table 173. -13-

PAGE 19

Educational and occupational patterns for Denver and the SMSA are more or less similar in Tables 4 and 5. However, some points can be brought to attention. First, Denver has a higher percentage of persons 25 years old and over having completed zero to eight years of elementary school (12.7%) than the SMSA does (8.4%). Second, the percentage of people engaged in service occupations is somewhat higher for Denver (14.7%) than it is for the SMSA (12.1%). Service occupations include food service occupations and cleaning and building service occupations. -14-

PAGE 20

TABLE 4 EDUCATIONAl CHARACTERISTICS FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1980 Years of School Completed, Persons SMSA as a % of Denver as a % of 25 yrs. old & over total total TOTAL PERSONS 949,973 100.0 309,627 100.0 (25 yrs. old +) Elementary 80,246 8.4 39,214 12.7 (0 to 8 yrs.) High School 400,613 42.1 132,218 43.0 (1 to 4 yrs.) College 1 to 4 yrs. 338,386 35.7 100,350 32.4 5 or more yrs. 115,136 12,1 37,845 12.2 SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983. Census of Population, 1980: of the Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics, Colorado (PC80-1-c-7). Washington, D.C.: u.s. Government Printing Office. Table 175. -15-

PAGE 21

TABLE 5 OCCUPATION FOR EMPLOYED PERSONS FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1980 Employed Persons SMSA as a % of I Denver as a % of 16 yrs. and over (1, 000' s) total 1 (l,OOO's) total TOTAL EMPLOYED 820 100.0 i 245 100.0 I Managerial and Professional I 229 28.0 : 68 27.8 Speciality I Occupations I I I Technical, Sales, I I and Administrative 281 34.2 I 82 I 33.7 I support Occupations i I I I Service Occupations 99 12.1 36 I 14.7 Farming, forestry, I fishing
PAGE 22

2) General Housing Characteristics Table 6 (a and b) shows that housing values and rents are lower in Denver than in the S:1SA. According to the data, Denver has more housing units in the low-tomoderate income categories, therefore making it easier for private reinvestment to enter vulnerable or "at risk" neighborhoods. -17-

PAGE 23

I ..... 00 I FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1980 VALUE for specified Owner-Occupied H.U. PRICE ASKED for specified Vacant for Sale H.U. SMSA Denver SMSA No. of indiv. as a % No. of indiv. as a % No. of indiv. as a % (l,OOO's) of total (l,OOO's) of total (l,OOO's) pf total Total Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $29,999 $30,000 to $59,999 $60,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Negligible 313 100.0 1 .3 9 3.0 84 27 .o 168 53a7 52 16.5 I 87 100.0 7 -. .3 -5 6.0 -35 40.0 1 37 42.3 4 10 11.4 2 SOURCE: u.s. Bureau of the Census. 1982. Census of Housing 1980: Characteristics of Housing Units, General Housing Characteristics, Colorado (HC80-1A-7). Washington, D.C.: u.s. Government Printing Office, Table 48. 100.0 .3 1.5 18.0 53.0 27.0 Denver No. of indiv. (1, 0001 s) 1 -1 1 -as a % of total 100.0 .5 4.0 37.0 44.0 14.8

PAGE 24

I .... \0 I I SMSA No. of indiv. (l ,0001 s) Total I 220 $50 to $150 31 $150 to $250 84 $250 to $400 81 I I $400 or more 18 --SOURCE: See Table 6a. FOR DENVER AND THE SMSA, 1980 s --CONTRACT RENT ified Rent 0 Denver as a % No. of indiv. of total (l,OOO's) 100.0 0 103 14.2 22 38.3 42 37.0 32 8.3 5 ------ied H.U as a % of total 100.0 21.5 40.8 31.0 5.0 RENT ASKED Specified Vacant for Rent H.U. SMSA Denver No. of indiv. as a % No. of indiv. as a % (l,OOO's) of total (l,OOO's) of total 19 I 100.0 10 1no.o 2 12.6 2 20. 1 6 31.3 3 30.7 8 41.7 3 32.7 2 10.0 1 8.0

PAGE 25

PART B -INTERPRETATION OF HOUSING DEMAND TRENDS: DENVER AND THE SMSA This phase of the study examines housing demand trends for the City and County of Denver, and for the surrounding counties forming the Denver-Boulder SMSA. The purpose is to illustrate changes in the various income 1 groups of families and unrelated individuals since 1970 to assess their implications for housing markets in Denver and the SMSA. An aggragate of the seven counties in the Denver-Boulder SMSA was employed to insure exact comparability of the area boundaries used for both 1970 and 1980. The City of Denver There are some very marked trends in Denver's population since 1970, as distributed by income categories (See Table 7)o These trends hold significant implications for the City's housing market, and the potential for the gentrifi-cation of Denver's neighborhoods. For instance, the total number of families has declined slightly in Denver, while the total number of individuals increased substantially. In both cases, the absolute amount of those in the low income group changed the least, remaining quite stable. Families in the high income group declined at roughly three times the rate of the decline in total Denver families during the same period. Both the high and moderate income individuals increased at a faster rate than the 50 percent increase in total individuals (at 82 percent and 74 percent respectively). 1 The Census definitions of the terms "families" and "unrelated individuals" are included in the Appendix A. See footnote 1 at the bottom of Table 7 for definitions of low, moderate, and high income categories. -20-

PAGE 26

TABLE 7 INDICATORS OF TOTAL HOUSING DEMAND FOR DENVER 1 Families Low income Moderate income High income TOTAL Individuals Low income Moderate income High income TOTAL Families and Individuals Low income Moderate income High income TOTAL -16 101 10 127 -29 48 4 83 37 136 13 185 (Numbers in 1,000's) 1984 16 16 95 93 8 7 119 116 36 32 87 102 8 9 126 I 143 I I I 39 I 41 159 171 14 14 ; 212 i 226 I 1990 1995 16 16 89 86 6 5 111 107 34 35 124 142 11 13 169 190 I 42 44 I I 184 197 I 15 16 l 241 257 1Low income families are those at or below 125 percent o-fi the poverty level. High income families earned $50,000 + in 1980, with adjustments for inflation for other years (see Appendix B for methodology). Moderate income families are the remaining portion of the total. The same breakdown applies to individuals, except high income individuals earned $25,000 + in 1980. 2soURCE: u.s. Bureau of the Census, 1983. Census of Population, 1970: General Social and Economic Characteristics, Colorado (PC(1)-C-7). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Tables 89 and 124, 3soURCE: u.s. Bureau of the Census, 1983. Census of Population, 1980: Characteristics of the Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics, Colorado (PC 80-1-C-7). Washington, D.C.: u.s. Government Printing Office, Tables 180 and 181. 4 The figures for "Families" and for "Individuals" do not add up to equal the figures for "Families and Individuals" because an additional calculation was introduced to adjust the figures for individuals who share living quarters (see Appendix B). -21-

PAGE 27

The combined total of families and unrelated individuals (the "demanders" of housing units) is utilized as the measured unit of demand. While this combined total cannot be said to equate directly to demand for housing units, fluctuations of this total do impact the housing market and serve as an indicator of demand. An adjustment for the tenden.cy of individuals to share living quarters has been made (as detailed in the methodology section in B) enabling this unit of demand to more precisely indicate true market changes. An examination of the combination of families and individuals shown in Table 7 reveals a 14 percent increase in total housing demand for the City of Denver from 1970 to 1980. In comparison, total demand in the low and high income groups of families-plus-individuals increased only 7 percent,each. Of most significance is that total demand in the moderate income group here increased 17 percent for the same period. Keeping in mind that families of all income levels declined, the Table shows that any demand pressure on Denver's low income housing market can be primarily attributed to the increases in the number of moderate income individuals. This has the most relevance for gentrification potential, especially considering that another section of this study shows persons aged 25 to 34 contributed to a large portion of Denver's net population increase, The "urban pioneers" who initiate the gentrification process are typically described as young,moderate income professionals buying homes for the first time. Thus, Denver's large influx of moderate income individuals and its rapid growth in the number of persons ages 25 to 34 means a substantial increase in the area's pool of potential gentrifiers. Any remaining pressure on the supply of lower cost homes is the result of increases in the number of high income individuals. -22-

PAGE 28

The Denver-Boulder SNSA Table 8 gives a somewhat different picture for the larger SMSA area. Total families increased 35 percent, and the number of families in the low income groups changed the least for both SMSA families and individuals. The increase in the of low and moderate income families exceeded the rate of increase in total families. The absolute number of high income individuals nearly tripled, and the moderate income individuals also increased at a faster rate than did total individuals (a total which more than doubled, 136,576 in 1970 as compared to 282,990 in 1980). In terms of the combined total SMSA housing demand, Table 8 shows a 55 percent increase in combined families and individuals (from 391,972 units of demand in 1970 to 60g,257 in 1980). In this combined category, the moderate and high income housing demand grew the most (59 percent and 57 percent respectively), with the least change in demand for housing by the low income group. This data shows that most of the Metropolitan area growth occurred outside of the central city. -23-

PAGE 29

TABLE 8 INDICATORS OF TOTAL HOUSING DEMAND FOR THE DENVER-BOULDER SMSA 1 Families Low income Moderate income High income TOTAL Individuals Low income Moderate income High income TOTAL Families and Individuals Low income Moderate income High income TOTAL 29 2 '52 25 :lo7 46 84 7 137 .)8 305 29 392 1980 3 34 347 33 414 67 198 18 283 80 483 46 609 1984 1990 I 36 39 I 385 442 I 36 i 41 457 522 : 75 : 87 243 310 24 i 33 I I 342 429 I I ' 89 104 559 676 I 53 66 701 I 845 i 1For definitions see footnotes "1" and "4" of Table 7. 1995 41 490 45 575 97 365 41 503 117 776 77 970 2sOURCE: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1972. Census Population, 1970: General Social and Economic Characteristics, Colorado (PC(1)-C-7). D.C.: u.s. Government Printing Office. Tables 80 and 124. 3soURCE: u.s. Bureau of the Census, 1983. Census of the Population, 1980: Characteristics of the Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics. Colorado (PC 80-1-C-7). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Tables 180 and 181. -24-

PAGE 30

PART C FACTORIAL ECOLOGY 1) Purpose: Factor analysis is a technique used to eliminate statistical redundancy among variables. Its application to census tract data yields a "factorial ecology" which demonstrates variation in composite variables across an urban region. To do so, several variables are combined and reduced into summary factors. These summary factors can then be identified and characterized. For each of the variables within a summary factor, a factor score coefficient is derived. Each variable's coefficient may range from positive one to negative one. Thus, the summary factor reflects several variables and their complex inter-relationships one another. For example: median household income, percentage of families below poverty level, gross rent as a percent of income, and median contract rent could all be combined into one factor, that could be called the "economic" characteristics. Within this swmnary factor, median contract rent would probably have an inverse relationship with percentage of families below the poverty level. While median contract rent increases, the percentage of families below the poverty level would decrease within the census tract. In order to characterize each census tract, a score is derived for each summary factor and the score can range from positive to negative. This rating can then be used to compare census tracts relative to one another or to the city as a whole. 2) Results: Twelve socioeconomic and housing variables were examined and reduced by -25-

PAGE 31

the factorial analysis into summary factors. The variables used were: median household income, percentage of families below the poverty level, median education, percentage of single family units and duplexes, percentage of structures over 30 years in age, percentage of movers who arrived within the last five years, percentage of gross rent as a percentage of income for families earning less than $10,000, median value of owner-occupied housing units, median contract rent, percentage of persons aged 25 through 34, percentage of persons aged 60 and over, and mean household size. The variables did not load solely within a single family factor. For example, in 1970, median household income loaded significantly within factors one, two, and four. Within factor one, median household.income loaded positively with percentage of persons over 60 years of age. However, within factor two, median household income loaded negatively against the same age variable. To further complicate the characterization, both these variables appeared again within factor four. This same type of contradiction occurred within the 1980 factor analysis. There the variable, percentage of persons 25-34 years of age, appears significant within all four summary factors. Two of the variables in factor two, median household size and percentage of persons 25-34 years of age, loaded together positively. While in factor three median household size loaded negatively against this same age group. Due to these inconsistencies, some of the spatial distributions created by the factorial ecology resulted in inconclusive findings. However, the first summary factors for 1970 and 1980 were consistent within themselves and deemed significant. -26-

PAGE 32

In 1970, the first summary factor accounted for 54 percent of the total variance within the ilmnediate set, a matrix of 124 tracts, and twelve variables. This summary factor was comprised of the following four variables: median household income, median years of education, percentage of persons sixty years of age and older, and median household value. Median household income loaded the highest with a loading of .60 followed by median years of education which had a loading of .32. The percentage of persons 60 years of age and older loaded at .28 and closely following was median housing value with a loading of .21. All of the variables were related positively, which indicates that there is a direct relationship between them, as one increased, the others followed. Clearly, housing value and education are a reflection of income earned. It would seem that income increases with age, and then peaks once a person reaches his/her fifties or sixties. Their increased income would then be expected to affect their choice of housing. Certain general patterns emerged in an analysis of summary factor one's spatial distribution throughout the City and County of Denver. The higher factor scores appeared in the eastern portion of Denver, while the lower scores appeared in the western portion (see Figure 1). This pattern exhibits a significant east-west polarization. In the east portion of Denver, the higher factor scores create an arc from the Stapleton and Montbello neighborhoods in the northeast, through Cherry Creek and Washington Park in central Denver, to the Hampden and Hampden South neighborhoods in the southeast. In the western portion of Denver there appears to be an inner band of neighborhoods with very high negative scores. In each succeeding band to the west the scores decrease -27-

PAGE 33

Ill ... .... ,.. i a: c 0 z 1UJ 0 UJ (') CD _, CD (I) CD < (') I I I I LL. I rt + to-0 CD I -28-

PAGE 34

in intensity, but remain negative. The scores for Five Points, Highland, Jefferson Park, and Baker neighborhoods all fall wthin the innermost band, which exhibits the highest negative scores. It is apparent that within this inner band live Denver's younger, less affluent and less educated residents. In 1980, the first summary factor accounted for 43 percent of the total variance. This summary factor was comprised of the following five variables: median contract rent, percentage of single family and duplex units, median household income, percentage of households below the poverty level, and percentage of persons 25-34 years of age. Contract rent loaded the highest with a loading of .54 followed by percentage of single family and duplex units which had a loading of -.35. Median household income loaded at .32, percentage of house loaded at -.27 and percentage of persons 25-34 years of age followed with a loading of -.22. The relationship of the variables in 1980 is more complex than the one previously discussed for 1970, because of the many inverse relationships involved. Clearly, income and the dollar amount paid for rent are positively linked; they are both inversely related to the percentage of households below the poverty level. It would appear that income increases with age and it is significant that within this factor both rent and persons 25-34 years of age are combined within this single factor. This age group has yet to achieve its potential income level and.generally does not have the income to own a home. The recession of the 1970's coupled with high mortgage interest rates further stifled this age group's ability to own a home. In an analysis of summary factor one's spatial distribution Denver, some of the same general patterns emerged. The higher factor scores -29-

PAGE 35

appeared in the eastern portion of Denver (see Figure 2), while the lower scores appeared in the western portion. This pattern again exhibits a significant east-west dichotomy. In the eastern portion, bands of increasing intensity radiate out from the central core. In the western portion of the city, a pattern develops in which the most intensely negative scores are wrapped around the Platte River and its parallel railroad and industrial corridor. Bands of decreasing negative intensity then radiate westerly until they become positive. The scores for Five Points, Highland, Jefferson Park, and Baker all fall within the innermost band which exhibits the highest negative scores. It is apparent that the lowest income groups and the lowest available rents are present in this innermost band. While these general patterns and conclusions could be arrived at from the factorial ecology, other 2 conclusions from_the results were not as fruitful. Further attempts included: 1 An attempt to compare the summary factors of 1970 with 1980 to derive some meaning proved futile due to the fact the summary factors for the two years were comprised of different variables. An attempt to identify neighborhoods that had begun gentrification between 1970 and 1980 by searching for substantial increases in median household income over that period proved ineffective. The vast majority of neighborhoods experienced an actual decline in their median household income. An attempt to identify neighborhoods for the subsequent case studies by mapping them according to the derived summary factor scores proved ineffective because of the previously mentioned contradictions among the summary factors.! Therefore, a second methodology was devised solely to do this task. Additional Factorial Ecology Maps are found in Appendix c. -30-

PAGE 36

Cit ... ... I :ft . a: . a x' 0 z w fD w co (I) CD ...J (I) I I + < I I I I """ u. + fD ,... I' -31-

PAGE 37

PHASE TWO-MICRQ-SCALE APPROACH: REVITALIZATION AND TRENDS AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD LEVEL -32-

PAGE 38

PART A -THE "GUSS-WEINER" METiiOD Determining Areas of Gentrification The purpose of this method is to identify census tracts and neighborhoods where gentrification is occurring. Twelve socioeconomic and housing variables were selected from both the 1970 and 1980 Census (u.s. Bureau of the Census 1972b and 1983b) for all tracts within the City of Denver. It was reasoned that if certain conditions made a neighborhood a likely candidate for gentrification, these conditions would be reasonably consistent over time. Therefore, by examining the characteristics of neighborhoods known to have begun gentrifying in the early seventies, we were able to reason that in the eighties neighborhoods with similiar characteristics could just as well be gentrifying. In practice this meant selecting the neighborhoods that had undergone gentrification in the early seventies and examining their data for the 12 variables. These neighborhoods were selected by primary knowledge of the areas, and from DiGiovanni's (1983) prior study which included neighborhoods undergoing gentrification in Denver. The neighborhoods selected were City Park West, North Capitol Hill, Five Points, and Capitol Hill. For each variable the highest and lowest numbers were recorded to establish a range for the gentrifying neighborhoods in 1970. The ranges were converted to 1980 equivalents using a straight ratio technique and then calibrated one more time to make sure the ranges were open enough to allow for some variation. Once the ranges were established, a computer was programmed to filter every census tract in the City of Denver through these 12 ranges and list the ones having a perfect fit, those fitting except for one variable, and those fitting except for two variables. -33-

PAGE 39

As we calibrated the ranges for the variables, two ranges were so wide that they ceased to filter or discriminate between any neighborhoods. They were therefore not included in the program; the variables were household size and percent of recent movers. Of the ten tracts used to develop the ranges, six tracts perfect fits, ten tracts fit nine of the ten variables, and 15 tracts fit eight of the ten variables. Of the four neighborhoods (City Park West, Capitol North Capitol Hill, and parts of Five Points), three remained in 1980 as perfect Only Capitol Hill, which has received the most gentrification, ceased to be a perfect fit (see Figure 3). The neighbor-hoods identified after agglomerating the census tracts were: -ten variable fit-Civic Center, North Capitol Hill, City Park West (north side), Five Points (north of 23rd and east of Champa) -nine variable fit-City Park West (south), Cole, Five Points (the remainder), Baker, La Alma/ Lincoln Park (east of Kalamath, south west of Speer, and north of 6th Ave.), West Colfax (west half), Jefferson Park, Highland (east of Tejon) -eight variable fitSwansea, Globeville, Clayton, Skyland, Whittier, La Alma/Lincoln Park (the remainder), Sun Valley, Valverde, Westwood (east half), West Colfax (east half), Sloans Lake (east portion), Sunnyside (south of 44th Ave.), Highland (west portion), Capitol Hill (north of lOth and west of Pearl) Conclusions: Neighborhoods experiencing gentrification in the 70's may still be experiencing it. Many diverse factors can have an effect upon the rate at which gentrification occurs and the length of time required before an area's demographics are changed substantially. While many neighborhoods may become saturated with gentrification, other existing neighborhoods become attractive as the next best site. -34-

PAGE 40

----GENTRIFICATION STUDY /DENVER STUDIO II

PAGE 41

I w V1 I ; 8 9 10 83.03 LEGEND ....---. I:::::: :1 1<> ............ /
PAGE 42

While many neighborhoods may fit the identified socio-economic and housing varibles, the likelihood of their gentrifying is small because of their distance from downtown. Selecting Neighborhoods for Study Due to time constraints, it was necessary to narrow down the number of neighborhoods to be Dsed for case studies. While the previous method did provide a smaller pool of neighborhoods to select from, it soon became clear that only three or four could be pursued in depth. Three criteria for selection were established: 1) The neighborhoods should be from as many parts of the city as possible. 2) The neighborhoods should be located near downtown Denver. 3) The should be in the middle stages of gentrification, (therefore number nines) The selected neighborhoods were Jefferson Park and Highland (which were studied as a single neighborhood) to the immediate northwest of downtown, Five Points to the immediate northeast, and Baker to the south (see Figure 4). -36-

PAGE 43

FIGURE 4 NEIGHBORHOODS SELECTED FOR STUDY DENVER NEIGHBORHOODS CJ--selected neighborhoods -37-

PAGE 44

PART B -AN OVERVIEW: REVITALIZATION AND CHANGE IN THREE DENVER NEIGHBORHOODS During the 60's and early 70's, the primary concern facing those charged with managing America's urban centers was the decline of the inner-city neighborhoods. There were multiple causes leading up to this situation. The housing stock within the central cities was aging and deteriorating. At the same time, less dense, newer housing was available in the suburbs. Ease of commuting, facilitated by the large expressway systems, made relocation to these areas more attractive. Forced bussing to integrate schools and higher crime rates within the central cities were "push" factors contributing to the "white flight" that eroded the financial strength of the older neighborhoods and the central city as a whole. In addition, federal housing programs were primarily geared towards assisting ownership of new homes through low interest mortgages, with comparatively little assistance for the upgrading of existing housing. The private sector behaved similarly towards the inner-city, by restricting reinvestment in these older, high risk areas through a practice known as "redlining". Today the situation is entirely different. A combination of factors have stemmed the flow of the middle class to the suburbs, and have rekindled the attractiveness of the inner-city residences to today's generation of homebuyers. In response to the deterioration of these areas, public actions under the Department of Housing and Urban Development and public programs such as urban renewal were designed to rehabilitate existing housing and revitalize core city areas. Private market forces also aided in this transition. Inflation and spiraling interest rates made the suburban housing increasingly hard to afford, while the central city housing remained inexpensive -38-

PAGE 45

in comparison. Even the cost of land in the suburbs increased; home buyers were purchasing smaller and more expensive lots, Low density sprawl coupled with rising fuel prices made long distance commuting unappealing, consuming greater amounts of time and money. Thus, the concern that the urban area's inner-neighborhoods are deteriorating is being heard less frequently. The new concern being voiced by more and more neighborhood organizations is that the renewed interest and speculation of the wealthier groups is raising the cost of their housing beyond their ability to pay. This creates a paradox for today's city officials; older, declining neighborhoods are often improving, but at the expense of the lower income residents, who may be displaced as a result. Gentrification is the term given to the return of private market housing activity to central city residential areas. It involves the rehabilitation of the housing stock in such areas, accompanied by an increase in the number of middle and upper income residents who move into vacant or previously occupied housing. Displacement is of two types. Residents may be directly replaced or indirectly forced to move because of increasing housing costs. Gentrification is widely recognized as a phenomenon currently taking place, and numerous studies investigating this situation are now available. Micheal H. Lang's (1982) study identifies some physical characteristics acting as prerequisites for gentrification. Unique architectural styles, safety, centrality, good vistas, and amenities are a few examples. According to his theory, young, professional urbanites moving from other areas within the central city pioneer the declining neighborhoods. Their improvements are highly noticeable in these areas, and they form a critical mass that begins the trend -39-

PAGE 46

of revitalization. Important components in his theory are: 1. Renters are at higher risk of diplacement. 2. Gentrification effects small portions of neighborhoods at any one time resultDng in a gradual and insidious process. 3. Public investments may promote secondary displacement by improving one area, thus attracting private speculators to invest in nearby areas. Another gentrification study by Frank F. DeGiovanni (1983) analyzes four stage theories of gentrification. The theories describe the gentrification process as beginning slowly, growing, and increasing in distinct phases. He believes the stage theories to be inadequate descriptions of the process. Also, changes in gentrification indicators such as the amount of renovation activity, sales prices, sales volume, and conversion of rental properties from renter to owner occupancy are often abrupt, discontinuous, and simultaneous. DeGiovanni concludes that gentrification activity can be tracked by monitoring these and other indicators, but these indicators do not illustrate a sequential framework of the process of change. In fact, he notes the failure to observe the expected sequence of changes is due to the influence of nationwide economic forces on local housing markets. DeGiovanni's conclusion about the influence of national trends on local housing markets is evident within Denver and Denver's neighborhoods. The resurgence in the national housing market during the 1976 to 1979 period (see Figure 5) strongly influenced the housing markets examined here. Figure 6 graphically shows this peak period. The recession that followed is again reflected as sales volume drops sharply for these local markets. The same holds true for the increased cost of housing, Housing nationwide has rapidly -40-

PAGE 47

I .&:-....... I FIGURE 5 :S'fAH.rrs AND MORTGAGE RATES 110 3000 .. .... J:l 2600 HOUSING STARTS ... e !:I = 110 ...... li ::s 2000 . . 0 . . . ..c:l . . E-4 .. 1600 . . . .. 110 .. t-4 .. cd 1000 .. C'll bD MORTGAGE RATES J:l .... 600 112 ::s 0 = 0 1972 1973 1974 1976 1979 Year Sources: Standard and Poor's Corporation. 1983 Standard and Poor's Industry Surveys (Oct. 1983, Vol. 1 Page B and FP 77). New York: Standard Poor's Corp. using data from Federal Home Loan Bank Board, Dept. of Commerce . ' . . . . . .. ... 1983 18 s: 0 16 ., c+ CIQ CIQ 14 (D Sill c+ 12 (D liD I "'tt 10 (D ... (') (D 8 c+ Sill CIQ (D 6

PAGE 48

FIGURE 6 SINGLE F.MllLY (s), MULTI-FAMILY (m), AND CONDOMINIUM (c) TRANSACTIONS, 1972-80: DENVER AND SELECTED NEIGHBORHOODS .20,000 IIOUSING IDIITS UNITS ::ousr::G u:n:-s 10,000 2!50 200 1!50 IQO !5 0 2!5 0 20 0 100 !50 DEiiV:::R ( CITY ) (total units, 1980 = 227,825) :1IG I JEF::C:RSC;; ?ARK (505'1 ?I73 ?O:::I'S/ ( 4-48'7 u:: ts) s m c '72 '74 '76 '78 '80 YEAR 2!50 aoo lBO 100 !50 (2790 units) s m --c CA?ITOL H!LL (3377 units) -----------LA ALi"U/ 1r;;co1:; F..1.Rr: (814 units) m s a: '72 '74 '76 '78 'eo YEAR SOURCE: Denver Planning Office. 1977, 1978, and 1982. Housing Detail Reports. available from the Denver Planning Office. -42-

PAGE 49

become more expensive, and Figure 7 shows this to be the case in Denver and the Denver neighborhoods. The vitality of the national housing market during this peak period facilitated speculation and stimulated the inner city markets. DeGiovanni's study considered speculation to be an indicator of gentrification. While this is an appropriate indicator, it is necessary to use as large a sample size as possible. Tbis report utilized comprehensive coverage of all housing sales in Denver (Denver Planning Office 1977, 1978, and 1982). During the five year period preceeding 1978, for instance, 8.3 percent of Denver's single family housing stock was sold twice or more, while comparable percentages for the three neighborhoods studied were less than this 8.3 percent. Four years later during the peak period of housing sales, 7.9 percent of Denver's single family housing had been sold twice or more during the preceeding year period. At this time, however, the percentage of single family units sold twice or more in each of the neighborhoods easily exceeded the Denver percentage. In fact, Baker's percentage reached 15.0 percent, almost twice that of Denver. Figure 8 illustrates this trend. The high degree of housing sales during the peak period had an effect on the neighborhoods' populations. Key questions in relation to gentrification are, what percent of an area's residents have not recently moved, and for those who moved, where did they come from? In all three of the case study neighborhoods examined here, only about one-third of the residents remained in the same house from 1975 to 1980 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1983b). More than half of the residents who had moved came from within the City of Denver. Less than a third moved into the neighborhoods from areas outside the central -43-

PAGE 50

,....... C.IJ < H H 0 A rz. 0 CJ) Q z < ::.1 ::J Q E-' FIGURB 7 SALE PRICE, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED UNITS, 1970-80: 60 50 40 30 DENVFR AND NEIGHBORHOODS HAVING HIGH OR MODERATE GENTklFICATION POTENTIAL I"' 11 1970 'liLLA PA;tX HIGHLAND PARK COl.E BAKER LA ALMA/LINCOLN PARK FIVE POINTS/CURTIS PARK '-" ,_, 0 H ,.... 0: H < CJ) 0 < w > < 2 0 10 '7 0 '72 '74 '76 '78 'eo SOURCE: Denver Planning Office. 1977, 1978, and 1982. Housing Detail Reports. available from the Denver Planning Office. -44-

PAGE 51

E !1 h ,.. t, .!!. n r 0 I ,to. F VI I H \ ,. F II I ,, I" 1-) i ") i L .. 1 lU 7.5 t' .J --- nnu o:>J:.LJ:.I...LCU lY/4-1982. I"' 't c 11 .. f SI"U1 c .IP..1 Jl' :",r.:.::; 0 ;t _.a-----. ___ ..... __ .. ---... ...... --------------__________ __p __ _.....:; ..rlili:--::.--------&--==--rpo .. ----/. ---------... -,, ""'I'. --u-=----------D ---8 <>----,_,_, t{' 2 -.... -.....::..:aa. ..- ....... n r"=>L... ........ .._,. __ ._..,..__.... __ -:--"_.,"_i -' 1 .... : 'L 1 : 't "i .f l '; ; i; ; . r: t 1 G q 1 .: i ,, 0 J f i -. : t. u l'i :: 0 .-Ill .. 1.1 ': ...... ) ,. "1 .L"rs 1978 to : .. Denver t:. EclJ{erO I1oinL: ll J,fL.=!!lon Pat'k SOURCE: Denver Planning Office. 1977, 1978, and 1982. Housing Detail Reports. available from the Denver Planning Office.

PAGE 52

city. This supports Lang's (1982) assertion that the major contributor of new residents is not the suburbs, but the central city. If gentrification is truly a significant component of the change taking place in the case study areas, the new residents would be of a higher income group. Figure 9 reveals that such a shift in income has occurred. All the case study neighborhoods are located in the lower right quadrant, meaning they experienced a decline in the number of households earning $30,000 and an increase in the number of households earning $30,000 or more. The influx of newcomers is often attributed to the attraction the CBD offers both in terms of social activities and employment. Clearly, the cultural amenities exist and can serve to draw in residents. The employment factor, however, and the desire to avoid the disadvantages of commuting is more frequently cited as a reason for inner city living. The Census provides insight into this situation by revealing where the residents of the case study neighborhoods are employed. In all three areas, only about 10% of the workers are employed in the CBD, and this figure declined slightly from 1970 to 1980 (U.S. Bureau of the Census l972b and 1983b). The bulk of those employed do work within the City of Denver proper, but outside the CBD. Thus, while they are not working in the CBD in greater numbers, locational advantages in commuting time may still apply. 2) A Suggestive Model of Gentrification The model developed here examined gentrification fromtwo levels, a macro and micro level. First, national trends serve to focus gentrification pressures on regions. The national migration trend, from the industrial northeast to the -46-

PAGE 53

FIGURE 9 HOUSEHOLD INCOME SHIFT, 1970-80, BY GENTRIFICATION POTENTIAL (MEASURED IN CONSTANT 1980 DOLLARS) VILLA PARK 251) GLOBEVILLE c-_ ..2 ty I (, VALVERDE -30 GEHTRI FI<..:I\'riOil POTENTIAL @) i!IGII MEDIUI'-1 0 LOW -1 0 lJ N VALLEY -500 l..;ilANGE IN NUMDEH 0? IIOUSEHOLDS EI\RUING UNDER $30,000, 1()?0-00 --0 --3o -0 -60 l::L Y: III\ CliAHGE IN NUMBER BAKE II IWHTH ALI;J./ OF HOUSEHOLDS 11!1 LIIICOLii PAHK EARNING OR 11-IORE, 1970-80 :IIG!!I,AHD/t!)' J !'ARK tooo CAPITOL nVi:. POINTS/ @ CUII'l'IS PARK HILL SOURCE: Denver Regional Council of Governments. 1983o Profiles of 1970-1980 Socioeconomlc Change by County and Census Tract. Denver, CO: Public Affairs Office, Denver Regional Council of Governmentso -47-

PAGE 54

southwest sunbelt states, has resulted in large population increases within the Denver region, &1d has increased the pressure on local housing markets. The most mobile individuals are those aged 25 to 34, and growth in this group has increased the pool of potential gentrifiers within the region. As previously mentioned, the national housing market seriously affects the ability of these potential gentrifiers to participate in the market and become homeowners. Thus, whenever there is a strong housing market, gentrification activities increase. This was the case in the Denver market during the 1976 to 1979 period. Without this type of boom, gentrification would have occurred, but certainly at a much reduced scale. Second, when these factors come together (population increases, rising demand, and a healthy housing market) and gentrification pressures exist in a given region, those neighborhoods that are particularly vulnerable may be identified. To begin with, the neighborhoods experiencing increased market pressures are those with aging, deteriorating housing available at a lower price than new suburban homes. Along with the criteria of low cost, certain lifestyle preferences have emerged as factors in gentrified neighborhoods. Proximity to the CBD, the existence of colorful architectural styles, amenities such as parks, speciality retail shops, and irregular street patterns all influence preference. Many neighborhoods may fit the above description. The ones eventually gentrifying have additional characteristics. They are unable to deter encroachment because they lack the capacity for organized resistance. Social cohesion is low and organized political activity is also usually lacking. -48-

PAGE 55

Areas with strong neighborhood organizations and a sense of cultural and community identity are better suited for resistance to outside pressures. The additional factor relates to the goals of the city administration. If they are interested in upgrading residential areas to strengthen the tax base and are inclined to be pliant to the desires of those who profit from urban revitalization, the neighborhoods targeted by these parties have a high probability of gentrifying. This interrelates with the other factors, particularly the strength of the neighborhood organizations. Baker exemplifies this additional factor well, as the "One Broadway" development demonstrates the relationship between the city and the developers. The neighborhood also seems to lack a high degree of community identity and social interaction, given the large amount of rental units and the significant traffic flows that partition the area. Five Points best demonstrates the centrality criteria, as it has the feeling of actually being a part of the CBD. Its streets are merely extensions of the downtown's angled street pattern; in no other neighborhood does this extension occur. Highland and Jefferson Park exemplify the same factors but in the opposite manner. The viaducts across the Central Platte Valley make trips to the CBD easy, but this valley and the neighborhood's higher elevation create psychological barriers making it seem further away from downtown than it really is. In terms of the neighborhood's social cohesion, the Hispanic community has concentrated in this area, increasing its ability to resist gentrification. The area is also politically active, and has many efforts in process to stem the pressures created by gentrification. These efforts are being carried out -49-

PAGE 56

by several non-profit housing corporations, neighborhood associations, and the district councilman's office. These two factors help to explain why gentrification in the area has been minimal. The following section discusses in greater detail the study neighborhoods and the forces of change operating in these three nef.ghborhoods. -50-

PAGE 57

PART C STUDY OF SELECTED NEIGHBORHOODS 1 FIVE POINTS Location The Five Points neighborhood is bounded on the north by the South Platte River and 38th Street, on the east by Downing Street, on the south by East 20th Avenue and Park Avenue, and on the west by 20th Street. The neighborhood is northeast and adjdcent to the Central Business District. The terrain slopes gently to the west providing panoramic views of mountains. Living in this neighorhood is almost like living downtown; Five Points has the same diagonal street pattern as the CBD does. History and DescriptLon1 Five Points was one of the first residential neighborhoods in Denver. The southwest section of the neighborhood was part of the Congressional Grant establishing Denver in 1859. The remainder of the neighborhood became part of the City under the Territorial Session Laws of 1874 and the State Session Laws of 1883. The name "Five Points" originated as a description of the peculiar inter-section of Welton Street, Washington Street, 27th Street, and 26th Avenue; which together form an imaginary five-pointed star. The Five Points neighborhood is one of Denver's most transitional and largest with its 1,123 acre area 1 Sources for the history of Five Points were from Denver Planning Office (1974) and Harris (1984). -51-

PAGE 58

(see Figure 10). A detrimental mixture of land uses, an abundance of public housing, noise and aLr pollution, and poor traffic circulation have greatly contributed to maintaining Five Points as one of the lowest income neighborhoods in the City. Prior to the 1920's, Five Points was a respectable middle class neighborhood. However, the Depression marked the beginning of the decline of the neighborhood. During the period of the Depression and World War II the neighborhood was very overcrowded. At the end of World War II, many of the returning black soldiers used their military savings to move out of Five Points into the more attractive residential neighborhoods to the east. This pattern of outmigration continued as black families became more affluent. When these families moved from the Five Points neighborhood, they retained ownership of their homes; however, these single family units often were converted to multi-units for rental purposes. This switch in tenure and type of housing unit increased the tendency toward dilapidation and blight and generally contributed to the deterioration of the neighborhood. As housing units severelydeteriorated, they were abandoned and/or demolished. As a result, the number of housing units decreased by 40 percent between 1950 and 1974 from 7,090 units to 4,357 units. Although the elimination of many of the more marginal units was favorably viewed, the neighborhood remained a picture of poverty and blight. In 1969, over half of the families in Five Points had incomes below the $4,000 per year poverty level and the average value of owner occupied homes was only $9,500, as compared to $16,800 for the city of Denver. In spite of these figures, the neighborhood exhibited some excellent examples of Victorian, Gothic, and Italianate architecture. -52-

PAGE 59

""" Q .s E tl) CG a .a CG I "0 CG 0 tl) (j CG a c s:. a. ... ... 't: CG Q) a u 'tJ ..L a I Ol a a "' E (I) >. .a CG ... E 'tJ I j! .s CG 0 'tJ E .s (I) a. 0' a. u tl) 1m [l]]JEJIJ I ... ., .. : I "C CIJ 0 0 ..... 0 ...... c s .c ... a. 0 :::l .c C.!) C1) .c H .c > a IL. u::: "Q) e z -53-

PAGE 60

1 Recent Public In 1970, a private non-profit organization was founded in Denver called Historic Denver Inc. The main thrust of Historic Denver's efforts has been the preservation and restoration of architecturally significant structures in Denver; much of this effort in turn has been directed towards single-family homes in the Five neighborhood. Historic Denver has helped raise and channeled over $2 million in improvements into Five Points. More specifically, Historic Denver acquired and distributed $500,000 in grants to low-income residents for facade and structural This program provided 43 homes with fresh paint. new roofs, fences, and sidewalks. A $75,000 fund was established to buy houses abandoned by their owners. The houses are then resold to persons for the same price; however, the new owners must agree to certain restrictive covenants (i.e., owner occupancy, rehabilitation and maintenance), get Historic Denver approval of all exterior changes, and prohibit demolition. So far ten homes have been bought using the revolving fund. A sum of $230,000 was acquired and distributed for original flagstone sidewalk repairs and replacements, as well as sod and wrought iron fences for homes. Additionally, Historic Denver was given four homes (scheduled for demolition) by the Denver Housing Authority and moved these homes to sights purchased from the Denver Urban Renewal Authority at a bargain price, renovated them, 1source for information about public investments by Historic Denver was Ditmer (1984). -54-

PAGE 61

and sold them to low-income families. Historic Denver has also been instrumental in strengthening the neighborhood's residential fabric by actively lobbying city officials to prevent industrial intrusion., Their efforts have the City to buy 3/4 of a block from the Greyhound Bus Company, for a proposed bus maintenance facility, and then reselling it to a developer to build contemporary townhouses with a Victorian flavor. In addition, $440,000 was made available to the Five Points commercial district by the Denver Community Development Agency as part of their Neighborhood Business Revitalization Program (Community Development Agency 1984). These funds originated from Community Development Block Grants. Of these funds, $211,000 went for public improvements and $229,000 went for new building facades. The Five Points commercial district is on Welton Street between 25th Street and 28th Street. This commercial district had greatly deteriorated over the years, and it was generally agreed that in order to preserve some of the neighborhood's minority identity then the Welton commercial strip would need revitalization. This effort has been successful. Socioeconomic and Housing Trends The Five Points neighborhood had experienced significant and measurable change in its housing and socioeconomic fabric since 1970. Data for both the neighborhood and Census Tract 25 is analyzed. Census Tract 25 has been singled out because it is a particularly small tract (containing only 43 single family homes in 1982) and it was felt that by disaggregating the data in this fashion then some of the more radical fluctuations occuring in the neighborhood would become more apparent. -55-

PAGE 62

The most easily-recognizable change has been socioeconomic. Table 9 compares 1970 and 1980 u.s. Census data on socioeconomic indicators. 1970 dollar ranges have been converted to 1980 dollars using the historic Consumer Price Indexes for the Denver/Boulder SMSA (Denver Regional Council of Governments 1983). Table 9 quickly affirms the highly transitional nature of the neighborhood, beyond any gentrification-induced change. Population and households decreased by 22.7 percent and 1.3 percent respectively between 1970 and 1980. However, the racial composition of the neighborhood has remained virtually unchanged. Slightly higher percentage decreases in population and households were experienced in Census Tract 25. An analysis of income distribution data for Five Points and Census Tract 25 yields evidence of the gentrification-induced change occuring. The number of households earning less than $30,000 per year decreased from 4,760 to 3,738, a loss of 1,022 households for a net change of -27.3 percent. Interestingly enough, the neighborhood lost households between 1970 and 1980. Of those 1,037 households, 98.6 percent were lower income households. In contrast, the number of households earning in excess of $30,000 per year increased 25.2 percent. A look at Census Tract 25 magnifies these figures. In Tract 25, those households earning less than $30,000 decreased 42.9 percent. This is significant, however, not as significant as the changes occuring in upper income categories. Those households earning over $30,000 per year increased by 1200 percent. Similar trends in occupational distribution are occuring. Specifically, two occupational categories were compared; professional and service. Census data shows that the number of persons employed in managerial, professional, -56-

PAGE 63

Five Points Census Tract 25 Data Item 1970 1980 % 1970 1980 % Total Persons 13,067 10,100 -22.7 1,349 1,004 -25.6 Anglo 1,881 1,591 Black 5,122 3,912 Hispanic 5,476 4,146 Other 588 451 25-34 672 1,550 130.7 6C+ 1,882 l t 621 -16.1 Total Households 4,875 3,838 -21.3 760 515 -32.2 Year-Round Housing Units 5,380 4,488 -16.6 Vacant Housing Units 505 650 28.7 Owner-Occupied Housing Units 757 766 1.2 I Renter-Occupied Housing Units 4,118 3,072 25.4 VI 1 ....... Houshold Income I Less than $15,000 4.120 3.202 -22.3 667 424 -36.4 $15,000 to $29,999 640 536 -16.3 91 48 -47.3 $30,000 to $49,999 73 110 50.7 2 13 550.0 $50,000 to $74,999 20 24 20.0 0 7 $75,000 and More 22 10 54.5 0 6 Occupation Managerial, Professional Technical, Sales & Administration 750 1,095 46.0 231 279 20.8 Service Occupations 1,364 822 -39.7 182 42 -76.9 Years of School Completed Elementary 0-8 yrs. 3,436 2,012 -41.4 497 197 =-60.4 High School -3 yrs. 1.651 1,356 -17.9 209 186 -11.0 High School -4 or more yrs. 1,218 1,190 -2.3 155 132 -14.8 College -1-3 yrs. 240 577 140.4 27 73 170.4 College -4 more yrs. 110 325 195.5 18 43 138.9 1 Income is adjusted for inflation. SOURCE: Denver Regional Council of Governmentso 1983. Profiles of 1970-80 Socioeconomic Change by and Census Tract. Denver, CO: Public Affairs Office, Denver Regional Council of Governments.

PAGE 64

technical, sales, and administration professions increased by 20.8 percent in Census Tract 25. These figures become even more meaningful when coupled with the loss in tht service professions. Those persons employed in service professions declined 39.7 percent in Five Points and 76.9 percent in Census Tract 25. An analysis of the educational background of persons in the neighborhood will complete the socioeconomic profile of Five Points. The number of people with a high school education or less decreased from 6,305 persons in 1970, to 4,558 persons in 1980, a 27.7 percent decline. Those persons with one or more years of college increased form 350 to 902 persons or 157.7 percent. Similar losses and gains appeared in Census Tract 25. Housing data in Table 9 is concise, but says a lot. While the number of housing units is declining, the number of vacancies are increasing alarmingly fast. The most significant housing figure in Table 9, however, is the rapid decline in the number of renter-occupied housing units. This loss is most attributable to the demolition of many resident hotels in the neighborhood. An overview of the socioeconomic data provides us with a profile of the type of change occurjng in Five Points. Let's first look at the losses. Between 1970 and 1980, Five Points declined by 2,967 persons and 1,037 households. In addition, households earning less than $30,000 per year declined in number by 1,017. There were 524 fewer persons working in service occupations and 1,747 fewer persons with high school or less education. The less educated, lower income individuals and households are leaving the neighborhood in significant numbers. -58-

PAGE 65

Conversely, during this same time period, many well-educated, high-income professional individuals and households are appearing in the neighborhood. Not only are gentrifiersmoving into Five Points, but a disproportionate number of incumbants seem to be leaving. Housing Market There are several significant housing trends occuring in the Five Points neighborhood. Although Table 10 highlights housing sales volume in Denver, Five Points, and Census Tract 25, the most radical changes taking place are those connected with the number of housing units in existence. Five Points lost more than 1t3 of its multi-family housing units between 1977 and 1981. In Census Tract 25, 42.6 percent of multi-family units were lost. Most of these multi-family units were lost due to demolitions; however, several were converted to single family units. As proof, the number of single family units is increasing in the absence of any new construction of single family homes in the neighborhood. With regards to single family housing sales volume, Five Points has been relatively active. In 1977, Five Points lagged slightly behind Denver in its single family housing sales (as a percentage of total units); however, the neighborhood had appreciably higher percentages of units sold in the years 1978 and 1981. A at the single family sales volume trends occuring in Census Tract 25 is a good illustration of the radical fluctuations occuring at the disaggregated level. More significant than the above changes is the increasing average sales price of single family homes in the neighborhood, especially in comparison to -59-

PAGE 66

TABLE 10 COMPARATIVE HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS FOR DENVER, FIVE POINTS, AND CENSUS TRACT 25 IN SELECTED YEARS 1977 1978 1981 Denver Total Single Family Housing Units 108,645 110,125 111,644 Single Family Housing Units Sold 13,367 13,119 7,416 Percent of Single Family Units Sold 12.3 11o9 6.6 Total Condos 17,964 Condos Sold 2,533 2,824 Percent of Condos SoLd Total Multi-Family Housing Units 88,209 Multi-Family Housing Units Sold 1,740 972 Percent of Multi-Family Units Sold Five Points Total Single Family !-lousing Units 953 1,075 1,148 Single Family Housing Units Sold 105 180 100 Percent of Single Fa:nily Units Sold 11.0 16.7 8.7 Total Condos 0 0 31 Condos Sold 0 0 1 Percent of Condos Sold 0 0 3.2 Total Multi-Family Housing Units 3,112 2,716 1,982 Multi-Family Housing Units Sold 102 64 29 Percent of Multi-Family Units Sold 3.3 2.4 1.5 Census Tract 25 Total Single Family Housing Units 31 44 41 Single Family Housing Units Sold 5 1 9 Percent of Single Family Units Sold 16.1 2.3 22.0 Total Condos 0 0 6 Condos Sold 0 0 .1 Percent of Condos Sold 0 0 16.7 Total Multi-Family Huusing Units 629 581 361 Multi-Family Housing Units Sold 3 1 3 Percent of Multi-Family Units Sold 0.5 0.2 0.8 SOURCE: Denver Planning Office. 1977, 1978, and 1982. Housing Detail Reports. Available from the Denver Planning Office. -60-

PAGE 67

the city of Denver. The average sales price of a single family home, in Denver, rose by 183 percent between 1974 and 1982 (see Figure 11). In Five Points, over the same time period, the average sales price of a single family home rose 637 percent. ln Census Tract 25, the average sales price of a single family home increased 787 percent between 1975-1981. Althougn Denver's average sales price remains higher than Five Points, the gap is narrowing quickly. Housing Transactions: Case Studies In an attempt to isolate gentrification-related housing activity, ten single family homes were randomly chosen and sales activity for these homes recorded. In the Five Points neighborhood, 50 homes were identified as showing signs of gentrification (i.e., renovation activity) and from these 50, the ten homes were randomly chosen. Of the ten homes, seven of them had two or fewer sales between 1970 and 1984 (Denver Assessor's Office 1984). Of the remaining three home5, two had three sales and one had four sales. Oddly enough, the one home that was sold four times between 1970 and 1984 (seemingly indicating speculation-related activity), had very slight increases in its sales price. The home in question was sold in 1973 for $6,500, sold in 1977 for $7,000, sold again in 1977 for $7,300, and then sold for a considerable profit two years later in 1979 for $37,500. Two other homes had sales activity which reflected gentrification activity. The first one was purchased in 1978 for $22,500 and sold in 1983 for $85,000, and the second was purchased in 1976 for $24,000 and resold in 1981 for $93,000. These examples reflect significant increases in sales price; however, speculation per se does not seem to have been a factor. -61-

PAGE 68

150 140 130 120 110 100 90 en 0 80 0 0 -<1)en QJ ..--i 70 60 50 co 40 C/) QJ 30 00 co ,... QJ > < 20 10 FIGURE il AVERAGE SALES PRICE FOR DENVER AND FIVE POINTS, 1972 1982 1 1For Single Family Unjts. Census Tract 25 SOURCE: Denver Plann1ng Office, 1977, 1978, and 1982. Housing Detail Reports. Available fr<,m the Denver Planning Office. -62-

PAGE 69

One possible reason why more speculation did not occur in this sample is that gentrifiers are choosing to maintain possession of their homes following renovation. Perhaps the accrued appreciation in value of the home is not felt to equal the sweat-equity put into the renovation. Maybe gentrifiers are viewing their renovated homes as good investments which will only increase in value as time passes and hence are choosing to retain possession. For whatever reason, speculative sales do not appear to be occurring as much as anticipated. Gentrification in Five Points: Some Observations Gentrification appears to have a stabilizing effect on the Five Points neighborhood. The neighborhood now has three historic districts encompassing approximately 26 square blocks (see Figure 12). As mentioned earlier, the residential fabric of the neighborhood is being closely guarded by Historic Denverand area residents. Recently an area within the Curtis Park Historic District was downzoned from R-3 to R-2. Although this downzoning effort was opposed by some of the long-time neighborhood residents because R-2 zoning prohibits renting-out a portion of single family homes, resident incumbants still view the gentrification process as beneficial. The potential for additional gentrification-related activity in fue neighborhood remains high. Numerous single and multi-family structures are awaiting renovation. The question of gentrification-induced displacement looms ominously as the neighborhood enters the later stages of gentrification. As the potential profit to be made from the sale of one's home increases, more and more resident incumbants will be lured into selling. This will in turn speed-up the gentrification process. -63-

PAGE 70

I (J'\ I I..U'-'CI UUI I IYIGIJ legend gentrification nodes study area historic district s school c church P park H hospital Five Points Neighborhood FIGURE 12 1' north "

PAGE 71

There remains two forces which are keeping gentrification somewhat in check in Five Points. The first is a growing awareness of the disruptive nature of displacement, and the second is the large number of public housing units in the neighborhood. If for some reason, the public housing projects were demolished or relocated, then that would signal the outright proliferation of gentrification in Five Points. Only an increased public awareness of the disruptive nature of gentrification will save these public housing projects and preserve the present mixed socioeconomic fabric of the neighborhood. -65-

PAGE 72

2. HIGHLAND AND JEFFERSON PARK Physical Characteristics The Highland and Jefferson Park neighborhoods are located northwest of downtown Denver. The area is on a bluff, allowing good views of downtown. Federal Boulevard, Speer Boulevard, and the Valley Highway link Highland and Jefferson Park with the rest of Denver (see Figure 13). The eastern portion of Highland and most of Jefferson Park were included in the study. Jefferson Park is bounded by Federal Boulevard on the west, Speer Boulevard to the north, the Valley Highway to the east, and 20th Avenue to the south. The east portion of Highland is bordered by Tejon Street to the west, 38th Avenue on the north side, Inca Street to the east, and the Valley Highway to the southeast. The two areas are connected by an area bounded by North High School, 32nd Avenue, Speer Boulevard, and the Valley Highway, known as the Scottish Village and the Highland Bluffs area. Historical Background The histories of Highland and Jefferson Park are described in the Neighborhood Plans prepared by the Denver Planning Office (1976a and 1976b). The area of study was originally part of the town of Highland, which was first settled in 1859. Part of Highland merged with the towns of Denver City and Auraria to form the city of Denver in 1861. The remainder of Highland was incorporated in 1875, and was annexed to Denver in 1896, In the 1890's, Irish, German, and English immigrants contributed to the large influx of population into the area. -66-

PAGE 73

Cll -lJ c 4D c aJ OJ fD j! 4D .. JOD lOD JU! JOD JDD JOD 4D CD c :I .... E 4D E 0 E u 0 I u Cll .c 4D :I .. Q. Cll I fD .. Cll :I Cll :I Q. c::r ID 0 I I -67-

PAGE 74

In the early 1900's, the five acre Jefferson Park was built on an old city dump site at the corner of 23rd Avenue and Clay Street. Housing in the area dates from the 1890's, 1910's, 1920's, and 1940's, leaving very little vacant property after World War II. The population has become increasingly Hispanic during the ?ast 30 years. At present, the area is dominated by residential land uses interspersed with some commercial uses. Intensive commercial uses are found along 32nd Avenue, Tejon Street, Speer Boulevard, and Federal Boulevard, Business and commercial developments have been especially active between Speer Boulevard and 32nd Avenue on the Valley Highway side of the area. Mile High Stadium, on the south end of Jefferson Park, creates periodic traffic and parking congestion. Socioeconomic and Housing Trends During the 1970-1980 decade many major trends occurred in Highland and Jefferson Park, but as a whole the trends did not clearly indicate that gentrification had occurred. Some trends were neutral in their indication of gentrification, some were indicative of it, and others were not. The trends are as follows: A decreasing total population An increasing Hispanic population A decreasing Anglo population From 1970 through 1980, the neighborhoods experienced several changes in population composition (see Table 11). Total population decreased by 16 percent as compared to a four percent decline in Denver. However, the Hispanic population increased 1n the neighborhoods. This represented a ten percent -68-

PAGE 75

TABLE 11 TRENDS FOR HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK, 1 9 7 0 lliD 1 9 80 Total Population Racial Composition -Hispanic -Anglo and others -Blacks Young Adult Population (25-35 yrs) Elderly Population (60 and over) Number of Families Number of Childless Couples Number of Singles Number of Housing Units -Total Housing Units -Owner-Occupied Housing -Renter Occupied Housing -Vacant Median Housing Values and Rents (range between 3 tracts) -Value Owner Occupied -Gross Rent 14 t 721 6,931 7 t 770 20 1, 716 2,558 3,493 1,269 2,814 5,483 1 t 729 3,446 308 9,500-12,600 84-95 12 t 301 7,605 4,606 90 2,319 1, 918 2, 777 826 2,913 5,076 1,595 2,990 492 37 212-229 ERCENT NET CHANGE 1970-1980 -16.4 9.7 -40.7 350.0 35.0 -25.0 -20.5 -34.9 3.5 -7.4 -7.8 -13.2 59.7 291.6-315.6 141.1-15405 SOURCES: 1 U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1972. Census of Population and Housing 1979: Census Tracts, Denver, Colorado SMSA. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 2 u.s. Bureau of the Census, 1983. Census of Population and Housing 1980: Census Tracts, Denver, Colorado SMSA. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. -69-

PAGE 76

increase within the area. The out-migration of Anglos further lowered the total population in the area by 41 percent. Possibly influencing the in-migration of Hispanics was displacement caused by the downto'.m urban renewal and the construction of the Auraria Higher Education Center. The out-migration of Anglos was influenced by the enactment of court ordered desegregation of Denver's public schools. An increasing mumber of people having incomes below the poverty level The percentages of people below the poverty level increased by three percent between 1970 and 1980. This indicates that available housing continued to exist within the neighborhood, and that displacement due to gentrification had not been a significant problem in Highlands and Jefferson Park. A slight increase in the number of single persons within the population A decreasing number of families and childless couples More single people (over 15 years of age) make up the neighborhood population while the number of families has declined substantially. However, the increase in single persons has been significantly less than for Denver and the SMSA, while the number of families and childless couples has decreased at a much greater rate than for Denver or the SMSA. The childless couples that are expected to be moving into a gentrifying neighborhood are in fact decreasing in numbers. Even though many of these couples have had children, they have replaced by more childless couples as of 1980. The single population is increasing, but not as rapidly as in Denver. While the effect of "maturing baby boomers" has a great influence on -70-

PAGE 77

the number of singles in Denver, a large influx of young urban professionals, the typical gentrifiers, into the area is not apparent. A decreasing elderly population An increasing young adult population, but the rate is slower than that for either Denver of the SMSA The elderly population declined 25 percent in Highland and Jefferson Park, while the City and the SMSA both experienced positive increases. This is a trend often associated with gentrification, because the elderly are often on fixed budgets and cannot afford substantial housing cost increases. At the same time though, the number of young adults would be expected to increase, as they replace the elderly. This is not the case, while the young adult population is increasing, the rate of increase is well below that for Denver and the SMSA. Again, the large influx of young professionals in not apparent. A significant decrease in housing units, specifically in rental units Values for owner-occupied housing units increasing at a higher rate than for Denver or the SMSA Contract rents increasing at a higher rate than Denver but lower than the SMSA The number of housing units decreased by seven percent. The largest decrease was in the number of rental units, a decrease of 13 percent. Only the number of vacant units increased. Housing values and rents have increased drastically during the 1970-1980 decade. Median values for owner-occupied housing units increased at a higher rate in the neighborhoods than for Denver or the SMSA. The number of renter occupied housing units decreased, but it is not clear that gentrification is the principal cause of this change. Commercial redevelopment -71-

PAGE 78

of residential properties is also occurring which has reduced the housing stock. This is gentrification of a sort but not the residential succession that is the focus of this examination. A significant increase in the percentage of households with incomes between $30,000 and $74,999 in Highland Incomes in Highland and Jefferson Park increased at a slower rate than in Denver or the SMS<\ (see Table 12). Highland however, experienced an appreciable increase in households with incomes between $30,000 and $74,999 during the decade. In the western portion of the neighborhood, the percentage of households with incomes between $50,000 and $74,999 increased over 250 percent. In the eastern portion, the increase was not as dramatic, but the percentage of households with incomes between $30,000 and $49,000 increased 17 percent and the percentage between $50,000 and $74,999 increased by 25 percent. At the same time, all other income classifications experienced declining percentages of households. These trends seem to indicate either an inclination by higher income households to move into the area, and/or a rise in the incomes of current residents, who desire to remain in the area. The neighborhood trends, rather than indicating gentrification, reflect a combination of forces, at work requiring further analysis. Housing Market Activity In addition to the census data for 1970 and 1980, data was collected from the Denver Planning Office (1977, 1978, and 1982) for the average sales price of single family units and the number of sales of single family units for each census tract from 1972 through 1982. Despite controversy concerning the helpfulness of census data (Henig 1980), it was hoped that gentrification, if -72-

PAGE 79

TABLE 12 INCOME PROFILE FOR HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK, 1970 AND 1980 JEFFERSON PARK HIGHLAND INCOME! Number of % Number of persons persons 1980 1970 Change 1980 1970 Less than $15,000 728 739 -1.5 2259 2294 $15,000 -$29,999 258 374 -31.0 961 1209 $30,000 -$49,999 31 40 -22.5 230 284 $50,000 -$74,999 0 2 -100.0 34 12 $75,000 and More 0 2 -100.0 0 6 1 Income is adjusted for inflatiou. % Change -9.4 -20.5 -19.0 +183.3 -100.0 SOURCE: Denver Regional Counci_l of Governm_el_!ts. 1983. Profiles of 1970-80 Socioeconomic Change by County and Census Tract. Denver: Public Affairs Office, D.R.c.o.G. -73-

PAGE 80

it was occurring, would be detectable at the census tract level. The first step of the analysis was an examination of the average sales price of single family units within each of our three census tracts and for the City of Denver.(see Figure 14). From 1972 through 1977, Denver and the census tracts experienced a gradual increase in average sales price. After 1977, however, the rdte of growth skyrocketed. Sales price increased at a rate of six to 14 percent per annum from 1972 to 1977,in Denver, but from 1977 to 1978 the rate jumped to 29 percent. Following this jump, the rate slowly declined to percent by 1982. In the three census tracts, the rate of increase from 1977 to 1978 was also substantial, and only in tract 11.02 (Highland east to Tejon) was it not the highest rate for the ten year term; 1978 to 1979 was the highest growth year for sales pr-ices. The same market change also affected the number and volume of single family unitsthat were sold (see Figures 15 and 16). Again, Denver and the three tracts experienced their greatest quantity of sales during the years, 1977 and 1978, and then experienced a gradual decline in sales activity. Clearly, these increases were not a sub-metropolitan phenomenon, but rather were reflective of metropolitan, regional, and national housing market changes. These findings are collaborated by similiar findings in the work of Frank DeGiovanni (1983). Housing Transactions: Case Studies In an attempt to better understand what was occurring within the tracts, four "hotspots" were identified for closer study, (see Figure 17). These -74-

PAGE 81

I '-I \J1 I ') 7SQ 675 l ., 609 I. .. .. 525 '1 45Q ' !. 375 ., 30Q L 225 :l 1. 75 0 Q .,., I 1 1 ___ .--. a -----r:-.-----------t:l .E _.---. .. -"' .._,c .. M n .n..---"1::.1 . --. j!; r".Jt' : ----.. -..,=,.-G &: -.::.---.. ,. -----.... --I'' -. --. ____ .,__, t-. -------=--e.-----. --::=----e:..--.. k 1972 1973 1974 1975 1916 1977 1978 1979 198Q 1981 0 UD ) {[)I ,J,?fferson Park SOURCE: Denver Planning Office. 1977, 1978, and 1982. Housing Detail Reports. Available from the Denver Planning Office. 1 For single family units.

PAGE 82

125 f! i,i, .. }'I I ....., 50 0'\ 5 I 0 I (l ""' e I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I +--r.l.\..JUl\.1:. .lJ l'tiUI""WC.I\. Vr .:JJ..l't\.JLII:I rru:&LU.L UL"t.L.Lt.J LJVUU J:VI'-&&..LUAI&..M"U"UttJL.oo.&..LL.I&."''""_ .. -. &.&&a-."t 1972-1981 .... r-;( ..r..J G3---8.v. /_,/ __ ,/ .... r:r-=----[J. ___ .-t:l ....... .... 'IJ "... _____ ,..., ................ _.. ,;.,_ .. .---------: '--.....1' . -' .-. .-.. .-:'l;'"' ._ .. ... .. -----......,------'i'", ------r----1972 c: ,., .U 197j -f j, .f1 ''1' ,, .. ..J 1 ./ IJ 1979 198Q 1931 J Hi :r hl :md UU ..::.. Jeff. Pail< .:. IH \E) SOURCE: Denver Planning Office 1977, 1978, and 1982. Housing Detail Reports. Available from the Denver Planning Office.

PAGE 83

I -...1 -...1 I !" 11 c e i\ t (t I L <1 lb VOLUME OF SINGLE FAMILY UNITS SOLD FOR DENVER AND HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK IN SELECTED YEARS 11:' ._I 1"' i I l.t. 1 u ., c:-1 J ,m, 5 .' i!P r.i "!i 'f: -_._,., ... -.... I '!i I 11 ,. j l : I j t I : ; :: I I r .. a ...... I.' r, .. .: .. ::I ....... ....... ;. I; I ........ ... 1 I I' I I 'I. L;: :: (.:: ; I "'' .. ........ ; 'I ,... 'J . ll' !'-,.H : lj :j :j ,, ,. ; .J;t I .; I I .. :::.). : ; I .: :.-.:. : ::, j; I : : _....__ ....... __ ,. ............ J ..i ...... ..J.,." ................ ' ,.._ : I .. I. '"l I 111 1 I ,, I I 1 1 ,. : I illi :=--, I t---II c-. !I il! .. II IIi r .. ---11,11! ;I' 1 .----+liti lit ----; I. 'II .. t::::::Jill i ,, I: ,_,,! "1'' .o:-.. JJ_,__,.. ... _. .l.973 1901 !" D HiJhlar.dOD b !J Pctl'k SOURCE: Denver Planning Office 1977, 1978, and 1982. Housing Detail Reports. Available from the Denver Planning Office.

PAGE 84

I ........ co I ---------.,-. legend gentrification nodes renclosed -4 structurE (Cohesive Neighborhood) .... open street structurE (Random Gentrlf.) --study area a school c church P park v views of downtown :; historic district J highland/ jefferson park neighborhoods" FIGURE 17 1' north

PAGE 85

"hotspots" contained numerous rehabilitated houses and a high number of homes for sale. Within these areas, 96 houses exhibiting physical characteristics of gentrification, were identified. Assumed includes features such as: a recently painted house with refinished trim and woodwork, storm windows, skylights, wrought-iron:bars on the window, Leveler blinds, significant landscaping, and other features distinctly uncharacteristic of the area. From these 96 properties, a stratified random sample of 16 properties was chosen for this rhase of the study. The emphasis in this phase was on how the rehabilitated properties had been affected by speculation and the changing housing market. To do this, records of sales transactions were obtained from the Denver Assessor's Office (1983). The records contained the dates and the sales price for each sale of a property from 1970 on. Of the 16 properties examined, six properties had been sold from two to six times since 1970 (see Figure 18). The remainder had been held by individuals or by families, who had not been induced, by the market changes, to sell out of home ownership. Most of the improvements to the houses in this group, it would appear from the records, were the result of code enforcement. Of the six "market" properties identified, a large number of their transactions occurred during the peak period of 1976-1979. This period corresponds, as it should, with the previously identified periods of high sales activity and increasing sales prices. Following up on 1:he significance of these results, a T-test was performed to determine if housing improvements and rehabilitation had an equal chance of being done by either an incumbent or a new owner (gentrifier). Given a 95 -79-

PAGE 86

FIGURE 18 SALES HISTORY FOR SIX PROPERTIES IN HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK, 1971-1981 -70 r-I-I-,.... 1-76 71 71 II "' 0 u IU G. r78 ,, YEAR OF ::.. ... c ... .. 0 .. .. s r71 11 ,., w ::.. a j ,..... rr-I-11 ,, '' ,, 79 TRANSACTION J .. 71 ,, SOURCE: Denver Office. 1984. Master Property Files. Available :or inspection at the Denver Assessor's Office. -80.r... A. 7) 77 7f

PAGE 87

percent confidence level it would appear that this is true (see Appendix D). This indicated the q11antity of gentrification to be approximately half of what had been identified,.. and incumbent upgrading to be more prevalent than anticipated in HighLmd and Jefferson Park. It is also important to note that the housing improvement and rehabilitations identified did not exist in a random pattern throughout the neighborhoods. Rather the existence of "hotspots" was much r.10re the case. Apparently, this type of activity occurred only when special ammenities were present. The existence of irregular or enclosed street patterns, distinctive architecture, scenic vistas, proximity to open space, nearby neighborhood shopping areas, as well as other ammenities influenced the location selection of newcomers. As indicated earlier by the Census data, the actual number of upper income people moving into these neighborhoods is smaJl. Upon examination of the neighborhoods, a great many homes appear to be "gentrified", but after further research, it became evident that a significant of these homes were being rehabilitated by in-cumbent owners. Gentrification in Highland and Jefferson Park: Some Observations The phenomenon of gentrification in Highland and Jefferson Park appears to be limited at a small number of properties in specific areas. Part of this is related to the availability of housing bargins. Without a significant difference between the asking price and the value (monetary or other) of the properties it is doubtful that widespread gentrification will occur. In 1975, mortgage rates started to decline and the number of new housing starts began to rise. This in turn created a housing market which could be -81-

PAGE 88

characterized as a market". It can be expected that buyers will be aware before sellers of changes in the housing market, because they are usually more active. Therefore, given an element of control ( a large supply and selection) and a headstart market, it is a reasonable deduction that both a differential and a presence of "bargains" existed in the housing market at this time. Clearly, the amount of gentrification found in Highland and Jefferson Park has been influenced by these national trends. Metropolitan trends and conditions can be also of great influence on these neighborhoods' housing markets. Of particular significance in Highland and Jefferson Park is the coordinated effort by several non-profit housing corporations, neighborhood associations, and the councilman's office to maintain and stabilize the neighborhoods. This effort guards against residential displacement by present and future market pressures. Partly because of these efforts and partly because of the other factors mentioned earlier in the overview, gentrification has been sparse to data in these two There is no indication what future housing markets and perceptions of the community will be. They have been changeful in the past and probajly will continue to be in the future. Therefore, the potential for greater gentrification in Highland and Jefferson Park still exists. -82-

PAGE 89

3. BAKER Location Baker is an inner-city neighborhood near Denver's Central Business District, It is bounded by West 6th Avenue on the north, Broadway Avenue on the east, West Mississippi Avenue on the south, and the South Platte River on the west. As an early and stable working class neighborhood, Baker offers some interesting examples of distinctive Victorian homes built with stone and masonry. The average year the homes were built was 1895. (Westside Neighborhood Planninh Team and Denver Planning Office 1981). Historical Background Since Baker developed in the 1880's, it was subject to obsolescence and disrepair earlier than the other neighborhoods that developed later. The "white flight" to the suburbs during the sixties and seventies accelerated this phenomenon of decline because lower income residents who lacked the resources to repair the deteriorating homes moved in. This prompted the City to designate the area as blighted in 1972 (Westside Neighborhood Planning Team and Denver Planning Office 1981). The decline enabled non-residential uses-such as the industrial and utility areas to the west and south, and the commercial uses along Broadway and Sante Fe Drive -to encroach heavily upon the residenttial areas, Figure 19 shows the location of these land uses. The result was a loss in housing units; while there were 3,292 housing units in Baker in 1970, this number decreased to 2,791 units in 1980o(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1972b and 1983b). The neighborhood also experienced some population loss. The 7,646 persons in Bakec in 1970 decreased to 6,177 qy 1980.(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1972b and 1983). -83-

PAGE 90

.... c. E ..! as as "'0 as E u :E c as ... as ... I as Q) I E Q) OJ a = en >-Cl) Q) .E 3 E :::::1 'tJ 0 'tJ :::::1 ::> en E u .E en 0 liiii 0 I I "C 0 0 '-.c 0"\ '-..... Q) 0 ..Q t<.l as .c :::> r. m C) (.!) fot H a; 4. z e iD 0 z -::I / /, ;;-:-}f ===::::::-84-

PAGE 91

Census data for 1970 and 1980, as well as 1977 estimates from the Denver Planning Office (1977, 1978, and 1982), illustrate the changes in racial. composition that occurred during this period. Hispanic Anglo Black 1970 49.2% 50.4l .4% 1977 75.5% 23.3% 1.2% 1980 52.9% 42.2% 1.9% The median family income for Baker in 1970 was $5,691, well below the median family income of $9,654 for Denver.(U.S. Bureau of the Census 1972b and 1983b). While total population in the area decreased overall, the above information shows an increase of the minority population between 1970 and 1977 and a decrease in Anglos of almost 50 percent. This was not a wealthy population. During this period, the neighborhood was experiencing stagnation and decline. The trends were reversed with a return of wealthier residents and a decrease in the minority population after 1977. Those changes in terms of the ethnic composition of Baker are an expression of changes taking place at the regional level and city-wide level, and changes at the general neighborhood level. Even though the degree of ethnicity in Baker rose and then dropped off sharply, the 52.9 percent Hispanic component remains much greater than Denver's 19 percent. The western energy boom brought tremendous growth to the Denver Metropolitan area during the mid-70's. The CBD also grew at an exponential rate, being the site of related major office development. Consequently, housing markets ited the same patterns of growth. As decentralized and unbridled suburban sprawl presented developers and investors with growing constraints and diminishing -85-

PAGE 92

profits, inner-city neighborhoods close to the CBD appeared more desirable for two reasons. The first reason is location. Location of residences near such an activity center is an amenity by itself, and it eliminates the need for long distance daily commuting. The second reason is that public facilities and amenities are already in place (i.e., public schools, parks, recreation centers) therefore making neighborhoods such as Baker appear more desirable. As a result of the neighborhood being declared blighted, Baker was targeted for extensive public reinvestment. The Denver Community Development Agency (CDA) has been responsible to a large degree for this reinvestment activity. Operating under the !lousing and Community Development Acts of 1974 and 1978, CDA funnelled large sums of federal dollars into the various deteriorating inner-city neighborhoods in Denver for housing rehabilitation, public facilities, and public works improvements. Recent Public Investments A) The Baker Innovative Grant program was funded through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and administered by CDA. It was an intensive two-year neighborhood rehabilitation project implemented from September 1979 to September 1981. It focussed on an 18 block residential target area. The boundaries of this area are shown in Figure 20. Total HUD expenditures for the project were $640,984, which leveraged a total $3.7 million investment by public and private sources (Community Development Agency 1982). -86-

PAGE 93

I CXl -...J I r\ ', I ------flliiil-legend of active private reinvestment 0 Baker Neigh. Rehabilitation Projec Area (CDA) Broadway Neigh Bus. Revitalization (NBR Program, CDA) One Broadway \... Plaza Mixed Use Project (CDA) s schools Baker Neighborhood FIGURE 20 1' north

PAGE 94

The project objective was to promote neighborhood preservation and revitalization by conserving and upgrading the existing low and moderate income housing stock. The intention was to stabilize the supply of lower income housing that was becoming subject to private market speculative interests Baker's "upswing" in the late 70's. Follow-up studies reveal that the rehabilitated properties were indeed stabilized (only three percent were sold after the project was completed; Community Development Agency 1982). At the same time, however, the funds improved Baker's appearance, and may have promoted private investment of adjacent properties. B) The Neighborhood Business Revitalization program (NBR), also administered by CDA, is located along South Broadway from 2nd Avenue to Bayaud Street (see Figure 20). The Broadway Plaza NBR program began in 1979. It consists of low interest loans made to local businesses as well as the implementation of public improvements and facilities in the target area. The public-funded luans totalled $409,500, which was leveraged to $14 million in private investments. This is the largest amount of funds in any of Denver's NBR areas. Sales tax increased 66 percent between 1979 and 1982. Employment increased 70 percent in the area during the same period (Community Development Agency 1984a). C) The One Broadway project is a $6.5 million mixed use development currently under construction. The formerly vacant block, located between Broadway and Acoma Street and bounded by West Ellsworth and Irvington Place, was purchased by CDA in 1979. This project consists of 38 condominium townhome ranging in price from $60,000 to $90,000, and includes 38,000 square -88-

PAGE 95

feet of office and commercial space surrounding a public plaza (Community Development Agency undated). The development was designed with sensitivity to the residential area abutting so as to avoid obtrusiveness with the townhornes adjacent to the present residential structures. The development goals are to reinforce the established residential areas, complement the Broadway Plaza area, and to augment the overall economic vitality of the area by expanding long and short term job opportunities. Theoretical Framework for Analysis These intensive public investments coupled with the rising demand for inner-city housing, caused in part by the large population growth of the Denver Metro area, may have prompted the start of private reinvestment, speculation, and gentrification in Baker. The that follows is, do these changes constitute a stabilizing or destabilizing factor for Baker residents? If destabilization followed, changes in the socioeconomic make-up of the neighborhood population, in the structural appearance of the housing stock, and in the market activity for this housing stock should be measurable. The following comparative analysis of the socioeconomic factors and housing market activity in Baker and in Denver demonstrates the magnitude of the changes and how they affect Baker residents as a whole. Because private reinvestment is often ahighly localized, sub-neighborhood activity, this study also defines two areas within Baker which seem to contain the most concentrated private reinvestment. Figure 20 illustrates these two areas. The southern five block area was selected because it is surrounded by amenities and major public improvement projects; such as Daily Park, the -89-

PAGE 96

CDA innovative grant area, the Broadway NBR, and the One Broadway mixed use development. The northern four block site was chosen because the Baker neighborhood plan cited it as an area of "resurgent renovation" coupled with an influx of younger middle and upper income first-time home buyers. Furthermore, a tour of these two areas confirmed revitalization; most of the properties appeared to have undergone recent repairs, landscaping and yardwork, and/or received new paint. l'hese two areas have a pleasant overall appearance. Housing Market Activity Table 13 indicates how property values have changed from 1970 to 1980. While absolute values remain lower in Baker and in the Baker sub-areas A and B (the two areas of concentrated private reinvestment described earlier) than in Denver in 1981J, this difference is smaller than it was in 1970. Denver values, for instance, increased 269%, while Baker and Baker sub-areas increased much faster, at 337% and 431% respectively. Sub-area C in Table 13 is comprised of five blocks arbitrarily selected from the CDA rehabilitation area. It is located at the opposite end of the neighborhood from the revitalized sub-areas A and B for purposes of contrast. Here housing values have increased more slowly than in the neighborhood as a whole, but still at a faster rate than in Denver. In summary, Table 13 shows the housing market to be more dynamic in Baker, and the property values in the neighborhood to be appreciating at a faster rate than in the City overall. Figures 21 and 22 show the total volume of housing sales in Denver and Baker respectively in terms of total sales, and by housing type (single family, multi-family, and condominium units). Note that the market trends for both -90-

PAGE 97

TABLE 13 VALUE OF SPECIFIED OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS FOR DENVER AND BAKER, 1970 AND 1980 1':1701 1980 2 Percent Increase Denver $111,800 $62,000 269% Baker $ Y,200 $40,200 337% Sub-Areas 3 4 A and B $10,875 $57,711 431% (combined) Sub-Area C $ E,080 $32,820 306% SOURCES: 1 u.s. Bureau of the Census. 1972. Census of Population and Housing 1970: Census Tracts, Denver, Colo. SMSA. Washington, DC: u.s. Government Printing Office. 2u.s. Bureau of the Census. 1983. Census of Population and Housing 1980: Census Tracts, Denver, Colo. SMSA. Washington, DC: u.s. Government Printing Office. 3 4 For Sub-areas: u.s. Bureau of the Census. 1972. Census of Population and Housing 1970: Block Statistics, Denver, Colo. SMSA. on microfiche.-u.s. Bureau of the Census. u.s. Bureau of the Census, 1983. Census of Population and Housing 1980: Block Statistics, Denver, Colo. SMSA. on microfiche -u.s. Bureau of the Census. -91-

PAGE 98

umber Units 20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 1.),000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 .),000 2,000 1,000 50 FIGURE 21 VOLUME OF BY HOUSING TYPE FOR DENVER, 1972-1981 Total Housing Units Sold Single Family Homes ----------Multi-Family Housing Units ........ Condominium Units + r----... I .... ..., I ..., I ', I \ ---I \ I ', ... I \ ..... ... ..... ;1"-.c.. .. .If .,.K ....... .............. .. ..... ""' ..... oc. .. Jr"? ..... + ..... i #' "fa ..,. .. -t "1-..,.. Jr .. Jr SOURCE: Denver Planning Office. 1977, 1978, and 1981. Housing Detail Reports. Available from the Denver P!anning Office. -92-

PAGE 99

Number of Units 250 200 150 100 so Sales as a % of Housing Stock FIGURE 22 VOLUME OF SALES BY HOUSING TYPE FOR BAKER, 1972-1981 / ,. """ 'ro tal Housing Units Sold ----Single _.'amily Homt;s.---------Mul t.i-family Housing Units Condominium Units+ ++-tT++-+ I I I I I I I /', I '\ I ' I "\ \ \ ,. I ' I ....... ......_-I I ......... ... . .. . . .... . \ \ \ .. 41 . . . .. .. .. . . . ... . . . . . .. .. .... 1 j 72 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1 78 1979 1980 1981 ( J .9) ( 4. 7) (J.7) ().2) ().2) (6.9) (9. S) (8.0) (5-5) ( 7.2) SOURCE: Denver Planning Office. 1978, and 1981. Housing Detail Reports. Available from the Denver Planning Office. -93-

PAGE 100

are quite similar; sales peak during the late 1980's and then fall off from 1979 to 1980. While volume of sales increased sharply in both areas from 1976 to 1979, the increase is more dramatic in Baker. From 1976 to 1977, for example, total housing units sold increased 116 percent in Baker (from 102 220 units) but increased only 62 percent in Denver (from 10,401 to 16,865), Then sales declined at about the same rate in both areas from 1979 to 1980, reflecting the influence of the nation-wide housing trend of reduced sales activity. The most significant difference in the two trends is shown in 1981. While total volume of sales continue their decline in Denver, there is a resurgence of sales activity beginning in Baker. The percentages at the bottom of Figures 21 and 22 show the amount of housing units sold as a percent of all housing units. Comparing these reveals that a larger proportion of Baker's housing stock was sold during the late 1970's than the proportion of Denver's housing stock during the same period. In 1978, for example, 9.5 percent of all housing units in Baker were sold, as compared to 7. 9 pe.rcent in Denver. The proportion of Baker housing units sold then drops sligt,tly below that of Denver, but by 1981 it again exceeds Denver's proportion. Of all the housing units in Baker, 7.2 percent were sold in 1981, but only 5.0 percent for all of Denver. The percentages for Baker apply only to the existing housing stock, but in Denver the total amount of sales includes many additions to the housing stock (residential infill, new condos, and conversions). In Baker, the only new units added to the existing housing stock, thus increasing sales volume, were a total of 22 condominium units sold in 1980 and 1981, Therefore, the -94-

PAGE 101

percent of Denver's housing stock sold each year is overstated in relation to Baker's sales. This means that an even greater share of the neighborhood's housing units were transacted than was for the City. When this focus on volume of sales is narrowed to include only single family housing units, the above trends are more pronounced. Table 14 looks at the years 1977, 1978, and 1981, when private reinvestment is believed to have been intensive in Baker. The proportion of single family housing units sold in Baker as a percent of all such units is larger in all three years than in Denver. Thi5 trend is partidularly significant for 1981, when the proportion in Baker is almost twice as large as the proportion in Denver (11.2 percent as opposed to 6.6 percent). Both sales volume trends and trends in property values may indicate speculation to be occurring. Frequency of sales per property is another indicator. Of the 1130 total single family housing units in Baker in 1981, 106 were sold twice since 1978, and 34 of these 1130 units were sold three times or more during the same period. Of the 1230 multi-family units in the area at this time, 37 were sold twice, and 16 were sold three times (Denver Planning Office 1977, 1978, and 1982). Another factor indicating the degree of stability in a neighborhood is the amount of home ownership. Homeowners are more inclined to remain sedentary. Also, they are more committed to maintaining their area's sense of community because of their vested interests. Baker's owner occupancy rate rose from 25 percent in 1970 to 32 percent by 1980. This seems to indicate less transiency and increased stability. This ownership rate, while significantly -95-

PAGE 102

TABLE 14 OF SALES FOR SINGLE FAMILY UNITS FOR AND BAKER IN SELECTED YEARS 1977 1978 Denver Total SF Units 108,645 110,125 SF Units So.ld 13,367 13,119 Percent Sold 12.3% 11.9% Baker Total SF Units 966 1,068 SF Units So.ld 142 194 Percent Sold 14.7% 18.2% 1981 111,644 7,416 6.6% 1,130 126 11.2% SOURCE: Denver Planning Office, 1977, 1978, and 1981. Housing Detail Reports. Available from Denver Planning Office. -96-

PAGE 103

increased, still remains well below the Denver rate of 48 percent. Housing Transactions! Case Studies Because private reinvestment occurs at a sub-neighborhood level, a stratified random sampling of ten parcels in Baker was conducted. Three parcels were selected from each of the two sub-areas identified as areas of concentrated reinvestment activity. Two were chosen from the CDA rehabilita-tion area and another two from the neighborhood at large. The sampling was stratified by these areas to representation of different portions of Baker. The purpose of examining these parcels is intended to show whether the housing market trends for the entire neighborhood is supported by the transactions occurring with these properties. Of the six parcels in the two reinvestment sub-areas (potential "hot spots" of gentrification) all were transacted after 1970 (Denver Assessor's Office 1984). Four were sold outright at least once, and two were both sold and transacted as "quit claimsu (a non-sale change in tLtle, as in an inheritance, for example). Both properties in the CDA area have been sold since 1970, as have the properties from Baker at large. Some of these have also involved quit claims as well as sales. Of all ten properties, five were sold between two and four times since 1970. The last three sales prices for the sampled properties were not always obtainable, but for those obtained, significant increases in values were noted. The transaction year and the sales price for the two following properties illustrate these increases (Denver Assessor's Office 1984). Reinvestment sub-area 1980 1972 1970 Percent $56,000 $16,800 $ 8,300 575% -97-1983 1981 1980 1973 at large $188,000 $159,500 $140,000 $ 32,000 478%

PAGE 104

Although changes in value do not all go to these extremes, the examples do support the hypothesis that Baker has undergone change. Also, the examples are representative of the value increases occurring in the area overall. Generally speaking, the properties surveyed underwent some modification and renovation, such as the remodeling of a kitchen, the conversion of a garage into an additional housing unit, new roofs, improvements to the electrical and plumbing systems, and overall repairs and upgrading. Socioeconomic Trends The revitalizatLon of Baker as indicated by the significant changes in its housing market is accompanied by changes in the socioeconomic factors, although to a lesser degree. Table 15 outlines some of these changes between 1970 and 1980. The Table is a Census profile of Baker for these two years. Table 15 indicates an increase in the Black population and a decrease in theHispanic population in Baker. However, the 1977 Denver Planning Office estimates (cited previously in this section) shows a higher proportion of Hispanics during the interim between 1970 and 1980, and that the 1980 levels are a significant reduction in the minority composition. In terms of household income, 19.2 percent of the total population loss was primarily due to reductions in the number of households in the two lowest income categories. Both median family income and per capita income posted substantial increases. These gains would likely have been much greater had the lower income residents displaced by the influx of higher income residents left Baker. It is likely that the lower income residents displaced moved only a few blocks and remained within the Census tract, thus keeping increases in -98-

PAGE 105

TABLE 15 GENERAL POPULATION, HOUSING, AND SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR BAKER, 1970 AND 1980 DATA ITEM= Census 1ract 21.00 1970 1 1980 2 % CHANGE Total Persons 7,646 6,177 -19.2 Anglo 3,852 2,529 -34.3 Black 32 114 +256.2 Hispanic 3,762 3,268 -13.1 Household Income Less than $15,000 2,293 1,875 -18.2 $15,000 to $29,999 663 576 -13.1 $30,000 to $49,999 103 114 10.7 $50,000 to $74,999 8 12 50.0 $75,000 and More 4 0 ..;.lQO.O Median Family Income $5,691 $12,919 127 .o Per Capita Income 4,084 4,659 14.1 Median Education 9.6 11.5 19.8 Elderly (60 + years) 1,483 1,04 7 -29.4 Persons 25-34 years
PAGE 106

average incomes lower than they would be otherwise. The median years of education also increased, indicating a more highly educated population now resides in Baker. The most notable change is the shift in age distribution. Even though Baker's total population decreased almost 20 percent, there is one age group that posted a large gain of 63 percent in size. This is the 25 to 34 age group, a group with important implications for gentrification. They are the most likely group to be buying a home for the first time. On the other hand, the elderly population decreased at a faster rate than the overall population decline. Elderly homeowners are considered to be vulnerable because they are often living on fixed incomes and find it increasingly more difficult to continue to afford home ownership. In his study on gentrification and the theories of neighborhood revital-ization, Michael Lang ( 1982, p. 13) indicated that: Affluent people, who, according to our migration model, should be prime candidates for suburban houses, are choosing to live in the core urban areas. They tend to congregate in select areas that possess a critical mass of noteworthy characteristics, including: 1. Good amenities, such as parks and vistas 2. Good ambiance, such as markets and craft shops 3. Good architecture 4. Safety 5. Centrality good transport linkages 6. Adequate parking 7. Adequate vacancy rates Such noteworthy characteristics can be found in Baker. The neighborhood has a park, a pocket park, two public schools with playground facilities, a recreation center, daycare centers, numerous churches, and two highrise apartments for the elderly. The publicly funded and supported NBR on South -100-

PAGE 107

Broadway has developed into a commercial strip where quaint boutiques and speciality shops have moved in, accompanied by street landscaping and beautification. Baker has varied, architecturally interesting structures with such styles as the typical Victorian, Queen Anne, and Gothic Revival, characteristic of the late 1800's period of Denver's early history. A large amount of flagstone sidewalks, matured vegetation, andstreetscape improvements aided by the City of Denver's Neighborhood Small Projects program add to the charm of the area. Views of the CBD skyline and of the mountains are also amenities present to some extent. In terms of Baker does not appear generally rundown and blighted. Thus, the neighborhood has a sense of security. Upon walking through the area, the authors of this report noted a great deal of street activity; people working on their yards, children playing outside, residents sitting on their front porches and socializing. This "eyes on the street" scenario has been noted by Jane Jacobs (1961) as a powerful deterrent to crime. Centrality is an important advantage for Baker, as previously indicated. The neighborhood is within close proximity to the CBD. It is well served by major transportation corridors as well as a large number of mass transit bus routes that provide a convenient alternative to driving. Parking also seems adequate because of the separation of land uses in Baker. The industrial areas on the west have ample parking for their employees. -101-

PAGE 108

The merchants on Broadway provide parking adjacent to their businesses, therefore keeping most of the pressure off residential streets. Also, our tours of the neighborhood revealed many "for rent" and "for sale" signs, especially in and near the areas of private reinvestment in the core of the residential section. This suggests that adequate vacancy rates exist, leaving room for transitional change. Census Tract (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1972a and 1983b) data for the vacancy rate of year-round housing units indicate an increase from 1970 to 1980 (from 6.7 percent to 9.9 percent, respectively). Other factors may have influenced the recent resurge in interest in Baker and in its attractiveness. There are a couple of "magnets" near the area. These activity centers include Denver General Hospital located adjacent to the northern boundary of Baker, and the not too distant Auraria Higher Education Center. The well-separated land uses and the strong west-edge barrier of the Platte River Valley and Valley Highway corridor help to isolate the area from one side and add to the sense of geographical identification. The industrial/ utility/warehouse area to the west is not, however, particularly desirable for nearby residents. This has helped create a gradient of housing quality from east to west. of the renovation and rehabilitation activity appears to have taken place on the east side near the Broadway commercial area. As one moves west, Baker appears more deteriorated and the west edge seems to have higher concentrations of minority populations. -102-

PAGE 109

Perhaps the final and most important influence is the nature of the entire metropolitan area's growth. Metro Denver's large population increase, its massive suburban sprawl and congestion, the great expense of buying new suburban housing, and the bland homogeneity of this housing with so little mature landscaping all combine to put pressure on Baker's colorful yet affordable older housing. -103-

PAGE 110

PHASE THREE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS -104-

PAGE 111

INTRODUCTION Formulating policies to deal with gentrification is difficult; gentrification affects each neighborhood in a different manner, as observed in the three neighborhoods examined in this study. A gentrifying area is typically small and limited to a few blocks (Holcomb and Beauregard 1981). Gentrification may benefit a neighborhood. The upgrading of houses and increased tax base can vitalize deteriorating areas. However, the loss of low income housing can cause the displacement of families. According to Cicin-Sain (1980), neighborhood revitalization (by gentrification) only shifts poverty problems to other parts of the city. On a metropolitan-wide basis, the costs and benefits of gentrification cancel each other. Policies must be aimed at minimizing the costs. Neighborhood revitalization can be beneficial when the neighborhood residents want the improvements, but neighborhood revitalization is detrimental ,,..,hen low income people are burdened with an excessive share of the costs, such as displacement and a shortage of affordable housing. Since neighborhoods and the problems of low income residents vary, approaches to minimizing displacement are best formulated at the neighborhood or community level (National Urban Coalition 1979). The complex nature of the market requires flexible and locally developed and administered policies in response to local conditions (Soloman and Vandell 1982). Centralized policy directives coming from Washington, the state capitol, or city hall will have little chance of solving neighborhood problems. "Urban policy must become increasingly flexible and decentralized in focus if it is to maximize the development potential of the nineteenth as well as the twentieth century portions of u.s. cities" (McGrath 1982, p. 202). -105-

PAGE 112

Equitable revitalization will require more action and involvement by workingclass and low income organizations; neighborhood groups must gain control over their local economy and the forces shaping their environment (Holcomb and Beauregard 1981). Residents of a neighborhood need to determine what they want for their community. This is essential to keeping ahead of outside forces shaping a neighborhood. Pressures on the housing market are less during the early phases of private investment in a neighborhood; strategies to counteract displacement are best devised at this time (National Urban Coalition 1979b). Waiting until reinvestment is in full motion may be too late (DeGiovanni 1983). Policies The following stx policies are recommended to limit the costs and impacts of gentrification on a neighborhood and low income residents. Successful implementation of the policies will depend on gaining the support of local residents. 1. Encourage Homeownership for Low Income People Enabling renters to become homeowners is an effective defense against displacement. In the gentrification process, most of those displaced are renters (Lang 1982) A publication by the American Planning Association (Marino et. al. 1979) lists several strategies available to local government for assisting low income people to become homeowners: -106-

PAGE 113

-Public Loan Insurance --A local government can encourage lenders to provide loans in cases where the loan would not ordinarily be approved. This enables low income people to obtain mortgages to purchase homes or loans for home rehabilitation. A local government can insure mortgages and reduce the down payments paid by prospective home buyers. Such programs have been established in Chicago, Milwaukee, and New York. Another method is to subsidize interest rates. For example, a four percent subsidy by a local government can reduce a 12 percent rate to eight percent. Loan Purchase Program --In this program, tax-exempt revenue bonds are sold to private investors. Capital generated from the sales is used to provide below market rate mortgages. The Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) and the City of Denver have both supported such programs. CHFA offers single family and multi-family mortgages through local lenders (Colorado Housing Finance Authority 1984). The Piton Foundation and the Denver Family Housing Corporation participated with the City of Denver and CHFA in a program to enable low income fmrrilies to become homeowners (Piton 1982). -Direct Lending --A city can loan money directly to people interested in home ownership or home rehabilitation. In Denver, the Denver Community Development Agency and the Denver Urban Renewal Authority provide loans for rehabilitation (Denver Urban Renewal Authority 1983). -Direct Grants -Some cities have used public grants in combination with private loans to provide housing assistance. In Pittsburgh, this strategy was used to give home ownership opportunities to low and moderate income families. -107-

PAGE 114

-Housing Referral and Counseling --Low income people often need advice on the process of purchasing and financing a home. In Denver, the Community Development Agency operates a Housing Information and Referral Service. Home ownership counseling is also available from Brothers Redevelopment Inc. and Highland Neighborhood Housing Services. A publication by Community Economics Inc. (1978).recommends enacting antispeculation laws to prevent short-term real estate ownership. Such a law would keep sale prices down and increase the opportunities for home ownership. Also, rents would be indirectly stabilized. Through land banking, undeveloped land can be acquired and held for a future public use or to accomplish community goals (Jackson 1981). This land can be used to construct housing for low income people. Vacant lots can be purchased by a city or a non-profit organization for the construction of "inf ill" housing. 2. Discourage the Conversion of Rental Property to Owner-Occupied Property As mentioned before, renters are the people most often displaced by gentrification. Discouraging conversions of rental property is a direct strategy available for controlling gentrification. This can be carried out through anti-speculation laws. Flahive and Gordon (1979) suggest giving renters the "first right of refusal" in the purchase of their apartments for condominium conversion. Legislation would need to be enacted to provide such a right. Neighborhood groups can be active in voicing their concerns about conversions. The City Council and Planning Commission should be made aware of -108-

PAGE 115

neighborhood concen1s. Non-profit organizations can keep people informed about the conversion process and its role in a neighborhood. 3. Continue Rent Subsidies While Maintaining Housing Quality Community Development Block Grant, Section 8, and Section 202 funds are currently used to subsidize housing (Congressional Budget Office 1982). These funds are employed to supplement rents for low and moderate income housing in Denver. The Denver Housing Authority and the Community Development Agency have been the principle agencies distributing funds in Denver (Denver Housing Authority undated and Community Development Agency 1983). Rent vouchers are proposed by the 1983 Housing Act (see u.s. Code Congressional and Administrative News 1984). Renters are to be given a voucher which is good for a specified amount of rent. Renters can use the voucher for the housing of their choice. Rent controls are another option for keeping a supply of low income housing. Results of previous rent control efforts have been mixed, but new and better laws are being initiated (Community Economics Inc. 1978). Flahive and Gordon (1979) recommend using rent controls only as a last resort. Both the Community Development Agency and the Denver Urban Renewal Authority have home Iehabilitation programs. The programs are supported by Community Development Block Grants and Section 312 funds. Brothers Redevelopment Inc. and Highland Neighborhood Housing Services have some home improvement programs. Code enforcement can be used to maintain housing quality. Enforcement must be done in conjunction with loan and grant programs for rehabilitation and be sensitive to the needs of residents (Marino et. al. 1979). -109-

PAGE 116

These subsidy and rehabilitation programs will need to be continued in some form. There will still be a need for low income, rental housing in the future. It is important to maintain housing quality for two reasons: 1) Low income people deserve a minimum quality of housing. 2) Preventing housing deterioration will preserve a property's value and discourage speculation. 4. Discourage Property Tax Increases High taxes burden both low income renters and homeowners, Landlords pass tax increases on to renters. HomeowneTs have a difficult time making mortgage payments and taxes. Flahive and Gordon (1979) propose limiting tax increases in the future and giving property tax relief to the elderly and the handicapped. Neighborhood groups must work with the city to insure that taxes never force a severe hardship on low income people. 5. Rezone Areas to Benefit Low Income Residents and Neighborhoods Many of the gentrifying neighborhoods in Denver are characterized by a wide assortment of zone districts with varying restrictions. Neighborhood residents can gain control over the character of their environment through zoning. Most of the neighborhoods studied would benefit from some form of downzoning. Downzoning is a zoning change to a classification permitting less intensive or dense development, such as from multi-family to single family or from commercial or industrial to residential (Smith 1983). However, downzoning efforts must have the support of neighborhood residents. Downzoning actions which exclude renters may enhance gentrification, as observed in Curtis Park. Many of the Denver neighborhood plans give recommendations for rezonings which should be enacted. The Jefferson Park Neighborhood Plan (Denver Planning -110-

PAGE 117

Office 1976b) recommends rezoning certain properties to R-2 to retain and encourage homeownership. The Highland Neighborhood Plan (Denver Planning Office 1976a) recommends rezoning certain areas from I-0 to R-2 to preserve residential and quasi-public uses. Many other areas could certainly benefit from such rezonings, Code enforcement and rehabilitation programs should supplement downzoning actions to insure housing quality maintenance. Performance zoning can be initiated to require developers to provide a set amount of low income housing. All rezonings must be enacted with the cooperation and input of neighborhood residents and groups. 6. Encourage Activities by Non-Profit Organizations Non-profit organizations have the potential for maintaining and improving a neighborhood's vitality while serving the needs of low income residents. Lang (1982) suggests increasing public expenditures to non-profit organizations in order to help monitor displacement. These organizations are in the best position to detect and act on neighborhood problems. Cooperative ownership, through the creation of non-profit corporations, may offer a solution to displacement (Community Economics Inc. 1978). A corporation can be created for a multi-family apartment building or a group of houses. Residents own and control the corporation by shares. One share is allocated per housing unit. Non-profit organizations have been active in supplying housing in Denver. The Piton Foundation has provided substantial funding for low income housing (Piton 1982). As mentioned before, the Denver Family Housing Corporation -111-

PAGE 118

packaged a program for building and financing affordable housing. Brothers Redevelopment Inc. provides home ownership counseling, home rehabilitation, construction, and design assistance to low income families, the elderly, and the handicapped (Brothers Redevelopment Inc. undated). In the Highland neighborhood, the Highland Neighborhood Housing Services furnishes home repair and energy conservation loans, contractor referrals, technical assistance, home ownership counseling, and direct contact with city government for Highland residents (Highland Housing Services 1983). The role of the neighborhood based, non-profit group should be expanded. They are able to serve neighborhood residents and be the catalyst for activities such as cooperative ownership and rezonings. Neighborhood groups should inventory their housing stock to determine where low income housing can be sustained (National Urban Coalition 1979). POLICY SUMMARY Policies to counter the costs of gentrification are best implemented locally. Neighborhood groups are an essential link in formulating and enacting strategies to protect low income residents. Government agencies and the private sector can provide assistance to neighborhoods. Six policies are recommended to minimize the impacts on low income people: 1. encourage home ownership by low income people, 2. discourage rental conversions, 3. continue rent subsidies, 4. limit property tax increases, 5. rezone areas to benefit low income residents and neighborhoods, and 6. promote activities by non-profit organizations. -112-

PAGE 119

Successful implementation of the policies will require non-profit organizations, government agencies, and the private sector to work together. A successful program is often a package with resources being obtained from numerous sources. Neighborhood groups must be involved in designing the package. -113-

PAGE 120

APPENDICES -114-

PAGE 121

APPENDIX A CENSUS DEFINITIONS (based on U.S. Bureau of the Census (1983b)) A. AREA CLASSIFICATION: SMSA (Standard Statistical Area) -Designated and defined by the Office of Management and Budget. Each SMSA has one or more central counties containing the area's main population concentration: and urbanized area with at least 50,000 inhabitants. It may also include outlying counties which have close economic and social relationships with the central counties. They should have a specified level of commuting to the central area as well as meet certain standards such as: population density, urban population, and population growth. B. DEFINITIONS AND EXPLANATIONS OF SUBJECT CHARACTERISTICS: Housing Units A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied as a separate living quarters or, if vacant, intended for occupancy as a separate living quarters. The occupants may be: a single family, one person living alone, two or more families li':ing together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements (except as group quarters). Year-Round Housing Units -All occupied units plus vacant units available or intended for use year-round (occupancy). Vacant units intended for occupancy and vacant units held for migratory labor are excluded. Occupied Housing Units -A housing unit is classified as occupied if it is the usual place of residence of the person or groups of persons living -ll5-

PAGE 122

in it at the time of enumeration, or if occupants are only temporaily absent (away on vacations). The unit is classified as vacant if all persons staying in the unit at the time of census have their usual place of residence elsewhere. A household includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence. Persons in Occupied Housing Unit The total population less those living in group quarters. Vacant Housing Vnits -A housing unit is vacant if no one is living in it at the time of census, unless its occupants are temporarily absent. Units temporarily occupied at the time of enumeration entirely by persons having a usual residence elsewhere are also classified as vacant. Vacant units are ex'cluded if they are open to the elements, of if there is positive evidence that the unit is to be demolished or is condemned. Household -A huusehold includes all the persons who occupy a housing unit. Not all households contain families, because a household may be composed of unrelated persons or one person living alone. Householder One person in each unit is designated as the "householder". This is the person or one of the persons in whose name the home is owned or rented. There are two types of householders: a family householder living with one or more persons related to him or her by birth, marriage, or adoption. The householder and all persons related to him or her are family members. A non-family householder lives alone, or with non-relatives only. -116-

PAGE 123

Unrelated Individual -An unrelated individual is: 1) A householder living alone or with non-relatives only, 2) A household member who is not related to the householder or 3) A person living in group quarters who is not an inmate of an institution. -117-

PAGE 124

APPENDIX B HOUSINC DEMAND ANALYSIS: METHODOLOGY 1. 1970 and 1980 data are either taken directly from Census information, or easily derived from the Census tables footnoted in Tables 7 and B. Information for 1984, 1990, and 1995 is estimated using a linear projection model. Identical methodology was employed for both Denver and the Denver-Boulder SMSA. 2. Families: The net difference in the 1970 and 1980 data was determined, and divided by ten to find yearly increments of change. Denver example: F'Cllllilies 09 95) 119,288 -127,326 10 = (-803.8 X 15) + -803.8 119,288 3. Low Income Families: This is given for 1970 and 1980 (in the Census), and found for 1984, 1990, and 1995 by the above linear projection method. 4. High Income Families: A) The number of families above 125 percent of the poverty level was determined in each year by subtracting low income families from total families (i.e., non-poverty families). B) High incooe families were defined as having income of $50,000+ for 1980, and their number taken from Census data. The following adjustment for inflation was made using the Consumer Price Index (u.s. Bureau of the Census 1981) to find the appropriate number for 1970: 1967 ($1 "" $1) 1970 ($1 :z .860) 1980 ($1 ,. .406) $20,300 $23,605 $50,000 -118-

PAGE 125

C) Since $23,605 falls inside one of the 1970 Census income intervals for families, an equal distribution of families within that interval was assumed. Also, the proportion of families within the interval classified as high income is equal to the proportion of dollars that exceeds $23,605 in that interval. D) The ratio of high income families to non-poverty families was found for 1970 and 1980, and this ratio was projected for 1984, 1990, and 1995 by the linear projection model. E) Multiplication of this ratio by the number of non-poverty families set the number of high income families for 1984, 1990, and 1995. 5. Families and Individuals: A) In this study, one family is assumed to equal one unit of demand for housing. B) Also, one individual is assumed to equal less than one unit of demand for housing, because individuals tend to share living quarters more frequently (one individual equals .732 units of demand for Denver in 1980). C) The above adjustment for individuals sharing living quarters was calculated as follows: total housing units -total families = non-family housing non-family housing unit total individuals = amount of housing demand per individual. This calculation was done for 1970 and 1980, for both Denver and the larger SMSA. D) Finally, demand per individual was multiplied by total individuals in each year, and the projects were added to the appropriate number of total families to arrive at the figures in Tables 7 and 8 for total housing demand (total families+ adjusted total individuals). -119-

PAGE 126

6. Identical methodology was used for individuals in both Denver and the SMSA (the same as steps 1 through 5 shown above for families). The only difference is high income individuals were defined as having incomes of c;z5,000+ for 1980, with the following adjustment for inflations: 1967 ($1 = $1) $10,150 1970 ($1 "' .860) $11,802 -i20-1980 ($1 "' .406) $25,000

PAGE 127

AP!'ENDIX C FACTORIAL ECOLOGY MAPS N a: 0 1-0 < LL. ,t "! co (I) CD (I) I .., C! -121(I) co (I) <0 I I I I q .., rt CD I

PAGE 128

(I) (') (') (I) ('I) co I I I I I I rt + 'It ,... 0 co I I -122-

PAGE 129

(I) (I) c:D q) C') CD I I I I rt I rt CD CD I I -123-

PAGE 130

0 z w 0 w ...J IIDIIW -124CD (I) I o I +

PAGE 131

-N '-" I I; .67+ LEGEND .34-.66 .0 -.33 f I .0-:33 -.34 -:a a :67 + Nl!AfH ---MILES 1 .;--, I

PAGE 132

r a: 0 1-0
PAGE 133

APPENDIX D T-TEST XETHODOLOGY AND RESULTS FOR HIGHLAND/JEFFERSON PARK Null hypothesis: Both incumbents and new owners (gentrifiers) are improving the housing in equal amounts. Therefore, the results of a random sampling of rehabilitated units should indicate that 1/2 were done by incumbents and 1/2 were done by new owners + or -a chance error. SD+,. SE = 16 x (SD of null hyphtheses .5) = .516 X .516 2.064 + 2.064j16 X 100% 12.9% degrees of freedom = 15 @ 95% interval tz2.13 50% (2.13 X 12.9%) = 22.5% 50%+ (2.13 12.9%) = 72.5% Results of sampling: 6/16 were accomplished by new owners 37.5% null hypothesis holds. (SD Standard Deviation) (SE Standard Error) -127-

PAGE 134

BIBLIOGRAPHY -128-

PAGE 135

Brothers Redevelopment Inc, undated. Brothers Redevelopment Incorporated, information brochure. Denver, CO: Brothers Redevelopment, Inc. Cicin-Sain, Biliana. 1980. "The costs and benefits of neighborhood revitalization," in Urban Revitalization edited by Donald B. Rosenthal. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Colorado Housing Fjnance Authority. 1984. Multifamily Federal National Denver, CO: Colorado Housing Finance Authority. Community DevelopmeDt Agency. 1982. Baker Neighborhood Rehabilitation Project, Baker Innovate Grant, Final Report. Denver, CO: Community Development Agency. Community Development Agency. 1983. Housing Assistance Provided (October 1, 1982 through November 30, 1983), unpublished memo. Denver, CO: Community Development Agency. Community Development Agency. 1984a. Loans, Private Investment Leveraged and Increases in Sales Tax and Employment in NBR Areas. Denver, CO: Community Development Agency. Community Development Agency. 1984b. unpublished information. Obtained from Community Development Agency staff. Community Development Agency. undated. information pamphlet. Denver, CO: One Broadway Development Project, Community Development Agency. Community Economics Inc. Oakland, CA: 1978. Displacement: Causes and Responses, Community Economics Inc. Congressional Budget Office. 1982. Approaches. Washington, DC:. Federal Housing Assistance: Alternative U.S. Government Printing Office. DeGiovanni, Frank F. 1983. "Patterns of change in housing market activity in revitalizing neighborhoods," Journal of the American Planning Association. Vol. 49, No. 1 (22-39). Denver Assessor's Office. 1984. Master Property Files. Available from inspection at the Denver Assessor's Office. Denver Housing Authority, undated. Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver, information brochure. Denver, CO: Denver Housing Authority. Denver Planning Office. 1974. Five Points Neighborhood Plan. Denver, CO: Denver Planning Office. Denver Planning Office. 1976a. Highland Neighborhood Plan. Denver, CO: Denver Planning Office. Denver Planning Office. 1976b. Jefferson Park Neighborhood Plan. Denver, CO: Denver Planning Office. -129-

PAGE 136

Denver Planning Office. 1977, 1978, and 1982. Housing Detail Reports. Available from the Denver Office. Denver Regional Council of Governments. 1983. Profiles of 1970-80 Socio-Economic Change by County and Census Tract. Denver, CO: Public Affairs Office, Denver Regional Council of Governments. Denver Urban Renewal Authority. 1983. Home Rehabilitation Loans for Homeowners in the City and County of Denver 1983-84, information pamphlet. Denver, CO: Community Development Agency. Ditmer, Joanne. 1984. article on Historic Denver in The Denver Post. Sunday Housing Section (H), pp. 1, 8, and 9. Flahive, Marty and Steve Gordon. 1979. Residential Displacement in Denver: A Research Report. Denver, CO: Joint AdministrationCouncil Committee on Housing. Harris, John P. 1984. planner for the Denver Planning Office and 46 year resident of Five Points. communication. Hartman, Chester, Dennis Keating, and Richard LeGates. 1982. Displacement: How to Fight it. Berkeley, CA: National Housing Law Project. Henig, Jeffrey R. 1980. "Gentrification and Displacement within Cities: a Comparative Analysis," Social Science Quarterly. Vol. 61, nos. 3 and 4 (638-652). Highland Neighborhood Housing Services. 1983. Highland United! Annual Report 1982-81, Denver, CO: Highland Neighborhood Housing Services Inc. Holcomb, H. Briavel and Robert A. Beauregard. 1981. Revitalizing Cities. Washington, DC: Association of American Geographers. Jackson, Richard H. 1981. Land Use in America. New York, NY.: John Wiley and Sons. Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. NewYork, NY: Random House Inc. Lang, Michael H. 1982. Gentrification and Urban Decline: Strategies for American's Older Cities. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing CO. Marino, Dennis R., Lawrence B. Rosser, and Andrea R. Rozran. 1979. The Planner's Role in Facilitating Private Sector Reinvestment. Chicago, IL: The American Planning Association. McGrath, 1982. "Who must leave? --alternative images of urban revitalization," Journal of the American Planning Association. National Urban Coalition. 1979a. Displacement: City Neighborhoods in Transition, mimeo. Washington, DC: The National Urban Coalition. -130-

PAGE 137

National Urb
PAGE 138

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1982. Census of Population 1980: Characteristics of the Population, General Population Characteristics, Colorado (PC80-2-B7). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1983. Census of Population and Housing 1980: Block Denver, Colo. SMSA. On microfiche u.s. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1983a. Census of Population and Housing 1980: Census Tracts, Denver, Colo. SMSA (summary Tape File 3). Prepared by the Denver Regional Council of Governments. u.s. Bureau of the Census. 1983b. Census of Population and Housing 1980: Washington, DC: u.s. Government Printing Office. u.s. Bureau of the Census. 1983. Census of Population 1980: Characteristics of the Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics, Colorado (PC80-1-c7). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News. 1984. "98th Congressfirst session," u.s. Code Congressional and Administrative News. No. 9, 97 STAT. 1159-1207. Westside Neighborhooc1 Planning Team and the Denver Planning Office. 1981. Westside Neighborhood Plan. Denver, CO: Denver Planning Office. -132-