Citation
The South Bronx Community Center

Material Information

Title:
The South Bronx Community Center
Creator:
Guggenheimer, Tobias Immanuel Simon
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
105 unnumbered leaves : illustrations (1 color), charts, maps, plans ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Community centers -- Designs and plans -- New York (State) -- New York ( lcsh )
Community centers ( fast )
New York (State) -- New York ( fast )
Genre:
Designs and plans. ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
Designs and plans ( fast )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 68-69).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Architecture, College of Architecture and Planning
Statement of Responsibility:
Tobias Immanuel Simon Guggenheimer.

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:
12198630 ( OCLC )
ocm12198630
Classification:
LD1190.A72 1985 .G84 ( lcc )

Full Text


THE SOUTH BRONX COMMUNITY CENTER
\
An Architectural Thesis presented to the College of Design
and Planning, University of Colorado at Denver, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of
Archi tecture
TOBIAS IMMANUEL SIMON 6UGGENHEIMER
Spring 1985 ^


The Thesis of Tobias Immanual Simon Guggenheimer is approved
University of Colorado at Denver, May 1985


This report documents the design criteria for the Cross
Bronx Community Center.The project is located in the Bronx,
New York City and is bounded by
Bathgate OJ > Third Ave.
195 St.
196 St.
I
w.
\
Bcw;'e^
s House
*\ -*
-ace
p United eo7'
'NjIujms l"*'"
Hdqtr's.
t"
'4svr3 LONG
at)m Wir/
^,^s,de; -r. .


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Statement
Discussion
Space Allocation
Code Search
Zoning In-formation
Site Characteristics
Climate
Hi story
Neighborhood Characteristics
Community District Needs Statements
Geology
Topography
Demographi cs
Bibliography


I NTRODUCT X Olvl
Moloch! Moloch! Robot apartments! invisible suburbs
skeleton
treasuries! Blind capitals! demonic industries! spectra
nations!
invincible madhouses! granite cocks!
They broke their backs lifting Moloch to Heaven! Pavements,
trees, radios, tons! lifting the city to Heaven whic
exists and is
everywhere about us!...
Moloch who entered my soul early! Moloch in whom I am a
consciousness without a body! Moloch who frightened m
out of my natural ecstasy! Moloch whom I abandon
Wake up in
Moloch! Light streaming out of the sky!
from "Howl" by Allen Ginsberg
"The Moloch that knows no God but More"
Frank Lloyd Wright about New York City


Introduction
When limited access highways are constructed in or around an
established urban core, motorist amenities are not usually
considered necessary. Gas stations, restaurants, auto part
stores and the like can always be -found o-f-f o-f any exit. When
New York City's Cross Bronx Expressway was built in the late
1950's the neighborhoods through which it ran were capable
o-f responding to any need that a motorist might require,
from a hot meal to a tow truck.In the meantime, the Central
and South Bronx have suffered terrible decline and can no
longer guarantee the traveler amenity or security. Because
it is a vital and heavily traveled thoroughfare, the City of
New York is concerned that its many motorist find themselves
without access to the traditional services of the highway.
At the same time,the city is trying hard to provide the
residents of the south Bronx with vital services.Recent
reports by Community District Groups indicate^ that in
addition to ordinary municipal services,the City should
encourage or provide the setting for main street America
institutions, such as restaurants, gas stations and
shoppettes, and hang outs. This project is an attempt to
fill the void created by the deterioration of the South
Bronx


N3N3WS


The last thirty years have witnessed a dramatic
restructuring of Urban America. Central Business Districts
have expanded their roles as Economic Citadels while new
> \
suburbs, liked to the core by vast networks of limited
access highways bleed vitality from the residential quarters
or^the inner city. This Masters Thesis will attempt to
address some consequences of these historic realignments. As
a laboratory for this investigation, a site has been chosen
in the South Bronx, a quarter of New York City whose very
name has entered the vernacular as a metaphor for urban
squalor.
The point of departure for this study is an awareness that a
condition now exists in the Bronx in which diverse
constituencies unknowingly share common interests. This has
come about because potentially harmful side affects of the
great social and engineering projects of the fifties and
A - /. * ' -
sixties were not fully appi-ecTatecTT i '
Specifically, my intention is to provide a conimunitjy' center
m
ated to a facility for motorists. In so doing, I hope to

accomplish three things...
i.
^i p* i r . , r
*, Construct a "zone of contact between two mutually
.. --i^ a ..
suspicious groups^' - ~ - f .
s
iy''x'
\ i
Experiment with the integration of functions that are
oftenAseffsi dorad mutyafriye
Zd-a t i t

rre.
i n-
kLVN' '
Experiment with the concept of the"ideal environment" as a
solution appropriate for a service oriented facility in a
squalid environment.(See the discussion section for an
investigation of this concept) r v_ v / > A--^-*- *
Ifc4t TH&- i v .1.'' I i-rC


n> i scuss x on
"Cities and thrones and powers
stand in times eye
Almost as long as -flowers
which daily die. Rudyard Kipling
"It* 11 be a great place i-f they ever -finish it"
0*Henry (on NY)


The question o-f whether to ascribe an urban or suburban -form
to the structure is a complicated
which we define the characteristics
to start with and are subject to
traditionalists, amoung whom one can
and Louis Mum-ford, define the ideal
which cooperates with other buildings
streetscape,enhancing civility and
intercourse. Theirs is a romantic
drawn from the structural history of
models.
one. The standards by
of urbanness are murky
debate. Influential
count Bernard Rudofsky
urban building as one
to create a unified
the pleasure of public
view whose standard is
successful Europeen
Robt. Venturi and friends represent a less idealistic home
grown perspective that accepts a Detroit grown expediency as
the operative principle for a car bound society.They reject
romance and advocate an end to the good fight that has
pitted romantics in a losing battle with technological
saturation.Louis Mumford, in his book,The_____Qity_In_History
observed the phenomenon of "etherialization".It postulates
that as a technology advances, more function is derived from
less substance. Venturi seems to have applied that
principle to aesthetics.
The problem assigning an identity to this building is
rooted in the ambiguous nature of that part of the city and
the conflicts that are aroused by perceptions of the past,
present and future of the site. In a perfect world in which
precident and politics do not impose, I would solve the
issue by proposing the demolition of the entire sorry


neighborhood. The salting away o-f this strategic and well
serviced land -for generations yet unborn would conserve
every manner of ill spent resource that the municipality is
now forced to spend in a quarter of questionable vitality.
(As an example of their distress,the Community Districts
surrounding the site lost around 507C of their population
between the last two census counts.)
But that is probably an irrelevant alternative since the
faculty might not sign my exit papers if drew up demolition
plans instead of floor plans. The question to be answered
therefore, is what characteristies should the proposed
project respond too. Another section of this report
documents the devastation of the South Bronx, so I refer the
reader there instead of rehashing that, but the question is
central to the issue here. Should a building respond to
actual environmental and social conditions if they are
disgraceful, dangerous depressing.
While that question cannot be easily answered I will respond
that no, the actuality of a situation should not be the
sole, nor
bui1 ding.
prime determinant in the design of significant


AFFECT URBAN SPACE
URJ3\Kl SfA=-£- tv
Notes on Fig. 9

w% 1
t2 W//W/AVVV
1 Standard traditional section
pitched roof.
2 With flat roof.
3 With top floor set back. This de
reduces the height of the buil
visible to the eye.
4 With a projection on pedes
level in the form of an arcade or a :
structure. This device 'distances'
pedestrian from the real body of
building and creates a pleasing hu
scale. This type of section was ap|
with particular virtuosity by John T
in his Park Crescent. London.
5 Half way up the building the sec
is reduced by half its depth;
allows for extensive floors on the Ic
level and flats with access balcome
the upper level.
6 Random terracing.
7 Sloping elevation with vertical Ic
and upper floors.
8 Sloping elevation with protru
ground floor.
9 Stepped section.
10 Sloping section with moat
free-standing ground floor.
11 Standard section with moat.
y^12 Building with ground floor area
1 3 Building on pilotis.
14 Building on pilotis. with an ir
mediate floor similaily supported.
1 5 Sloping ground in front of builc
16 A free-standing low builc
placed in front of a higher one.
17/18 Buildings with a very sha
incline, as for example arenas.
19 Building with arcade above gre
level and access to pedestrian li
20 Building with access balcony.
21 Inverted stepped section.
22 Building with pitched projecti
23 Building with projections.
24 Building with free-standing tov
Each of these building types cai
given a facade appropriate tc
function and method of construe


no i j_^3onnw 3oyds


PEDIATRIC CLINIC
Concept; A childrens clinic that will provide basic
services, including well child check up, immunization,
screening and -first aid. These services to be provided in a
chi Idoriented environment that projects a sheltered
atmosphere. Emergency services are provided at local
hospitals.
Target size= 2500 -ft. sq.
Space Requirements.
Recepti onSwi tchboard-----350
Examination rooms-------6 x 90
Social Workers 0-f-fice----150
Records---------------------150
Storage---------------------100
Closets----------------------80
Public Toilets---------------80
Consultation-----------------60
Sta-f-f Lounge--------------150
Circulation-----------------400
Adjacencies.The pediatric clinic
sheltered and easily observed
circulation path o-f the building
the main entrance.
should relate closely to a
play area,to the main
and pre-ferably be close to
Materials. Floors, Vinyl. Walls, Brick. Partitions,
Drywal1.
1 RECEPTION
2 EXAMINATION
3 OFFICE
4 RECORDS
5 STORAGE
6 CLOSETS
7 CONSULTATION
3 LOUNGE


TYPICAL EXAM ROOM FURNISHINGS
a
a
i
ii
a
*
5
3
r
-o
o
PJ
EXAM TABLE
EXAM STOOL
SPHYGMOMANOMETER
OTOSCOPE/OPHTHALMOSCOPE
EXAM LIGHT
SCALE (optional in Ped.
--could be in hall)
WASTE CAN
CABINET WORK
HAND-WASH SINK
WRITING SURFACE
PATIENT CHAIR
MIRROR/COAT HOOK
CUBICLE CURTAIN
a
a
a
0
^ TYPICAL CONSULTATION FURNISHINGS
. DESK
DESK CHAIR
ARM CHAIRS
< TACK BOARD
SHELVING
_ FILE CABINET
DICTATION
TELEPHONE
COAT HOOK
X-RAY VIEW

I
the
TYA6AL EXAM IAYW
TITU9NEE. WlOfZ&r FPOtA
PATICWT^ LEFT blPE *
* Nicnt: CEVEtf^E POP- LEFT' WAMPEP t&CJD&Cr


2
CgmUNIIY_GARDEN_AND_CLINIC
Concept; To encourage a new measure of self support in the
community, and to provide recreation, exercise and the
establishment o-f a natural base -for new ^asthetic values,
the municipality will incorporated a community garden and a
garden cl inic^as- the- f-octts-efthu municipal i ly.
Target Size=50,000 -ft. sq.
Space Requirements.
Greenhouse
(25$ plots at 150 -ft.sq.
Includes 25% circulation
&DX
-A7,506
ODOcjl
Park Dept. Liason---------150
Cl assroom----------------800
Library-------------------800
Ki tchen------------------500
Office--------------------150
S t or ag e---------------200
Tool Storage--------------500
Adjacencies. The Greenhouse must be accessable to the street
for deliveries by both pedestrians and vehicles. It should
be easily reached by the children in the day care center and
should be the primary visual focus of the circulation areas
of the community center.
Material. The garden clinic should be finished in the same
durable and cleanable surfaces as the clinics. The
greenhouse, which will be half glazed and half open, will
have earthen floors and a glazed steel frame structure.
1 GREENHOUSE
2 PARK LIASON
3 CLASSROOM
4 LIBRARY
5 KITCHEN
6 OFFICE
7 STORAGE
8 TOOL STORAGE



A Birth Control Clinii^
Concept;The Birth Control Clinic will offer testing,
counseling, referral, pharmacutical and educational service
It will be operated under contract with the City of New York
by the Planned Parenthood of New Yor-k, Inc.
Target Size=2000 ft. sq.

Space Requirements.
Reception------------------275
Lab------------------------200
Ex am------------------4 x 90
Counseling-----------------100
Storage--------------------100
Records--------------------100
Toilets---------------------80
Lounge---------------------100
Circulation----------------25%
Adjacencies. The important thing here is to isolate the
birth control clinic from the day care center to minimize
the danger of a pregnant women contracting Rubella or other
infectious diseases from young children.
Materials. Floors. Vinyl. Walls. Brick. Partitions.
Drywal1
1 RECEPTION
2 LAB
3 EXAM
4 COUNSELING
5 STORAGE
6 RECORDS
7 TOILETS
8 LOUNGE


4
day_care_cenier
Concept; To provide a small day care -facility targeted -for
children o-f parents employed at the nearby Bathgate
Industrial Park.
Target Size=3000 -ft.sq.
Space Requirements.
Entry/transi tion---------150
Staff---------------------100
Activity Room--------------------------2000 (40 children at 50 ft.sq.
per)
Toi lets------------------100
Kitchen-------------------120
Storage-------------------100
Patio---------------------200
f f i ce-----------------100
Circulation---------------25X
Adjacencies and characteristics. The day care center should
be located toward the visual center of the building and must
have excellent security. Perhaps a connection with the
police facility is appropriate. The patiopiayground can
relate to the greenhouse and some of the greenhouse plots
should be reserved for children. Borrowed lighting from the
greenhouse particularly in the activity room will be a
desired amenity.
5u&Ti_e-
Materials. Natural with <0ttactile qualities.
1 ENTRY
2 STAFF
3 ACTIVITY ROOM
4 TOILETS
5 KITCHEN
7 PATIO
8 OFFICE


5
MUNICIPAL_LIASON_OFFICE
The Municipal Liason Office will house representatives -from
the Depts. o-f Health and Human Services,Police,and Fire
Target
Size.JsOQO ft.
sq.
Reception----------------275
O-f-fice-----------------400
Of-f ice-----------------400
Office-------------------400
Office-------------------400
Adjacencies^.The arrangement of offices should not indicated
any rank order.The offices will be accessable by patrons who
will be announced by the receptionist.
Materials and characteristics. The space should reflect the
scale of other semi-public rooms in the building and provide
a low key environment. Reception floor, Brick.Office floor,
Carpet. Walls, Brick. Partitions, Drywall.
1 RECEPTION
2 OFFICE
1


6
cgmyNiiY_RogMS
Four community rooms will be leased at minimal cost to any
non-profit, non-sectarian organization based in New York
City. In case o-f conflict preference will be given to youth
groups or groups based in the Bronx.
Target Size 3000 ft.sq.
Community Room 600
Community Room-------------600
Community Room-------------800
Commun i t y Room----------800
Adjacencies.The community rooms will be configured to allow
at least two rooms of equal size to be mated. Circulation
will be maintained between the building court and all rooms
in use at all times.The vending machines should be nearby
Materials and Characteristics. The walls should be at least
partially covered with a durable pinboard to hang displays.
At least two rooms should easily
darkened for slide and movie projection.


143


7
(3AS_STATIQN
A privately operated automotive service station providing
traditional services, including the sale of automotive
fuels, lubricants, tires and spare parts. It will also
perform automotive repairs, concentrating on emergency work.
A tow truck licenced to operated on the Cross Bronx
Expressway exclusively will extend the realm of operation
through the borough.
Target Size=1500 ft. sq.
Space Requirements.
Service Bay-----------2 x 400
Storage Room---------------175
Sales Room-----------------100
Toi 1 ets------------------150
Adjacencies. The Service Station Should be easily reached
from the west bound lane of the Cross Bronx Expressway exit
ramp, which terminated at the corner of Third Avenue and
175th Street. Parking for the restauarant can be integrated
with the station in some manner.
Materials.The essence of a Gas Station is very scatological
if considered in physiological terms. Its a place where
fluids are excreted and the orifie of the vehicle are
examined in great detail for clues regarding the health of
the car.These functions somehow suggest clinical tile.
1 SERVICE BAY
2 STORAGE ROOM
3 SALES ROOM
4 TOILETS


SERVICE STATIONS-!
Drawings show the standard plan of a
major oil company for a two-bay service
station. Additional bays may be added for
larger installations.
Minimum recommended dimensions for
bay door opening is 10 by 10 ft. Overhead
type doors are the most effective. Servicing
pits have become obsolete, the mechanical
lift being considered more practical.
Fig. 2. Plan of service station with one pump
island, midblock location
FENCE
Fig. 3. Plan of service station with two pump
islands, midblock location
MAIN STREET
70% TRAFFIC
Fig. 4. Plan of service station with two pump islands, corner
location
Fig. S. Plan of service station with two pump islands, high-
way location
1202


8
dRIVe_in_restaljrani
The community and the motorists o-f the Cross Bronx
Expressway really need a drive in restaurant.It will be used
by both the motorists o-f the Cross Bronx Expressway and the
denizens o-f the deep. Its -function will be that of a stage
where the two groups can eye each other while eatin burgers.
Target Size=2000 ft. sq.
edace Requirements.
Window Service ------------200
Ki tchen------------------1000
Storage--------------------200
Refrigerated Storage-------100
Employee Toilets-----------120
Employee Lounge------------120
Dock-----------------------120
Security Booth-------------100
Adjacencies.The drive in shall relate to the gas station
directly.
Materials. Lets keep it Camp.
1 WINDOW SERVICE
2 KITCHEN
3 STORAGE
4 REFRIGERATED STORAGE
5 EMPLOYEE TOILETS
6 EMPLOYEE LOUNGE
7 DOCK
8 SECURITY BOOTH


I
i
p i
$ 2
*3
*4
+ 5
* 6
^ 7
PEDIATRIC j
DAY CARE
GREENHOUSE
GARDEN CLINIC y
MUNICIPAL LIASON
BIRTH CONTROL CLINIC
COMMUNITY ROOMS


I . jiTf
Z. WpJ'H'


code:
ARCH


The -following codes and ordinances govern this project under
New York Building Laws.
Bui 1ding Use Community Center Zoning Use 4 Occupancy Group F3
Greenhouse Zoning Use 4 Occupancy Group B2
Restaurant Zoning Use 6 Occupancy Group F4 _
Auto Service Center Zoning Use 13 Occupancy Group E
ccupancy_GrguQ_De£i_nit i_gns
F3 Buildings and spaces in which persons assembled are
physically active and do not have a common center o-f
attention.
F4 Buildings used for any combination of eating, drinking,
dancing and entertainment.
E Business
B2 Greenhouses and other storage uses.
Fi_re_I.ndex
B2 2 hr.
F3 1 hr.
F4 1 hr.
E 2 hr.
Fire_Rati.ngs_gf _Buil_diLng_Cgmggnants
Exterior Walls.
30' or more open space nl5 to 30
hr. 1 hr if non bearing
3 to 15 2 hr.
0 to 3 2 hr.
Interior Walls
30 or more open space 0 hr. 1 hr
15 to 30' 1 hr.
3 to 15 2 hr.
0 to 3 2 hr.
Interior Non Bearing Walls and Partitions
1C = 2 hrs.
ID = 1 hrs.
Interior Stairway Enclosures
1C = 2 hrs.
ID = 1 hrs.
Columns, Girders and Trusses, (other than roof trusses)
Supporting One floor.
1C =1.5 hrs.


ID =1.5 hrs.
Supporting more than one -floor.
1C =1.5 hrs.
ID = 1 hrs.
Structural Members Supporting a
Same as the wall
Floor Construction
1C =1.5 hrs
ID = 1 hrs.
Fire Divisions and Separations
see C26-504
Wall
General__Regui_rements
Floor Area Per
Kindergardens
Ki tchens
Occupant
35
200
Off i ces 100
Retai1 25
Seating in Assesmbly 10
Storage 200
Exit and 1 Access Requirements
Max i mum travel distance . (table 61
B2 125175J
E 200-300
F3 150-200
F4 150-200
Corridors. Minimum width in inches
B2 36"
E 44
F3 44"
F4 30
Minimum Dead End Length i n Feet
B2 NE 50
F3 30 >
F4 30
page 144)
Stairways.
Stair Formula
The sum of two risers plus one tread shall not be less than
24" nor more than 25.5"
The maximum riser height is 7.5"
The maximum tread width is 10" plus nosing
The maximum vertical distance between stair landings is 12
Exterior stair are permitted
Provide two stairways per floor
All fire escapes must terminate at the street or in a court
that is open to the street.


Minimum stair and corridor width is 36
Areas of refuge must have 2 hr. -fire rating
Wind pressure
0 -100 ft___20 psi
101-300 ft...25 psi
on glass panels...30 psi
on glass panels 30 psi


joixywaodNi qninqz


ZONING INFORMATION
Applicable zoning use groups
Community Center 4
Greenhouse 17
Auto Service Center 13
Restaurant 17
The site is located in a R6 zone. C4-3 also applies in this district
R& zone characteristics, limitations, and requirements
FAR FAR ranges from 2.0 to 2.43
OSR OSR (open space req.) ranges from 30 to 33.E
OTHER USES FAR for commercial use in R6 is 2.0
FAR -for community facility in R6 is 4.80
LOT AREA 82,393 ft.sq.
FRONT SETBACK None required
REAR SERBACK None required
PARKING None required for Community Facility


ZONING MAP LEGEND
13.2a
ZONING CATEGORIES
RESIDENTIAL
R1 Single-family detached houses on lots at least 100 feet wide.
R2 Detached one and two-family homes.
R3-1 One and two-family detached or semi-detached homes.
R3-2 Garden apartments, row houses or apartment houses surrounded by
open space.
R4 Same as R3-2 but with a 50% increase in building bulk.
R5 Medium density; contains apartment buildings and two and three-family
row houses.
R6 6 to 12 story apartment complexes surrounded by open SDace. 100 units/
acre.
R7 Slightly higher density than R6; 135 units/acre.
R8 High density apartments; 185-220 units/acre.
R9 High density, lowest open space requirements; 228-248 units/acre.
RIO Highest density; only in Manhattan and the Manhattan and Brooklyn
Central business districts; up to 400 units/acre; no open space
requirement.
COMMERCIAL
Cl
C2
C3
Wide range of retail stores and personal service establishments for
local shopping; Residential and Community Facility Uses.
Wide range of local service establishments; Residential and Com-
munity Facility Uses.
Waterfront recreation, related to boating and fishinq; Residential
and Community Facility Uses.
General Commercial such as department store, theatre, etc.;
Residential and Community Facility Uses.
C5
Central Commercial uses which serve the entire metropolitan region;
Residential and Community Facility Uses.



S?*-£wS23*i'.?
C6 Full range of commercial uses requiring a central location; Residen-
tial and Community Facility Uses.
C7 Large, noisy, traffic generating uses such .as open amusement park.
C8 Service establishments such as automobile service stations.
MANUFACTURING
Ml Light industrial uses such as research laboratories, or wholesale
service facilities; certain Community Facility Uses.
M2 General industrial uses with performance characteristics less
desirable than those permitted in Ml district.
M3 Heavy Industrial uses such as chemical manufacturing, power plants,
foundries, etc.




ZONING MAP INDEX
13.2b
PSiStea
.
BRONX COMMUNITY DISTRICT;


COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The Zoning Resolution recognizes certain types of uses which serve the general
welfare as community facilities. These are accorded special consideration. This
chapter will define and classify community facility uses, identify where they are
allowed to locate in the City and explain the special consideration which they receive
under the Zoning Resolution.
DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES
There are three broad categories of community facility uses: local, regional and
auxiliary.
LOCAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Perform services for the neighborhood surrounding them. Elementary and secondary
schools, libraries, health centers, medical offices, churches, community centers, set-
tlement houses, and non-commercial clubs provide essential services to residents
and must be located near them in order to perform efficiently. While some schools,
churches, clubs and libraries obviously serve more than the surrounding community,
it is generally agreed that they exist primarily to enrich the residential community.
Most of these facilities operate on a non-profit basis.
REGIONAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Serve the population at large. Some uses in this category, such as colleges, universities
and hospitals, could locate almost anywhere. Other community facilities in this
category, such as orphanages, homes for the aged, nursing homes, and homes for
retarded children, are essentially residential in character and function best in resi-
dential environments. Most colleges, universities and hospitals are non-profit institu-
tions. (There are a few profit-making hospitals, but they are not a significant land
use type.) Nursing homes, sanitariums and homes for the aged, on the other hand,
are often private, profit making operations. In recent years they have become a
significant new land use, frequently clustering in specific residential communities,
although serving the Citys entire population.
AUXILIARY COMMUNITY FACILITIES
A third or auxiliary class of community facilities includes uses which support the
providers of local or regional community services. For example monasteries, con-
vents, college dormitories, hospital staff housing, parish homes or rectories do not
usually provide a direct service to the public; but, some colleges, hospitals, schools,
churches and community centers could not function effectively without them. Vir-
tually all of the uses in this category are non-profit places of residence and function
more effectively in residential environments.
LOCATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The Zoning Resolution allows community facilities in almost all zoning districts
except M2 and M3 districts. However, there are a few specific exceptions and
provisions which affect some facilities.
Local Community Facilities
Churches, health centers, settlement houses, community centers, medical offices and
non-commercial clubs can locate in all districts except M2 and M3; however,
non-commercial clubs require a special permit from the Board of Standards and
Appeals in order to locate in R1 and R2 (single family) districts. Elementary and
secondary schools and libraries arc excluded from C8 (general commercial) and M
districts, but schools are allowed to locate in C8 and Ml districts by special permit
from the Board of Standards and Appeals.


Regional Community Facilities
Colleges and universities are excluded from C8 and M districts and require a special
permit from the Board of Standards and Appeals to locate in K1 and R2 zones. All
hospitals arc prohibited from M2 and M2 zones, but proprietary hospitals, sani-
tariums. health related facilities, nursing homes and homes lor tlK aged are also
prohibited from R 1 and R2 districts.
Auxiliary Community Facilities
Staff housing for non-profit hospitals is allowed in all but M2 and M3 zones as arc-
seminaries. parish houses and rectories. However, monasteries, convents and parish
houses are excluded from C8 and M districts. College dormitories, sororities and
fraternities require a special permit from the Board of Standards and Appeals to
locate in R1 and R2 districts.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES
The Zoning Resolution has generally encouraged the location of community facilities
in residential areas. With few exceptions, these uses need a residential environment
to function most effectively. They can usually be placed in a residential community
without creating objectionable conditions.
However, most community facilities would not be able to locate in most residential
districts if the same size controls were imposed on them as on the residential build-
ings in the district. A school, church, hospital or college must be a certain size to
operate efficiently, even in low density, low bulk zones. Applying the residential floor
area ratio would require community facilities to purchase significantly larger sites in
most zones. Assembling large sites in New York City is both difficult and expensive,
creating a hardship on institutions the City needs and wants. Also, since most com-
munity facilities arc tax-exempt government or voluntary institutions, larger sites
would cause more land to be removed from the tax rolls, raising taxes on all other
property owners.
For these reasons the 1961 Zoning Resolution allowed the builder of a community
facility to erect a larger structure than a residential developer on the same size zoning
lot in the same zone. In zoning language, community facilities receive a floor area
ratio bonus, as shown in the table opposite.


Table I Floor Area Ratios in R1 through RIO Zones prior to March, 1973*
Districts Residential FAR Community Facility FAR
R1 .5 1.0
2 .5 1.0
3 .5 1.0-1.6**
4 .75 2.0-2.4**
5 1.25 2.0-2.4**
6 2.43 4.8
7-1 3.44 4.8
7-2 3.44 6.5
8 6.02 6.5
9 7.52 10.0***
10 10.00 10,0***
While community facilities also receive bonuses in commercial and Ml-1 districts, the cost of com-
mercial land generally precludes their location in those zones and Ml zones are not usually attractive
locations for such institutions.
**In R3, R4 and R5 districts the Zoning Resolution allows community facilities an even greater bonus
for deep front yards and wide side yards.
***In R9 and RIO zones plaza bonuses generate limited additional floor area ratio, community facilities
in residential districts are permitted to cover a greater percentage of the site than residential buildings
and no open space ratio is required. Consequently, the buildings can be wider and deeper. Community
facilities are allowed to take advantage of the tower coverage provisions in R7-2 and R8 districts.
DISCUSSION OF RECENT AMENDMENTS
Most community facilities service a spectrum of needs throughout the City, and
were not expected to proliferate or concentrate in any one area. The occasional
school, hospital, nursing home, library or health center, for example, was not con-
sidered significantly harmful in residential areas. When it did cause some objection-
able condition, the benefit of its service was generally considered to outweigh the
problems created. Certain uses were treated specially in R1 and R2 districts: colleges,
universities, dormitories and non-commercial clubs require special permits; and
proprietary hospitals, nursing homes, sanitariums and homes for the aged were
prohibited. Otherwise, community facilities were allowed to locate as of right in
any residence zone.
In the last decade, there have been certain trends which led to a reexamination of
the 1961 assumptions. Certain community facilities began to concentrate in some
residential neighborhoods. Their large bulk affected neighborhood scale. Their pro-
liferation caused noise, traffic and security problems, and they competed success-
fully against residential uses for land assemblages. Due to new sources of financing
and operating subsidies and encouraged by government agencies, nursing homes,
health related facilities and homes for adults (domiciliary care facilities for adults),
particularly proprietary institutions, became a significantly more competitive land
use in the City. Clustering in a few communities, they changed the scale and nature
of those areas, overtaxing utilities, generating traffic and creating other problems.
The City responded by amending the Zoning Resolution in March, 1973. The zoning
amendment eliminated the as of right floor area ratio bonus for all community
facilities in R1 and R2 zones. Now all community facilities in those districts must
build to the residential floor area ratio unless they obtain a special permit from the
City Planning Commission and the Board of Estimate.
67


Similarly, in R3 to R9 Districts, nursing homes, health related facilities and donn
ciliary care facilities may not exceed the residential floor area ratio unless grantei
a special permit by the Planning Commission and Board of Estimate The zonin
amendment recognized domiciliary care facilities as new community facility use;
They may not exceed the floor area ratio of residential structures except by specia
permit from the Planning Commission and the Board of Estimate which can gran
a bonus equivalent to that received by non-profit housing for the elderly. Howevei
in R1 and R2 districts domiciliary care facilities are not eligible for the extra lloo
area'ratio. (See table II below.)
Table II Floor Area Ratios R1 through RIO Districts after March, 1973
As of Right By Special Permit
Res. CF NH/HRF DCF CF NH/HRF DCF
Rl .5 .5 5(a) 5(a) 1.0 1.0 (d)
R2 .5 .5 5(a) 5(a) 1.0 1.0 (d)
R3 .5 1.0-1.6 .5 .5 (c) 1.0 .95
R4 .75 2.0-2.4 .75 .75 (c) 2.0 1.29
R5 1.27 2.0-2.4 1.25 1.25 (c) 2.0 1.95
R6 2.43 4.8 2.43 2.43 (c) 4.8 3.90
R7-1 3.44 4.8 3.44 3.44 (c) 4.8 5.01
R7-2 3.44 6.5 3.44 3.44 (c) 6.5 5.01
R8 6.02 6.5 6.02 6.02 (c) 6.5 ( )
R9 7.52 10.0 7.52 7.52 (c)(d) 10.0(d) 10.0(d
RIO 10.0(d) 10.0(d) 10.0(d) 10.0(d) (c) (c) (c)
Res (Residential) CF (Community Facilities) NH (Nursing Homes)
HRF (Health Related Facilities) DCF (Domiciliary Care Facilities for Adults)
(a) Proprietary institutions not allowed in Rl, R2.
(b) DCF not eligible for special permit in Rl, R2.
(c) Community facilities receive the as of right floor area ratio without special permit.
(d) Community facilities, NH, HRF and DCF entitled to plaza bonus in R9, RIO.
Amendments adopted as the Handbook went to press required special permits for
domiciliary care facilities throughout the City. In areas of overconcentration of
facilities special permits would also be necessary for nursing homes and health-
related facilities.


n o)
IH
1H
am
D
n
H
n
H
03
H
H
n
03


SITE
The site, adjacent to an elevated section of the Cross Bronx
Expresway comprises half a city block and is bordered by;
Tt2LCd_Avenue to the East, Bathgate___Avenue to the West and
179th St. to the South. The Cross Bronx Expressway is
located immediately to the south of Third Ave. at an average
elevation of 50. The character of the block is decidedly
urban ghetto, with a smattering of small ramshackle artisan
shops, abandoned apartment buildings^ and littered vacant
lots. In the midst of all this are a number of still
occupied single family homes and a small commercial
greenhouse. The blocks surrounding the site are quite
varied. Across the street to the East is the wonderful
though neglected Crotona Park. It used to be cultivated with
every manner of shrubbery and flowers, and was a favorite
romantic rend^ous in years gone by. It is characterized by
dramatic granitic outcroppings and elaborately planned
pathways. The southern adjacencies include the elevated
portion of the Expressway, the voids created by it and the
new Bathgate industrial park being developed by the Pott
Authority of New York. Probably the most dramatic of these
influences are the massive columns supporting the
expressway.
The dimensions of the site are approximately 430'by 240,
and comprise a relatively tight site for a project of this


scope. If this indicates that a two story solution is
appropriate, the client has no objections.
The site should be consideded an urban edge because of
the
powerful effect of the highway. (SEE LOCATION MAP)



m j nUnSH
( Demarest/
8ech#t
L Country
Ilub
CresskillJ
i
| Dumont
Bergenfield
/ Aid#cres
Go) Club p
Tammy Brook
Country Club
Knickerbocker
m Country
i : Cub 1
§
j West j_, ^
T Englewood /
Mfenafly
JNjVlHighwood
Englewood/
I, It

cn
i
*T* I ^ (' at
Sj |Dunwood.2j
. v/ashbubton/ ^1 Golf Club ,
*1*19*1* 2 \ §
1 ham la
V
Tibbetts Brookl*'3/wS\**.
Pjrk *. i
Ws yMi : ;
W .JiSiworoy .
'' " Golf Club *'v
'''.''Bronx-'
ville
i
I, county I
S/.
Pjrk | V '* tFleetf
ki^\i
*-w?..^Ai|5.V
r? /f^.VernOnJ&

Hil/v*#* i
i*/, *
,V
^Pelhan
Manor
Corrlonb?
Tr,
( Wood'XMn
y. Cemetery I
T/g!,
Van otho^ 4?
PKWV | Golf Court#
Wflus# 1
:k
/
Overpeck1
Leoma)
Park
/. Englewood]
i+ifMnoi- (?""i
Park/
, '''/
Clontm]
F in Tryv
Perk
[xVi I?"*
Park
12
[ cTub
9/
>"oN
!
f Palisaded
Park/./

^Palisade
' l /Ridgefield
a Grant
f wood
1
Edgewater
/ r
i£iV
a
n

J Cliffside
Park'
lM7

/£ Sound View -
Park
//£
north
brotht*
ISLANO
Norths
9
Bergen
Riverside^
Park i
tovrrr
(eorwre
RANOALLS ISLAHO
ISLANO
rikers
ISLANO
College Point \
Park
Malba
ksV-
a. s

''T*ri Gutten-
/f\| berg
/r West
New
Lo
Guardia

College
Point
Rushing
- Airport i

N ,/^ia York /P^CDf-^k
/ *2 We^awken j *^L+et/ wuoiumbuf / ^ J
/T\ prk / Jr^S5r',-Uc.rdf l / V? 7
3Weehawken /
Si /i- r / A-n,,..
iM?
Gate

^ ~ iJho VTvT" eX
\

r
i\^
jnion
Cityr'
/6'u.i....
/ ** Hrlg'r's I
\f\

nlong Island

Jackson
, Heights
c %
Wood-
side
tow AV

jl SKILL M 4N AV£'',
e ..QUEENS^
Sunny -
Lfo//yr 52 ^ side r
'%'
- ^ \ ir
-V Jr
Corona
M

J, Elm \j Co-
:'^'f/hur5t ..X^.
/** X\
A^
.L .
A# s
fZTTpnoio
^ S




i i
^LOVS]
s^SA/3-


OMMUNITY DISTRICTS
1.1
Bronx
COMMUNITY DISTRICTS


WEBSTER AVE.
NEIGHBORHOODS
1.3
BRONX
BRONX COMMUNITY DISTRICT 6


is i
vfiilV.
V* ^
=5=.____ CROTON A P>-






















E

-rw^Stfe'S
?4.>VS3S?S^
_IL_
* fltAog
<3
W
Vj _
^4f9tH ^7?^( ^*:^^AVjtivurs^w!_j
fii
>4
^ teai4^a
i^irs^^Vs: £ u Vu~d j:
isaBa&sgr4yjsaa<
<71 ot? <*; o? ot


CLIMATE
New York City has a climate which more closely resembles the
continental type than it does the maritime type, even though
it forms the coastline of the Atlantic Ocean, This follows
from the fact that the weather usually affecting the city
approaches from a Westerly direction, not from the ocean to
the East. A building in New York City will be subject to
occasionally high winds, heavy snows, driving rain, very
high and low temperatures and very high humidity levels.
These extremes are mitigated by a good percentage of
available sunshine (50% in winter and 60% in summer) and
generally moderate conditions.
CLIMATIC IMPLICATIONS
Outdoor spaces can be used for six or more months
Solar is an option
Good precipitation protection required
Enclosed circulation system recommended
Southern exposures should be maximized
Strong insulation strategy
Good run off and drainage
Heavy snow load resistance


HISTORY


A_H£story_Of _The_BrgnxFrom The Plan -for New York, 1967
"The Bronx was settled soon a-fter the Dutch -first arrived in
New York. Jonas Bronck, a Danish merchant and solicitor,
purchased the acreage south o-f 150th Street -from the Harlem
River to what is now Bruckner Boulevard for two kettles, tow
guns, two adzes, two cows, one barrel o-f cider, six pieces
of silver and two shirts."
"The final settlement of the deal with the Weckquaskeck
Indians of the Iroquois nation, in 1639, was followed by a
migration of settlers who were primarily trappers and
farmers. By 1654 the first town, Westchester Square, had
been settled and 10 years later the town of Eastchester grew
around an inn livery station situated on a well traveled old
forest trail, later to become the Boston Post Road."
"The borough was a battleground in the Revolutionary War;
some of its thoroughfares, such as Gun Hill Road, took their
names from that era. As the war came to an end, the townshop
of Morrisania grew up aroun the impressive estate of
Gouverneur Morris, and author of the United States
Constitution and a prime supporter of the construction of
the Erie Canal. Morris fought diligently, but without
success, to have the town named the capital of the United
States. The Bronx, at the end of the century, remained a
woodlands rural area, with a few fine roads, numerous farms
and many wealthy estates."


"Industry came to the borough in 1828 when Jordan Mott
opened an iron -Foundry in what is now known as Mott Haven.
Other industries -Followed, and there was soon a rail link to
Manhatten. In 1874, Morrisania, Kingsbridge and West Farms
were annexed to New York, and a -Few years later elevated
lines streched eastward -From Harlem and the Third Ave.
Elevated reached north to 143rd Street. The great migration
that was to make the borough more densely populated than
many major American cities began. In 1895 Westchester,
Eastchester, Pelham and Wake-Field were annexed to New York."
"The migration has never really ceased, although its ethnic
conposition has changed. First came scores o-F Irish,
Italians, and Jews, moving up the social scale as they le-Ft
the poorer areas o-F Manhattan-the Lower East Side and
Harlem. In recent years, Negroes and Puerto Ricans have
moved to the borough to escape the crowded ghetto conditions
across the Harlem River, but their numbers have created new
ghettos similar to those from which they sought to escape.
Today the Bronx is a paradox. It is home of some of the
Citys wealthiest and most notable citizens, as well as
hordes of its poorest and most anonymous. Some of the Citys
finest and most spacious parks are here, yet there are
crowded districts that boast little of no open space except
for their teeming streets and junk stewn vacant lots. Many
distinguished colleges and costly private schools are
located in the borough, but in the most populated areas,
there is a sorry dearth of public schools while high schools


are deteriorated. The borough is surrounded by water on
three sides yet the majority o-f its children are un-familiar
with the delights o-f swimming, boating, fishing and other
water oriented sports and recreation.
Fine neighborhoods, like Riverdale and Wi11iamsbridge, are
found in the Boroughs northern and eastern regions. Its
most attractive parks are also on its northern and eastern
fringes. A central corridor of decay, including Morrisiana,
the South Bronx and Hunts Point has engulfed adjoining
neighborhoods such as the Grand Concourse and Tremont. To
some extent, the sins of the past are being visited apon the
population today. Cheap housing, built more than a half
century ago to serve the influx of ambitious migrant poor
escaping intolerable conditions on the eastern side of
Manhattan, is now so dilapidated that it is no longer
acceptable or even livable. It was slum housing from the
start. Where the corridor of misery touches more stable
communities, the competition for decent, affordable homes
is compounded by a polarization of race and prior interest.
Whites and nonwhites are at odds in spite of the fact that
their personal aspirations for a decent place and
environment for living are the same.


SCD I IS I 5dl3_LOte4dfeMCD
aooHaoaHSi


NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS
(quoted -from Al_l___That___i.s_Sol_i_d_Mel_ts_i_nto_A^r by Marshal
Berman)
Among the many images and symbols that New York has
contributed to modern culture, one o-f the most striking in
recent years has been an image o-f modern ruin and
devastation. The Bronx, where I grew up, has even become an
international code word -for our epochs accumulated urban
nightmares; drugs, gangs,arson, murder, terror, thousands o-f
buildings abandoned, neighborhoods transformed into garbage
and brickstrewn wilderness. The Bronxs dread-ful fate is
experienced though probably not understood, by hundreds o-f
thousands o-f motorists every day, as they negotiate the
CrossBronx Expressway, which cuts through the boroughs
center. This road, although jammed with heavy tra-f-fic day
and night, is -fast, deadly fast: speed limits are routinely
transgressed, even at the dangerously curved and graded
entrance and exit ramps:constant convoys of huge trucks,
with grimly agressive drivers, dominate the sight lines:cars
weave wildly in and out among the trucks: it is as if
everyone on this road is seized with a
desperate,uncontrol1able urge to get out of the Bronx as
fast as wheels can take him. A glance at the cityscape to
the north and southit is hard to get more than quick
glances, because much of the road is below ground level and
bounded by brick walls ten feet highwill suggest


why: hundreds of boarded up abandoned buildings and charred
and burnt out hulks o-f bui 1 di ng: dozens o-f blocks covered by
nothing at all but shattered bricks and waste.
Ten minutes on this road an ordeal -for anyone, is
especially dreadful -for people who remember the Bronx as it
used to be:who remember these neighborhoods as they once
lived and thrived, until this road itself cut through their
heart and made the Bronx, above all, a place to get out of.
For children of the Bronx like myself, this road bears a
load of special irony: as we race through our childhood
world, rushing to get out, relieved to see the end in sight,
we are not merely spectators but active participants in the
process of destruction that tears out hearts. We fight back
the tears, and step on the gas.


CONSTRUCTXON


CONSTRUCTION
Eugene and Barbara Sternberg point out in their book
Community__Centers__and_____Student_Unigns that the greatest
threat to the longevity o-f a community center is poor
maintenance. A building is ^ even under the best o-f
circumstances, subject to many stresses. It settles, swells,
shrinks, is attacked by corrosion and vibration, moisture,
heat and bacteria.
The constraints o-f budget and management, especially in a
municipally owned building in a rough neighborhood mean that
a structure will almost certainly not get the maintenance
that it deserves. To counter the e-f-fects o-f man and
environment a strategy o-f incorporating into the basic
design elements that will protect against moisture, runoff,
weathering, corrosion movement and vandelism is called -for.
The design should consider...
* Positive Roo-f Drainage
* Positive Ground Drainage
* Integrated structuralfinish materials
* Integrated Furnishings
t Central, freezeproof plumbing stacks
* Generous sheltered areas
* Integrated Sun Screens
*


hhZ
HUUJQ
Z h E IiJ
dkiiiiii
ZhhZ
z cn OHhlL
UQIOO


COMMUNIIY DISTRICT NEEDS STATEMENTS
From the report by district 6 to the New York Planning
0-F -f i ce.
Community District 6an overview.
Community District 6 is primarily a residential
community. The housing stock consists largely o-f -five and six
story tenements and small one and two -family houses. There
are ten high rise residential buildings in the district.
Most o-f the tenements were constructed prior to 1929 and
have suffered severe deteri orat i on and many have been
abandoned. Despite many housing rehab efforts, many
buildings remain empty or have been demolished.
The area's small homes, primarily wood frame and brick., have
diminished in number too, but not as drastically. The
highest concentrations of small homes exist in the Belmont
and West Farms neighborhoods. Various strips are also
located along Crotona Park North and the Bathgate area with
other private houses scattered through the area. Several
smal_l__homes_deyelgpment_Qroj_ects_are_{Dresent ly_underway
The_di_str i_ct_also_includes__two___pr Imar y_cammer clal_areas,
East Tremont Ave. and Arthur Ave. The first is a retail
shopping area consisting of many discount and bargain
stores, fast food operations and several municipal office
buildings. Despite loosing many stores to the looting of
the 1977 blackout, the area has shown remarkable


recuperative powers. The severe reduction in the area
population due to housing loss in the surrounding East
Tremont area has been a continuing drain on the area's
businesses.
Arthur Ave. the Little Italy of the Bronx, is a busy and
unique shopping area specializing in Italian foods. The
commercial vacancy rate is minimal.
The wide disparity of conditions that exists within its
borders characterize Community District 6 as a community of
contrasts.
A designated poverty area and one of the six districts
comprising the South Bronx, it also contains some of the
citys most attractive natural spaces, one of New Yorks
finest Universities-Fordham-and one of the more unique
communities-Litt1e Italy.
On the other hand, an area encompassing two thirds of the
entire district is riddled with large scale deterioration
and pock marked with numerous abandoned buildings and
vacant lots. These impose on the South Bronx all of the
attendant problems of urban blight.
While some minor advances have been madeall to often
rekindling community hopes-these conditions progressively
worsen as the areas special needs continue unmet by the
absence of major commitments as envisioned in the proposed
revitalization plans in the areas of housing and economic
development and employment.


From the Report by District 3 to the New York Planning
Office
Community District 3, an overview
Community Board #3 is located in the Southeast Bronx. It is
bounded by The Cross Bronx Expressway (north), by 159 St
(south), Webster Ave. (west), and by West Farms Road (east).
According to the 1980 census, the population is 53,772. This
represents a 90,000 loss -from the previous period. The
reduction in pupulation left more than 2000 In Rem
properties; more than the total number of such properties in
twelve other community boards.
Community District 3 sites a need for expanded human
services in the areas of
daycare
after school programs
psychiatric counseling
youth employment
teen pregnancy counseling
Child abuse prevention programs
Senior home care services
Senior Transportation
A satellite medical clinic
Improved ambulance service.
Expansion of the fire marshalls anti arson Red Cap program
Removal of abandonded cars.


TOPOGRAPHY


Topography
The character o-f the borough reflects its location between
Manhatten and suburban Westchester County. The northern and
eastern portions are suburban in nature while the southern
and middle portions are decidedly urban.
The land area totals 41.5 miles square. The longest north
south distance is 8.25 miles, from Mount St. Vincent to
Rikers Island and the widest point is 8.5 miles from Spuyten
Duyvi1 at the Hudson River to Hart Island in Long Island
Sound.
The terrain is marked by a series of ridges running
north-south. The Riverdale Ridge, running along the valley
of the Hudson River, rises 260 feet above sea level and
includes the highest point in the borough. To the east are
a series of lower ridges above the Harlem River and at the
Grand Concourse and Crotona Park. East of Webster Avenue is
a broad, rolling plain streching to the East River and the
Long Island Sound


APPENDX X


PRECAMBRIAN AND PALEOZOIC ROCKS OF NEW YORK CITY
!
QIMTFHNARY
Newark series
UPPER TRJASSIC
New York City group
I OWCR PALEOZOIC AND OR PRECAMBRMN


IHE GEOLOGY OF THE THE SITE AND ENVIRONS
The geology o-f the Bronx is largly composed of the four
lower paleozoic and precambrian "New York City Group" that
include Manhatten Formation, Inwood Marble,Fordham Gneiss
and undivided Schists and Gneiss'. These are formations
composed chiefly of common metamorphic rocks rich in
minerals and were formed in foliations that are evident in
the many outcroppings of the area.
Preli mi nary investigation indicate that the primary bedrock
underlyinq the site is related to the Fordham Gnei ss
cateoory. This is a hard i rock, relatively immune to erosi on
with a hiqh bearing capacity. The Uniaxial Compressive
strenqth of Gneiss is 500 to 2000 kq/cm2 while its Tensi1e
Strength_range_is_50200_kg/cn*2i
Because of the previous construction on the site in
question, the natural geology of the block may have been
altered. It is therefore recommended that a series of test
bores be performed at critical locations. These should be
coordinated with the Dept, of Public Works to avoid drilling
through buried utilities.
The Terrain is marked by a series of ridges running
north-south. The Riverdale ridge, running along the valley
of the Hudson River, Rises 260 feet above sea level and
includes tha highest point in the borough. To the east are
a series of lower ridges above the Harlem River and at the


Grand Concourse and Crotona Park
East o-f Webster Avenue is
a broad, rolling plain streching to the East River and
Long
Island Sound


Lo-f 1 and, Lyn A_World_of__Strangers. New York: basic books
1983
D
Dr. Lo-f land explains that the modern urban experience is set
in a world of strangers. because the primal rituals that
regulate response to strangers in aboriginal societies (i.e.
immediate execution) are not useful in modern industrial
settings, designers must accomodate and facilitate the
successful interplay of strangers by providing spaces that
work in the urban context.
Jeffery, C. Ray Cri_me_F-reyentign_Through_Enyi_rgnmental__des!gn.
Beverly Hills; Sage Publications,1871
The author is a fan of the late Buckminister Fuller, who
believed that one ^fc>uld "reform the environment, not the
man".One chapter, entitled "crime control through urban
planning and design" is useful, though superficial, in
argueing that crime patterns can be influenced and reduced
by effective Mr. Jeffery also reveals himself to be a dyed
in the wool Jane Jacobsonian.
Alpern, Robt Pratt_____Guide__tg_Pianning_and_Renewai_for_New
Yorkers New York; Quadrangle New York Times Books, 1973
An invaluable directory that lists and explains the roles of
all city,county
state and federal agencies that play a role in the
development and maintenance tt New Yorks built environment.
Ultan, Lloyd The_Beautiful._Brgnx New York; Arlington House,
1979
A sweet and nostalgic history that relies on a well selected
collection of photographs to recreate a life gone by.
Caro, Robert. The_Power_Broker "Robert Moses and the Fall of
New York". New York; Random House, 1874
A spellbinding impeccably researched biography of Robert
Moses, the man who was directly responsible for more
construction than any person in the history
of the United States. The book traces the events, projects
and political machinations that Moses played significant
roles in and passes judgement on the changes suffered by the
city at his hands. Of particular interest are two chapters
, 37 and 38, entitled "One Mile" and "One Mile (Afterward)"
respectivly, in which the author allows that Moses' heavy
hand helped to destroy vital neighbors in the Bronx to allow


construction at the Cross Bronx Expressway.
Neutra,Richard Survival____Through__Design. New York; Oxford
University, 1954
The world according to Neutra-who wants designers to learn
Trom and respect the
systems found in nature and to respond when designing as
related organisms struggling to free ourselves of offending
selfish interest.
Ginger, Ray (ed)Mgdern_American___Cities. New York; New York
Times, 1969
An anthology of articles and book reviews criticizing the
degeneration of the
American city. Very Mumfordian in world view, being liberal
and full of praise
for well planned (and ancient) European cities. One author
argues that a high GNP is harmful to the city organism
because wealth allows the individual to withdraw from active
urban participation .
1
Sternberg, Eugene and Barbara Sternberg Communisty_Centers
snd_Student_Unlgns. New York; Van Nostrand Reinholt, 1971
A good working introduction to the subject which provides a
wealth of examples from around the world.
Stegman, Michael Housi ng_Jn vest men t_:m_the_.inner_c y ty "The
Dynamics of Decline" Cambridge; MIT Press, 1972
Lenwood, Davis E£L9Y_of_B^acks_yn_the_Inner_Cytv Council
Of Planning Librarians.
Rodgers, Cleveland Robert__Moses^___Buiyder_fgr_Demgcracy New
York; Holt 1952
An Apologetic bibliography of Robert Moses by an old college
chum.
Si
Lynden, Herbert A_New_Language_f gr_EnyyrgnmentaX_Desi_3Q New
York; NYU Press, 19972


Using Godels theorem, Heisenbergs principle of uncertainty
and Einsteins theory of relativity, the author attempts to
construct a phi 1osophical basis for Environmental Design.
Lynch, Kevin Site_Pl_anni_nq Cambridge; MIT Press, 1962
A comprehensive look at the site planning process, including
micro and macro considerations that affect man and nature.
Hughes, Michael (ed) The____Letters__of__Lems___Mumfgrd___and
Frederick_Osborn "A *Transatlantic Dialogue"
Revealing correspondence between two lovers of the garden
city movement. Includes cutting commentary on the
"reactionary" Robert Moses.
Mckennas f. Managi.ng_a_Smal_l__Dri.ve_Xn_Restaurant Washington
D.C;. SBA, 1972
Like it says.
cPt-a
A1'



DEMOGRAPHICS


Statistical Portrait of New York City
1940 1950 1960 1970
Population 7,454,995 7,891,957 7,781,984 7,894,851
Percent of U.S. population 5.6% 5.2% 4.3% 3.9%
White 6,907,306 92.7% 6,889,766 87.3% 6,052,959 77.8% 5,350,260 67.8%
Black 470,889 6.3% 755,885 9.6% 1,116,451 14.3% 1,732,748 21.9%
Puerto Rican 76,800 1.0% 246,306 3.1% 612,574 7.9% 811,843 10.3%
Percent Foreign Born 27.9% 23.5% 20.0% 18.2%
Education
Elementary school or less 63.5% 47.5% 38.8% 33.6%
At least 1 year of college 9.3% 12.3% 17.5% 18.6%
Age
14 or younger 1,465,558 19.7% 1,644,527 20.8% 1,858,407 23.9% 1,871,745 23.7%
65 or older 414,419 5.6% 605,235 7.7% 803,899 10.3% 947,878 12.0%
Housing
Number of units 2,218,372 2,433,465 2,758,116 2,917,521
Vacancy rate 7.3% 1.1% 1.9% 1.7%
Average household size (persons) 3.52 3.20 2.88 2.73
Median Income NA $3,526 $6,091 $9,682
New York City Residents Employed 2,839,366 3,276,624 3,307,548 3,204,440
Major Occupations
Professional, Technical, Managers, Proprietors 547,382 19.3% 717,455 21.9% 656,814 19.9% 752,364 23.5%
Clerical, Sales 770,804 27.1% 883,211 27.0% 933,174 28.2% 1,103,005 34.4%
Craftsmen, Foremen 329,479 11.6% 399,119 12.2% 342,064 10.3% 325,988 10.2%
Operatives, Service workers, Laborers 1,163,687 40.9% 1,235,748 37.7% 1,139,408 34.4% 1,020,536 31.8%
Jobs in New York City
Total (Annual Average) NA 3,469,000 3,538,000 3,745,000
Services NA 507,000 607,000 785,000
Manufacturing NA 1,040,000 947,000 766,000
Wholesale and Retail Trade NA 755,000 745,000 736,000
Government NA 374,000 408,000 563,000
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate NA 336,000 386,000 460,000
Transportation, Communication, Utilities NA 332,000 318,000 323,000
Construction NA 123,000 125,000 110,000
SOURCE: U.S. Census


Portrait of the Citys Population
REPORT NO. 4 Family Income by Community District, 1979
f New York The City in Perspective
tment of City Planning
yette Street Median family income* went up almost
'ork. N Y. 10007 74 percent in New York City from 1969 to
1979, But, as a result of inflation, purchas-
ing power went down during that period
12 percent. Based on '1980 Census
data, a New York City family would have
needed $19,200 in 1979 $2,382 more
than the median ($16,818) for that year
just to match the purchasing power
they had in 1969 when median family
income was $9,682.
Not only did purchasing power decline in
the city, it went down in relation to the rest
of New York State and the nation.
From 1949 to 1969, New York City and
the remainder of the state followed the
same pattern: Purchasing power went up.
Then it declined during the ten years that
TOTAL FAMILIES BY COMMUNITY DISTRICT
followed. However, in the city the erosion
in purchasing power was more severe
than it was for the state as a whole. A
comparison with the figures for the
United States shows a striking decline:
Nationally, from 1949 to 1979, family
income increased steadily but. by 1979,
median family income in New York City
was 15.6 percent lower than the national
median; thirty years earlier, New York had
a family income 14.1 percent higher than
the National Median. The change in rela-
tion to the rest of the state was equally
dramatic (see Table 1).
The drop in family income affected some
boroughs more than others (see Table 2).
Purchasing power declined considerably
in the Bronx (20.2 percent) and in Brook-
lyn (16.2 percent). Queens and Manhattan
had declines smaller than the city aver-
age (12.3 percent) while Staten Island
had a slight (1.0 percent) increase.
Community District Income
Distribution
Almost 30 percent of the city's families
had incomes under $10,000 in 1979. The
1980 Census found the highest proportion
of lower income families in the Bronx
(38.8 percent), Brooklyn (34.5 percent)
and Manhattan (31.5 percent). The per-
centages of lower income families in
Queens (19.2 percent) and Staten Island
(14.1 percent) were lower than the city
average.
Only 5.3 percent of the city's families had
incomes of $50,000 or more. Manhattan
led the city with the most high-income
families; 13.0 percent of the families in
Manhattan reported incomes of more
than $50,000. Queens (5.1 percent) and
Staten Island (6.3 percent) approximated
-the city average for high-income families,
while the Bronx (2.4 percent) and Brook-
lyn (2.8 percent) were far below the city
average. (See Appendix Table A)
Famify income is the total income ot at> members of the tarmty Half
the families have an income below the median (St6.018) and half are
above it


TABLE 1
Median Family Income
United States New York State
and Sub-Diviaions
1949-1070
New York Slat*
Untied State* Totai Now vor City Rematnoer of State
in Actual Dollar*
3.09 3*8' 3*26 3 449
5.66C 637 609* 6,6i4
9S9C iCf 9.68.* 11,25?
t p Q ' 2C 1ST iee8 2i 926
In Constant Purchaatng Power
9*00 1060C 10801? 10.500
t* '00 15 900 1*200 '6 50C
9 000 2 OCX 19 20C 22 30C
1997 ?c t: lee't 21 926

j' -i-f. -v i/5 < Os* e + '9
in Augjs! 1980 the State ot New York
the CiN ot New Yofk ano other ptamt'My
Met! sut agai^s* me united State*.
Bureau ot the Census and other det&r
dants claiming tba the bureau had u'-
Oe'couiied the booutat-cr ot the Mate
ana me cty m me 980 Decenr.a*
Census The Feoere* District Court heK
mat the state and the c*?v had beer dis
proportionately undercounteo and o
de'eo the bu>edw to use reasonable
methods whir*- the court held were
available, to adjust me 1980 population
(gures tor the state and cty to compen
sate tor the disporporttonate
unoercount The Court ot Appea's for
the Second Circuit reversed the district
court's order on procedural grounds
and remanded me case to the district
cou't tor further proceedings This litiga
tion is still active therefore ar i960
Census data discussed m this report
must be considered preliminary pending
the final outcome Conclusion? drawn
fiom this and ome' 198C Census data
are subject to the ooaMication that they
do not take undercounting intc
consideration
Community districts with a large propor-
tion of low-income families had a lower
median income than those with a smaller
proportion of low-income families The
city had 16 low-income districts in which
more than 40 percent of the families had
incomes under $10,000; the median
family income for each of these districts
was less than $15,000. In contrast, in 19
higher income districts fewer than 20 per-
cent of the families had incomes under
$10,000; the median family income for
each of these districts was more than
$15,000.
Income distribution follows a geographi-
cal pattern: High-income districts tend to
be adjacent to other high-income
districts, low-income districts tend to be
near other low-income districts. Many
lower income districts are grouped in the
South Bronx and contiguous areas in
Manhattan, East Harlem and Harlem.
Another cluster of low-income districts is
located in Brooklyn neighborhoods from
Greenpoint to East New York. More than
40 percent of the families in District 3 of
Manhattans Lower East Side had in-
comes under $ 10.000.
Areas with smaller proportions of low-
income families tend to be in Queens,
Manhattan and Staten Island. They in-
clude eight of the 14 districts in Queens,
two of the three districts in Staten Island
and five of Manhattans 12 districts. In
Bronx District 8 (Kingsbridge
Heights/Marble Hill/Riverdale) and 10
(City Island/Co-op City/Throgs Neck)
and Brooklyn Districts 10 (Bay
Ridge/Dyker Heights) and 18
(Canarsie/Flatlands/Marlne Park), fewet/
than 20 percent of the families had in-
comes under $10,000 (see map).
Black and Hispanic Origin
The 1980 Census data have been ana-
lyzed for two major groups in the city's
population, blacks (a racial group) and
Hispanics (an ethnic group), including a
small number of black Hispanics who
were counted twice, once as blacks and
once as Hispanics
Hispanic families had the lowest median
incomes ($10,415) in the city, while the
1979 median of $12,375 for black fami-
lies was also lower than the median for all
families (S16.818). This was true in every
borough except Staten Island, where the
median for Hispanic families exceeded
that of blacks.
Income levels varied by borough. For all
families, the Bronx had the lowest median
($13,163), Staten Island the highest
($23,842). Among black families, Manhat-(
tan had the lowest median income
($10,778) and Queens the highest
(Si 7,497), while among Hispanic
families, Brooklyn had the lowest median
income ($8,952) and Staten Island the
highest ($18,332 see Appendix Table B).
Districts with high incomes for all families
tended to have higher income black and
Hispanic families; districts with lower
income for all families tended to have
lower income black and Hispanic
TABLE 2
Median Family Income in Actual Dollars and in Constant Dollars
New York City, by Borough, 1969 and 1979
Borough In Actual Dollars 1969 1979 % Change In Constant Dollars 1969 1979 % Change
New York City 9.662 16.818 + 737 19.200 16018 -123
Bron* 8.308 13.163 +56 4 16.500 13.163 -202
Brooklyn 0859 14.664 +65 5 17,500 14.664 -162
Manhattan 8.983 16.326 +818 17.800 16.327 -83
Queens 11.555 20.506 + 775 22.900 20.506 105
Staten Island 11.894 23.842 + 1005 23.600 23842 + 10


families. District 8 in Manhattan (the
Upper East Side), had the highest overall
income in the city, ($39,086). Among its
888 black families, the median income
was $24,066 and among the 2,141
Hispanic families, the median was
$16,933. District 8 had the second high-
est black family median income in the
city, just below the $24,272 median for
the 16,798 black families in District 13 in
Queens (Cambria Heights/Hollis).
Among Hispanic families, the median for
Manhattan District 8 was the eleventh
highest in the city. At the other end of the
scale, black and Hispanic families in
Bronx District 2 (Aldus Longwood/Hunts
Point) were among the poorest in the city.
In the Bronx, all families white, black
and Hispanic in the lower income
groupings are clustered in the South
Bronx. The remaining Bronx districts have
medians above the citywide average.
There was one major difference between
black and Hispanic families: the concen-
tration of higher income Hispanic families
in Queens and Staten Island. In all of
Staten Islands three districts, Hispanic
families had higher median incomes than
black families, and in District 3 (South
Shore), the 858 Hispanic families had a
median income of $25,835 a higher
median income than the Staten Island
population as a whole. In Queens, Hispan-
ics had higher incomes than blacks in
nine of the boroughs 14 districts. Hispan-
ics were higher than blacks in only two of
the 12 Manhattan districts, in only one of
the 18 Brooklyn districts, and in none of
the 12 districts in the Bronx (see Appen-
dix Table B).
APPENDIX TABLE B
Number of Families and Median Income;
Total, Black*, and Hispanic* Families By
Community District
New York City, 1979
Total Famlllaa Black Families Hispanic Famlliaa
Madlan Median MaOlan
CD Number Incoma Numbar Incoma Numbar Incoma
Total 1.770.999 Naw York City $16,818 426.880 $12,375 347.794 Si 0.415
Total 298.896 $13,163 Bronx 91.919 S11.617 98.238 $9,026
1 18.730 7.803 6.889 8.177 11.576 7.303
2 8.225 7.176 2.269 8.412 6.222 6.776
3 12.709 7.527 8436 7.980 4.447 7.130
4 28.099 8.527 14.829 9.309 12.031 7.231
5 26766 7.551 12.716 8.430 12.536 6.564
6 15.700 8.126 4.935 8.374 7.899 6.742
7 29.846 12,947 4.328 11.617 10.183 8.294
8 26 493 21.297 2.680 13.951 4.026 12.640
9 44.1 18 14.608 13.675 14.570 19.152 12,698
to 29.519 20.872 4.021 19.971 2.342 17.929
11 27.191 18.059 1.955 16.598 3.352 13.719
12 33.343 17.889 15.927 16.412 5.171 14.366
Total 577.040 $14,664 Brooklyn 176041 $11,574 98624 $8,952
1 35.720 10.799 2.962 11.924 15.124 7.706
2 19.442 14.421 10.100 10.870 3.585 10.289
3 31.807 9.379 27.614 9573 4.312 7.534
4 23.421 7.594 6.522 8.967 13416 6 506
5 38.124 11.753 17,697 11,734 13.208 9.402
6 26.524 14.600 4.616 10.813 8.143 9.007
7 25.219 12.810 629 10.499 11,747 9.091
e 21.550 10.426 19.063 10.239 2.007 9.027
9 24.144 12.979 19.882 13.087 2.461 10.251
10 32.281 20.250 307 18.544 1.316 15.722
11 44.049 17.435 154 15.979 1 763 12.086
12 41,776 15.968 1.052 12.427 4.919 9,925
13 26.905 14.457 4.189 10.081 2.779 9.421
14 37,956 15,467 11.894 11.450 4.462 10.140
15 43.211 20.098 576 15.811 1.227 14.131
16 17.955 8.643 15.286 8,714 2.829 7.905
17 36.359 15.693 30.588 15.403 3.647 13.089
16 48.559 21.490 2.908 15.173 1329 15.898
Total 298.452 $16,326 Manhattan 67.253 $10,778 80425 $9,828
1 3.006 19,901 301 14.265 179 15.929
2 15.001 22,461 229 22.707 1.098 15.574
3 34.649 10.727 3.450 10.264 13.766 7.432
4 14.350 15.437 1.051 12.108 4.769 10443
5 5.591 29.768 173 14.708 450 16.527
6 24.665 32.808 797 21.281 1.608 17.620
7 40.095 22.083 6.095 12.684 9.154 10.544
6 42.502 39,086 888 24.066 2.141 16.933
9 21.739 11,876 11.373 10.673 7.045 9.952
10 22,578 9.197 21.567 9.269 1.038 7.967
11 27,433 9,103 12.774 10.087 13.312 7.376
12 44.978 12.479 7.812 11.732 25.166 10.321
Total 505.178 S20.506 Ouaana 85778 $17,497 65.850 $15,582
1 4a598 15.957 4.027 9.641 8.262 13.108
2 23.191 18,377 407 14.871 5.917 14.332
3 31,737 17,929 6456 15.826 9746 14.771
4 29.895 17.076 3.133 15.978 10.512 14.565
5 42.462 19.764 83 9.356 2.636 13.218
6 32.462 24,927 507 19.657 2.305 20.560
7 56.825 22.856 2.640 16,165 5.271 17,330
8 36.022 23.932 2.794 18.465 3.129 18,840
9 26.687 20.228 679 13.737 3445 16.604
10 28,375 21.164 3.833 17.671 2.997 18.488
11 32.266 26,301 540 19.196 1.077 21.486
12 45.543 17.207 36.157 17.454 4.807 14,174
13 44.403 24,040 16.798 24.272 3.025 21.795
14 24.589 16.035 7.724 10.457 2.721 11.342
Total 91.433 $23,842 Statan Island 5.869 $12,353 4.457 S18.332
1 35.593 20.897 5.355 11.061 2.637 13.844
2 27.477 25.072 363 21.836 962 21.983
3 28.289 26.108 162 18.576 856 25.835
§ Includes Hispanic Bite* Families
Notes Joint mtefost nets ire included In City end Borough totals,
but not in the community district dsta: therefore community
districts may not add to Borough Totals Bikers island. Census
Tract 1. assigned to Community District 1 Queens. Marble Hill
Census Tract 309. assigned to Community District 8. Bronx
Source US Census Bureau 1980 New York City Neighborhood
Statistics.
Additional Census Material
Available at:
Mid-Manhattan Liorary
455 Filth Avenue
New York New York 10016
New York Public Library
Research
Fitlh Avenue at 42nd Street
New York, New York 10018
Bronx Reference Center
Fordham Library
2556 Bainbridge Avenue
Bronx. New York 10458
Brooklyn Public Library
Grand Army Plaza
Brooklyn. New York 11238
Brooklyn Public Library Business
280 Cadman Plaza West
Brooklyn New York 11201
Queens Public Library
89-11 Merrick Boulevard
Jamaica. New York 11432
St. George Library Center
10 Hyatt Street
Staten Island. New York 10301
Municipal Reference & Research.
Center
31 Chambers Street
New York. New York 10007
Department of Commerce Library
26 Federal Plaza
New York. New York 10007
Department of City Planning
Herbert Sturz. Chairman
Alanne Baerson. Executive
Director
Human Resources
Marvin D Roth. Director
Rita Barrish. Deputy Director
Nathan Kantrowitz, Protect
Director
Population
Evelyn S. Mann. Director
Information Systems
Robert Amsterdam. Director
Graphics/Drafting
Barbara Bartlett Director
Laura Chestnut. Frances Jackson.
Henry Nicholas. Barbara Valenta.
Stan Shabronsky. Ed Whitman
Information Services Mission
Philip B Waliick. Assistant
Executive Director
Ann Goetcheus. Deputy Mission
Coordinator


MMUNITY DISTRICT DATA
APPENDIX TABLE A
Percent Distribution of Family Income
by Community District
New York City. 1979
Number ol UnOer 5.000- 10.000-15.000 25.000
Families Total 5.000 9 999 14.999 7F.999 49.999 50,000+
N York City
ll 1.770.9991000 130 163 152 25 5 24 3 53
Bronx
II 296.696 1000 189 199 163 23 7 184 24
18.730100 0 31 9 28 2 183 157 56 03
8.2251000 36 2 25 4 167 16 1 53 03
12709 1000 34 6 27.5 162 160 52 04
26.0991000 316 25 1 16 4 175 87 06
26.7661000 32 9 27 4 168 159 66 04
157001000 309 26 4 165 188 7.0 04
29.646 1000 180 21 5 169 24 2 176 1 7
26.4931000 73 120 13.8 26 3 305 101
44.1181000 153 176 163 27 9 19 1 1.7
29.5191000 56 128 139 30 5 33 4 37
27.191 1000 80 160 160 29 9 26 5 36
33.3431000 94 154 165 28 6 276 25
Brooklyn
ll 577.0401000 158 167 163 25 4 20 4 28
357201000 21 9 24 8 184 21 9 12 1 08
194421000 183 1B3 145 22 7 20 1 60
3i 807 1000 270 25 9 184 189 94 05
23421 1000 34 0 26 2 154 166 74 04
36 124 1000 22 2 2C 7 180 239 14 5 07
26 524 1000 16 1 193 158 233 20 7 48
25.29 1000 1 e e 209 16 e 23 8 176 20
2 *5501000 251 232 174 21 6 118 09
24 144 1000 162 20 e 98 26 0 15 7 1 5
32.261 1000 63 134 14 2 30 4 30 5 53
44 049 1000 89 16 1 16 2 31 3 24 9 26
4V7761000 1?4 176 169 26 5 226 39
26 9051000 14 5 206 165 26 4 20 2 1 9
37956 1000 140 *8 1 165 25 1 210 55
43.211 1000 62 137 145 3C 5 30 5 4 7
17955*000 304 26 4 17 7 18 1 69 06
. 38 3591000 14 2 16 4 17 1 274 23 1 1 9
40 5591000 55 11 1 129 30 7 34 9 50
Manhattan
II 2964521000 146 169 14 8 205 196 130
3.008 100 0 46 11 1 193 30 6 280 62
15.001100C 6 1 125 130 22 6 26 8 190
34.649 100 0 21 4 25 1 20 6 20 3 1 1 4 1 2
143501000 120 19 1 173 26 2 199 55
5591 10CC 57 87 95 18 1 33 5 246
24.6651000 33 54 82 195 35 2 264
40.095 '00 0 89 134 11 7 21 0 26 4 186
42.502 1000 37 57 66 155 29 3 39 2
21 739 1000 2C 1 227 17 9 22 7 140 27
22.5781000 279 259 182 186 88 06
27.4331000 29 7 238 ie4 17 7 86 1 9
44.9781000 184 21 3 194 246 142 22
Qumna
ll 505178100 0 69 123 143 28 9 320 5 1
40 5961000 100 184 185 29 0 22 0 22
23.1911000 72 140 176 3C7 27 5 31
31.7371000 65 159 159 29 6 26 9 32
29.895100 0 66 14 7 192 29 6 25 4 24
42.4621000 69 128 156 31 4 30 4 29
32 4621000 48 92 104 25 8 39 8 100
56.825 1 00 0 4 4 98 128 28 9 37 6 65
36.022 1 00 0 43 90 116 28 0 37 8 93
28.687 1000 62 125 154 31 1 30 6 43
283751000 69 11 1 129 309 34 1 40
32.2661000 28 69 94 27 3 429 108
45.543 1000 112 155 16 1 283 258 3 1
44.4031000 38 79 11 4 29 6 412 62
24.5891000 ia? 184 153 250 237 44
Staten Island
ll 91 4331000 54 87 103 28 5 403 63
35.593100 0 83 125 122 28 8 330 52
27477 1000 43 7 4 109 27 1 421 6 1
28 2891000 28 55 75 29 9 483 60
ay not add to 100% due to rounding
es and Source See Appendix 7able B
PERCENT OF FAMILIES WIT*
INCOME BELOW S10,000, 1979
UNDER 20.0%
20.000 TO 39.9%
40 0% AND OVER
m
COMMUNITY DISTRICT


Portrait of the Citys Population
report no 2 Youth Population By Community District
iity of New York
)epartment of City Planning
! Lafayette Street
lew York, N Y. 10007
TABLE 1
TOTAL AND YOUTH POPULATION
NEW YORK CITY, 1 POO-1900
of Total
How York City Population Undo/ 19
tmm______(In TbomanOi) Voar* of At*
Total LMaor 18
90C 343' l .23* 35 8
910 4 >6* 16?e 34 1
920 5620 i 660 331
930 6930 2033 29 3
940 7 455 1 8*9 24 4
98C 7.69; 1513 24 2
960 7 78; 2 165 278
970 7 69f 253* 28 3
98C 7072 1.765 250
Chan A
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION
OF YOUTH POPULATION BY AGE
NEW YORK CITY
1900 I960
1900 1940 1980
v
The size of New York City's youth popula-
tion has fluctuated more than the city's
total population. In 1900, just after the cre-
ation of Greater New York, the city had
one and a quarter million people under
18. They constituted 35.8 percent of the
city's nearly three and a half million
population. The youth population reached
two million in 1930, declined in 1940,
then started to rise again. By the time the
citys total population peaked in 1950,
persons under 18 years of age comprised
only one-fourth of the city's population.
In the two decades following the Second
World War, the total population of the city
stayed fairly constant. But as a result of
the postwar baby boom, the number of
youths increased by 16.8 percent, going
from 1,913,000 in 1950 to an all-time
high of 2,235,000 in 1970. However, from
1970 to 1980, the rate of decline of per-
sons under 18 was twice that of the total
population. In 1980, there were 1,765,000
youths who comprised 25.0 percent of
the citys population. In that year, youths
were about the same percentage of the
city's total population as they were in the
1940s, a significantly lower percentage
than the 1900 figure 35.8 percent (see
Table 1).
Age Patterns
There has been considerable variation
within the youth population itself. The
youngest group, the preschoolers (those
under 5 years of age) numbered 397,000
in 1900, increased by one-fourth by 1910,
leveled off, and then declined during the
Depression. After the postwar baby boom
this group peaked at 687,000 in 1960, but
declined to 471,000 by 1980. Today, the
number of preschoolers is only one-fifth
higher than it was in 1900 when there
were half as many people in the city.
The number of children of elementary
school age (5 to 9) totaled 355,000 in
1900, increased steadily until the
Depression, fell, then rose again during
the postwar period to a peak of 632,000
in 1970. In 1980 the city had 447,000
children of elementary school age
t -t -J-AIK...W- about the same number it had in 1910
The population of those 10 to 13, was
243,000 in 1900. This group almost
doubled by 1930. There was a slight de-
cline until the postwar period when this
age group peaked in 1970 at 500,000: By
1980, the size of the 10-13 group had
dropped to 398,000, just under the 1920
level.
There were 236,000 youths 14 to 17
years of age in 1900. This group contin-
ued to increase through the Depression,
dipped slightly after the war, then rose
again to 487,000 in 1970. However, by
1980, it had declined to 449,000, about
the 1930 level.
All the subgroups of the youth population
peaked in 1970, except the under 5 group
(which reached its highest point in I960),
and declined during the last decade.
However, there was a greater decline
among the preschool and elementary
school age groups than in the mid-school
and high school cohorts.
Each census count of youth reflects the
migration and fertility patterns of the
preceding two decades. The growth of
the youth population in the early 1900s is
due in part to the immigration levels of
that period; to a large extent, growth be-
tween 1950 and 1970 was due to the
high birth levels of that period. The decline
in the past decade especially among
children under 10 years of age was the
result of a lower fertility level. There were
1.5 million births between 1960 and
1969, in the next decade. 1.1 million.
These shifts have affected the relative
proportions of youth in in the different
subgroups. (See Chart A)
Projections to the Year 1990
By 1990, New York City's under-18 popu-
lation is likely to decrease from the 1.8
million counted in 1980 to about 1.6
million.
It is estimated that the population of
those under 10 will be stable during this
decade because the number of births will
remain constant; the number of those 10
to 17 is expected to decline by some


TABLE 3
YOUTH POPULATION BY AGE AND BOROUGH, NEW YORK CITY, 1970 AND 198C
TABLE 2 " 1 1 11 1
YOUTH POPULATION BY AOE NEW YORK CITY (IN THOUSANDS) Age and Year City Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Statery Island
1080 AND 1090 PROJECTION* iBBOPreteehew* 10*0 HtfR Law A#m Istimb IiRmU* 0 17 Total 1970 1980 V Change 1970-80 2.234.819 1.765.467 -21.0 465.369 341.710 -26 6 816 149 631.515 -22 6 330.797 253.244 -234 520.276 436.474 -16 1 102.228 102.524 +0.3
Tout 1 765 1 676 1 490 0-4 1970 615.831 133.797 225,626 90.880 138.459 27,067
0-4 471 496 476 1980 % Change 1970-80 470.694 -236 89.679 -330 176061 -22.0 69.152 -23.9 111,399 -19 5 24.403 -90
5-9 447 461 406 5-9 1970 631.748 135.313 232.703 92.617 140.641 30.474
10 14 506 424 379 1980 447.327 85.459 162.127 62.687 110.369 26,685
15 7 34i 243 277 % Change 1970-80 -29.2 -368 -30 3 -32 3 -21.5 -12 4
10-13 1970 500.088 100.529 182 422 74,832 118 760 23.545
m <** nor #00 Ou* re >0*1*0* 1980 398.428 78,078 138.828 56.678 99.875 24.969
iwAWt 4w*9*o' 0500C 0**r> r**> Ovr>*9 O*c*ob % Change 1970-80 -203 -22 3 -23.9 -24.2 -15.9 +6 0
too'oiwwr** piat coAhAMflo* 0' 0- 9K A*f >m iwHoi'iEirmow'iiN 14 17 1970 487,152 95.730 175,396 72.468 122.416 21.142
1980 % Change 1970-80 449.018 -78 88.494 -76 154.499 -11.9 64.727 -1C 7 114.831 *6.2 26.467 +25.2
Owl
YOUTH POPULATION BY BOROUGH
NEW YORK CITY
it* Augurfl 19&O me State ot New York
the City o< New vorh. ard ottw plaintiffs
filed suit agamst the United States
Bureau ot the Census and otnet deten
Cants claiming that the bureau had un-
dercounted the population ot the state
ano the city m the t980 Oecenma1
Census The Federal District Court held
that the state and the city had been d>s
proportionately undercounted and or
dered the bureau to use reasonable
methods which the court held were
available to adjust 'he i960 population
figures for me state ana city to compen
sate lor me dispofportionate under
count The Court of Appeals tor me
Second Circuit reversed the district
coum s order on procedural grounds
and eman court tor further proceedings This litiga
lion is still active therefore an i960
Census data discussed m mis report
must be considered preliminary pending
the final outcome Conclusions drawn
from this and ome* i960 Census data
are subject In the Qualification mat they
do not tat>e undercounhng into
consideiation
200,000 because of the decline in birth
levels during the 1970s.
These projections are based on a number
of assumptions about migration and birth
level; it is anticipated that births will aver-
age 105,000 per year from 1980 to 1990
(slightly more than the average for the
past few years) while net migration out-
ward will be no more than that expe-
rienced from 1970 to 1980 (the low popu-
lation projection), and may be as little as
half the 1970 to 1980 level (the high
population projection, see Table 2).
Borough Patterns
Patterns of growth and decline in the
citys youth population reflect the growth
of the boroughs. Manhattans youth popu-
lation peaked in 1910. It declined for
most of the next 70 years. Brooklyn's
youth population reached its highest level
two decades later, stabilized during the
following 40 years, then declined in the
1970-1980 decade. The youth population
of the Bronx increased rapidly until 1930,
dipped during 1930 to 1940, then contin-
ued to increase at a slower rate, peaked
in 1970, and declined during the next
decade. Queens's youth population in-
creased rapidly until 1930, then stabilized
from 1930 to 1940. It continued to in-
crease more slowly from 1940 to 1970,
the year it was highest, and declined in
1980. Staten Island, the borough with the
smallest population when the city was
consolidated, continued to have a rapid
increase in its youth population except for
a period of stability which lasted from
1930 to 1950. In 1970 this population
began to level off, a process that has con-
tinued for the last decade, (see Chari B).
From 1970 to 1980, there has been con-
siderable variation in the boroughs in the
relative changes among age groups.
Each of the major age groups under 5,
5 to 9, 10 to 13, and 14 to 17 declined
in Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, and
Queens, although this decline took place
at different rates. In Staten Island, the two
younger age groups declined in popula-
tion while the two older groups increased,
(see Table 3).
I
Community District Patterns
The number of youths in the 59 communi-
ty districts ranged from a high of 58,06£
in District 5 in Brooklyn (East New York:
to a low of 1,771 in Manhattans District £
(Midtown). Citywide, the community dis-
tricts averaged 30,000.
Overall, 25.0 percent r. the city's 198(
population was under 18 years of age
29, or about half, of the 59 districts hac
lower percentages, the remainder wen
above. There was considerable variatioi
between the boroughs, with 10 of 12 Man
hattan districts and 10 of 14 Queens dis
tricts below the citywide average
however, only six of 18 Brooklyn districts
three of 12 in the Bronx and none of thi
three Staten Island districts had belov
citywide average percentages. The dis
tricts with the highest relative proportioi
of youth tend to be concentrated in th*
South Bronx and eastern Brooklyn (s&
map).
The 471,000 preschool age children t-
the city average 8,000 per district. Appen
dix Table A illustrates the extreme varia
bility around the average. Manhattan
District 5 (Midtown) with 589 preschool


COMMUNITY DISTRICT DATA
APPENDIX TABLE A
YOUTH POPULATION BY AGE AND COMMUNITY DISTRICT
NEW YORK CITY. 1980
Number Percent of
Undo? ToteJ
Numbers by Age
CO 18 Poputettor i 0*4 5-9 10*13 14*17
BRONX
1 29.999 38 3 6.777 7.184 7.237 8.801
2 13.064 381 3.435 3.200 2.990 3.439
3 20.054 37 3 4 433 4.759 4.892 5.970
4 10.923 35 7 12.703 10.755 8.555 8.910
5 41 405 383 12.724 10.982 8.765 8.934
6 23.661 365 6.091 6.052 5.601 5.937
7 31.238 26 7 9.362 8.026 6.766 7.084
e 19.845 20 2 5.222 5.130 4.573 4.920
9 49.500 295 12.446 12.456 11.751 T 2.84 7
10 22.490 21 2 4.709 5.332 5.593 6.856
11 18.220 184 4.611 4431 4.156 5.022
12 32.756 25.5 7.730 7.720 7.617 9.689
BROOKLYN
1 46.195 32 4 14.537 11.947 9.737 9.974
2 21.751 234 5.702 5.401 4.930 5.638
3 47.474 35 6 12.674 11.422 10686 12.692
4 36.449 39 2 10.905 9.713 7.841 7.990
5 58.065 37 5 15.348 15.153 13.266 14.298
6 29.735 27 0 7.813 7.607 6.764 7.551
7 30.544 31 0 8.553 7 945 6.742 7,304
8 28.678 32 2 8.242 7.159 6.079 7.198
9 30.069 310 9.045 7.843 6.234 6.947
10 22.005 187 5.605 5.389 5.054 5.957
11 32.106 20 7 8381 8.136 7.377 8.210
12 41 634 26 7 13.69 11.433 8.073 8431
13 22975 231 5.619 6.053 5.396 5.907
14 37799 262 11.688 9.940 7.880 8.291
15 28.678 192 7.405 7.123 6.550 7.600
16 30.277 41 0 7.807 7 489 7,027 7.954
17 48.792 31 6 14.086 12.940 10.173 11.593
18 38.214 22.6 8.922 9.335 9.012 10.945
MANHATTAN
1 2.308 145 585 689 421 313
2 8.129 93 2.178 2.065 1.869 2.017
3 37.962 24 5 10112 9.702 8.620 9.528
4 9.776 119 2.562 2.432 2.060 2.722
5 1.771 45 589 384 363 435
6 9.742 76 3.105 2.453 2.023 2.161
7 28.994 140 7.335 7.150 6.804 7.705
8 24.171 118 6.356 6.055 5.715 6.045
9 22.696 220 6.389 5.509 4935 5.863
10 24.881 235 6.088 5.815 5 826 7.152
11 35.429 310 8.312 8.353 8.505 10.259
12 45.340 252 14.667 11.501 9.104 10.068
QUEENS
1 42.264 22 8 11.096 10.908 9.312 10.946
2 17.095 192 4.964 4,325 3.706 4.100
3 27.149 222 7.519 7.008 5.940 6.682
4 28 765 24 3 8.667 7.559 5.961 6.578
5 31 404 210 7.843 7.942 7.304 8.315
6 16.351 146 4.44? 4.171 3.652 4.086
7 43 366 21 2 11.077 109M 10.001 11.374
8 24.351 195 6.789 6 452 5.275 5.835
9 24.874 22 8 6.454 6.365 5.648 6.407
10 27.017 256 6.210 6.752 6.532 7.523
11 22 540 20 3 5314 5.398 5.364 6 464
12 56.044 296 13 389 13.298 13143 16.214
13 46.494 26 8 10132 1 1.445 11.374 13.543
14 29.181 290 7,466 7.803 6.644 7.268
STATEN ISLAND
1 38,471 27 8 9.556 10000 9.063 9.852
2 28.877 274 6.846 7,542 7.072 7.417
3 35.099 324 7.994 9.116 6.811 9.176
PERCENT OF POPULATIC
UNDER 18. 1980
UNDER 20%
20 29.9%
30% AND OVER
Source ana Notts See Appendix Table B
| 1 | COMMUNITY DISTRII


dditton Cantu* Matanal Available at
nd-Manhattan itbra^y
S5 Fifth Avanuf
ew York. New York
aw York Public Library Research
fth Avenue al 42nd Street
aw York New York
rom Reference Center
jrdham Library
556 Bamondge Avenue
rony New York t0458
'OOktyn Public Library
rand Army Plaza
OOklyn New York 11 236
ookiyn Public Library Business
10 Cadman Piaza West
OOklyn New York
jeens Public Library
* 11 Merrick Boulevard
imaica New York 11432
t George Library Center
) Hyatt Street
a ten isiana New York 10301
'unicioa' Reference & Research
enter
i Chambers Street
ew York New York 10007
epartment of Commerce Library
5 Federal Piaza
ew York New York T0007
department of City Planning
fe'Oerf Sturz. Chairman
iianne Baerson. Executive Director
luman Resources
rtarvm 0 Roth. DirectO'
lita Barnsh. Deputy Director
lathan Kantrowitz Protect Director
ie*d- Berdan Protect Planner
opyiation
velyn S Mann Director
iformation Systems
loDer; Amsterdam Director
argn H$rjr.g programmer
iraohics'Drattmg
laroara Barnett. Director
aura Chestnut Henry Nicholas
tm Sacks. Stan Shabronsky
d Whitman
iformation Services 'Mission
hihpB Waihck Assistant Executive
hrector
nn Goetcheus. Deputy Mission
'oorpmator
APPENOIX TABLE B
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF YOUTH POPULATION
BY AGE AND COMMUNITY DISTRICT. NEW YORK CITY. I960
CD Total 0-4 $-9 10-13 14-17
BRONX
t 1000 22 6 23 9 24 1 93
?a 1000 26 3 245 229 26 3
3 1000 221 23 7 24 4 29 8
m 1000 31.0 26 3 20 P 21 8
5 1000 30 7 26 5 21 2 21 6
6 1000 257 25 6 23 7 25 1
7 1000 30.0 25 7 21 7 227
Bb 1000 26.3 259 230 248
9 1000 25 1 25? 23 7 26 0
10 1000 209 23 7 24 9 30 5
11 1000 25 3 24 3 22 6 276
12 1000 236 236 23 3 29 6
BROOKLYN
1 1000 31 5 25 9 21 1 216
2 100C 26 2 25 2 22 7 25.9
3 1000 26 7 24 1 225 26 7
4 1000 29 9 26 6 21 5 21 9
5 1000 26 4 26 1 22.6 24 6
6 1000 26 3 256 227 254
7 1000 280 26 0 22 1 239
8 1000 28 7 250 21.2 251
9 1000 30 1 261 20 7 231
10 1000 25 5 245 23 0 27 1
11 1000 26 1 25.3 230 25 6
12 1000 32 9 27.5 94 20 3
13 1000 24 5 26 3 23.5 25 7
14 1000 309 263 20 8 21 9
15 1000 25 8 24 8 228 26.5
16 1000 25 8 24 7 232 263
17 100.0 28 9 26 5 208 23.8
18 1000 23 3 24 4 236 286
MANHATTAN
1 1000 38 3 29 9 162 13.6
2 1000 26 8 25 4 230 246
3 1000 26 6 25.6 22 7 25 1
4 1000 262 249 21 1 278
5 1000 333 21 7 205 24 6
6 1000 31.9 25 2 20 8 22.2
7 1000 25 3 247 23 5 266
8 1000 263 25 1 236 250
9 1000 26 2 243 21 7 25 8
10 1000 24.5 23 4 23 4 28 7
11 1000 23 5 236 240 290
12C 1000 323 25 4 20.1 22.2
QUEENS
1d 1000 26 3 25.8 22.0 25 9
2 1000 29 0 253 21 7 24 0
3 1000 27 7 25.8 21.9 246
4 1000 301 26 3 20 7 229
5 1000 25 0 25 3 23 3 26 5
6 1000 27 2 25 5 22 3 25 0
7 1000 25 5 25 2 231 26 2
8 1000 279 26 5 21 7 240
9 1000 25 9 25 6 22 7 25 8
10 1000 230 25 0 24 2 27 8
11 1000 236 23 9 23 8 28 7
12 1000 23 9 237 23 5 28 9
13 1000 21 8 24 6 24 5 29 1
14 1000 256 26 7 22 8 24 9
STATEN ISLAND
1 1000 24 8 26 0 23 6 25 6
2 1000 23 7 26 1 24 5 25 7
3 1000 228 26 0 25 1 26 1
1Does not include tomt interest areas therefore sum of community
(tistricts may not equal borough totals
*May not add up to J00* due to rounding
8Excludes Pikers island. Census Tract 1. assigned to Community
District 1 Queens
^includes Marble Hill Manhattan Census Tract 309
cExcludes Marble Hill Census Tract 309 assigned to Community
Districts Bronx
^includes Pikers >sana Census Tract t Bronx
ers has the smallest number, while Dis- f
trict 5 in Brooklyn (Highland Park/East '
New York) with 15,348. had the largest. In
the city as a whole, preschoolers consti-
tute 26.7 percent of all persons under 18.
Appendix Table B shows how this group's
distribution varies across the community
districts, from a low of 20.9 percent in the
Bronx (District 10, Co-op City/Throggs
Neck) to a high of 38.3 percent in Lower
Manhattan (District 1).
Among elementary school age children 5
to 9, the citywide 447,327 averages
8,000 per district. In this age bracket, the
smallest number (384) is in Manhattan's
District 5 (Midtown); the largest group
(15,153) lives in Brooklyn (District 5,
Highland Park/East New York). This age
group constitutes 25.3 percent of the
youth population in the city. Again, this
varies widely among community districts,
ranging from 21.7 percent in Manhattan
(District 5, Midtown), to 29.9 percent in
District 1 (Lower Manhattan).
In the 10 to 13 age group, the citywide
398,428 averages 7,000 per district. (
Community district enumerations range
from a low of 363 in Manhattan (District
5) to a high of 13,266 in Brooklyn (District
5, Highland Park/East New York). These
children constitute 22.6 percent of the
youth population, which ranges from a
low of 18.2 percent in Manhattan (District
1, Lower Manhattan) to a high of 25.1 per-
cent in Staten Island (District 3, South
Shore).
In the 14 to 17 age group, the citywide
total of 449,018 averages 8,000 per
district. Variations among the community
districts range from 313 in Manhattan
(District 1, Lower Manhattan) to 16,214 in
Queens (District 12, Jam-
aica/Hillcrest/Hollis). This age group con-
stitutes 25.4 percent of the citywide youth
population, with a range of 13.6 percent
in Manhattan (District 1) to a high of 30.5
percent in the Bronx (District 10, Coop
City/Throggs Neck).
Source 19h0 Census Summary TapeFii* 1


Portrait of the Citys Population
REPORT NO 3 The Aged Population By Community District
of New York
lartment of City Planning
ifayette Street
i York. N.Y. 10007
TABLE 1
nd Agad Popular Ion Naw York City
1 900-1860
The citys aged population, those aged 65
and older, have shown the most consis-
tent growth of any population group in the
city since the turn of the century. The
1900 Census reported the city's aged
population at 96,000, or 2.8 percent of the
city's total population. From 1900 to 1950
Total WmBir the total population more than doubled to
On OOOb) On OOP*) of Total 7,892,000. During the same period the
3437 96 28 aged increased six-fold; in 1950 they
4 767 >36 28 constituted 7.7 percent of the total. From
6620 176 31 1960 to 1970, the aged population in-
6 930 266 38 creased by 134,000 rising to 948,000
7 455 414 66 while the total population remained
7.892 606 77 stable. From 1970 to 1980, while the total
7 78? 814 >0 5 population decreased to 7,072,000 the
7.896 948 120 aged population grew by 4,000 stabilizing
7.072 96? 135 at 952,000. (See Table 1).
TABLE 2
>gad Population by Subgroup
Naw York City
1 BOO -1980 (In thouaanda)
Total
88+ 88-74 78-84 88+
96 72 21 3
135 102 29 4
176 131 39 6
265 205 5? 7
414 3ii 9? 11
605 445 139 21
614 684 197 32
946 626 265 57
96? 57t 304 77
not tOO fO total Out to *0unOiog
Age Patterns
An analysis of subgroups among the
aged since 1900 reveals differing trends.
During the past decade, the greatest pro-
portionate increases were experienced
by the 'oldest* elderly (85 and older) with
some continued increases in the 'middle'
elderly (75 to 84) and slight decreases in
the 'youngest' elderly (65 to 74 years of
age) as shown in Table 2.
The youngest elderly were counted as
72.000 in 1900, nearly doubling to
131.000 by 1920, more than doubling to
311.000 in 1940 and reaching a peak of
626.000 in 1970 before declining slightly
to 571,000 in 1980
The middle elderly were 21,000 in 1900,
by 1920 their numbers doubled to
39,000, then more than doubled to
92.000 in 1940, went up to 197,000 in
1960, and increased by about 50 percent
by 1980, when they were 304,000.
The oldest elderly, less than 3,000 in
1900, doubled to 6,000 in 1920, almost
doubled to 11,000 in 1940. almost tripled
to 32,000 in 1960, and more than
doubled to 77,000 in 1980
These changes have affected the relative
distribution of the aged population as re-
flected in the percentages of Chart A.
People between 65 and 74 have been a
steadily decreasing proportion of the
city's aged population, people between
75 and 84 years of age have increased
slightly, while those 85 years and older
have increased from a very small number
to 77,000.
Borough Analysis
There has been only minimal variation in
the rates of growth of the aged population
among the boroughs since 1900. Manhat-
tan and Brooklyn had parallel rapid in-
creases from 1900 until 1960, slower
growth from 1960 to 1970 when both
boroughs peaked Manhattan with
215,000 and Brooklyn with 289,000. Be-
tween 1970 and 1980, both boroughs
had slight declines in their aged
populations.
The pattern of population growth of the
aged was only slightly different for the
Bronx. During the early part of the century
there was a very rapid rate of growth. The
rate of growth slowed until it was about
equal to that of Manhattan and Brooklyn
from 1930 to 1970.
In 1970, the Bronx peaked with 171,000
elderly. After 1970, the rate of loss of
elderly population in the Bronx was rela-
tively larger than it was in Manhattan or
Brooklyn.
The elderly population continued to grow
rapidly in Queens and Staten Island
through 1980. They differed only in that
the rate of growth of Queens aged popu-
lation slowed slightly between 1970 and
1980, while Staten Island experienced a
slight increase in its rate. (See Chart B).
Changes between the subgroups differed
among the boroughs during 1970 to
1980 The oldest and middle elderly in-
creased in the city and in each borough,
13 16 OCTOBER 1983


TABLE 3
CWM A
ENTAO OtSTBlBUTlOM O' POPULATION
M AND OVEA >v AGE
Ni yOBKClTv
1900 1990
IOC 198C
Aged Population by Borough and Age, New York City, 1970-1980
Age and Year City Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queans Staten Is.
Total 65+ 1970 1980 \ Change 947,878 951.732 +0 4 170.920 151,298 -11.5 289.077 279.544 -33 214.973 204.437 -4 9 247.286 281.328 + 138 25.622 35.125 + 37 1
65-74 1970 625.999 111.665 192.472 141,083 165.011 15.768
I960 570,519 87,224 172.749 118832 170,253 21.461
% Change -89 -21 9 -10.2 -158 + 32 + 36 1
75-84 1970 265.326 48.653 79.879 60,153 68.708 7,933
1980 303.881 49.848 86.188 68.720 88.747 10,378
% Change + 14 5 +2 5 + 7.9 + 14 2 + 292 +30 8
85+ 1970 56.553 10.602 16.726 13.737 13.567 1.921
1980 77.332 14.226 20.607 16.885 22.328 3.286
% Change +36 7 +34.2 +23 2 +22 9 *64 6 +71 1
Chan 6
AGCO POPULATION BY BOROUGH
NEW YORK CITY
1900 1990
in August 1980 t*e State oi New York
the C*ty ot New York ana other plaintiffs
filed Suit agams the united States
Bureau of tne Census and other ae dants claiming that the bureau had ur>
demounted the popoiatior of the state
arc he civ m the i960 Decencai
Census the Peoe'ai 0str*ct Court he'd
mat tne state and the city had been dis
prepoMionate'y undercounteO anc or
deed the bureaj to use reasonable
methods which the court neia were
available tc adiust me 198C population
figures *or the state and city to compen
sate for the disporport undercount The Court of Appeals K'
tne Second Circuit reversed the district
courts o'de on proceaura1 grounds
anc remanded me case to me district
COu't for tu'the' proceedings Tht$ hitga
tion is stm active merefce an 1980
Census data discussed m this raped
must be considered preliminary pending
me fma* outcome Conclusions drawr
from this and otne' t980 Census data
are subiect tc me Qualification that they
dc nc* take undercountmg mtc
cons'derahon
although at different rates. The population
75 to 84 increased 14.5 percent in the
city, with the borough increases ranging
from 2.5 percent in the Bronx to 30.8 per-
cent in Staten Island. Among those aged
85 and over, the citywide increase was
36.7 percent; Manhattan had the smallest
increase, 22.9 percent, and Staten Island
the largest 71.1 percent.
The youngest elderly showed more
variation, declining in the Bronx, Brooklyn
and Manhattan while increasing in
Queens and Staten Island This group de-
creased 8.9 percent citywide, the 21.9
percent loss in the Bronx was the
greatest. At the same time, the group in-
creased by 3.2 percent in Queens and in
Staten Island by 36.1 percent. (See Table
3).
Community District Patterns in 1980
The number of aged persons by com-
munity district ranged from 1,162 in Man-
hattan (District 1, Lower Manhattan) to
32,821 in Manhattan (District 8, (Upper
East Side). The districts with the smallest
numbers of aged tended to be the South
Bronx and northern and central Brooklyn.
The districts with the greatest numbers of
aged were in the southwest corner of
Brooklyn, northern and central Queens,
and the upper east and west sides of
Manhattan and Washington Heights. The
concentration of elderly persons for each
of the subgroups followed the pattern of
the total aged population.
Table 4 illustrates the relationship be-
tween the numbers of aged persons in a
district and the aged proportion of the dis-
tricts total population. As shown on the
map, the districts with the greatest rela-
tive concnetrations of aged persons are
in the northern portions of the Bronx,
southern Brooklyn and central-western
Queens and the Rockaways. District 16 in
Brooklyn (Brownsville) has the smallest
proportion of aged, 5.5 percent, and Dis-
trict 13 in Brooklyn (Coney
Island/Brighton) the highest proportion,
23 1 percent, compared to a citywide
average of 13.5 percent.
1980 Citywide Projections j
It is projected that between 1980 and^
1990 the population of those aged 65 and
older will remain about the same. These
projections assume migration levels
equal to, or two-thirds that of the 1970-80
decade. The aged population which was
952.000 in 1980 may decrease to
900.000 or increase slightly to 960,000.
However, this will differ markedly among
subgroups. (See Table 5).
The youngest elderly are likely to de-
crease from the 571,000 enumerated in
1980 to some 525,000, or possibly to
485,000, because there were fewer per-
sons 55 to 64 years old in 1980 (to
become 65 to 74 in 1980) than there
were in 1970 (who became 65 to 74 in
1980.) The middle elderly should remain
close to the 1980 figure of 304,000. They
should be between 305,000 and 325,000
in 1990. The oldest elderly are most likely
to increase from the 77,000 enumerated
in 1980 to approximately 110,000 by
1990.


OMMUNITY DISTRICT DATA
APPENDIX TABLE A
pd Population by Apt and Community Dlatrtct
Naw York City, 1980
AfN M and Ovar
lonwMdty AaaNfeant 66 and
Metrtet Number Totei Population 88*74 76*84 Over
1 5.176 Irofu 66 1286 1.500 390
2 2.061 6.0 1.420 533 108
3 1971 74 2.634 1.079 258
4 6.315 7.3 4.607 2.609 699
s 6.153 5.7 3.837 1.886 430
6 5.306 6.2 3.314 1.608 384
7 20.466 175 10.536 7.565 2.365
6 20.039 204 11,227 6.564 2.248
9 20.839 12 4 12.524 6.739 1.576
10 19.367 182 11.557 6.494 1.316
11 22.236 22.5 12.363 7.651 2.224
12 18.211 142 10.246 5.885 2.078
1 14,609 Nroofclyw 103 9.820 3.628 961
2 9.160 9.9 5.578 2.830 752
3 9.924 74 6.480 2.756 666
4 6.485 7.0 1959 1.891 635
5 11.722 76 7.216 1514 992
6 11.905 10.6 7.049 3.710 1.146
7 11.626 11.8 7,168 3.598 860
8 7.152 80 4.553 2.043 556
9 6.647 6.9 4.286 1.882 479
10 24.646 209 14.629 8334 1.663
11 28.496 184 17,466 8.881 2.149
12 26.278 169 15.995 6166 2.117
13 22.968 23.1 11038 8.084 1.846
14 21.781 151 12.944 7.284 1.553
15 29.398 197 18517 9.056 1.825
16 4.056 55 2.622 1.019 215
17 9.995 65 6.406 2.908 681
16 22.672 134 14.806 6.397 1.469
1 1.162 Menhetti 73 843 295 24
2 11.110 12 7 6.638 1620 852
3 19.425 126 11.965 5.925 1.535
4 12.846 15.7 7.464 4.493 669
5 6.531 165 3.767 2.250 514
6 20.924 164 12779 6.709 1.436
7 30.328 14.7 15.928 11.323 a077
6 32.821 161 17.845 11.866 3.110
9 12.710 12 3 7.659 4.069 982
10 17.210 163 10.901 5.170 1.139
11 12.012 105 7.613 3.494 905
12 26.461 147 14.644 9.228 2.389
1 27.515 Pmmm 14.8 16.642 6.766 1.905
2 15.119 17 0 9.329 4.653 937
3 16.519 151 11.364 5.954 1.201
4 11382 113 6.095 4.225 1.062
5 28.124 188 16.929 9.125 2.070
6 25.484 22 7 15.294 8.404 1.786
7 30.878 15.1 18377 9.551 2.950
e 20.300 162 12.914 5.694 1.492
9 17.288 15 8 10.205 5.646 1.437
10 12.476 118 6 100 3.547 629
11 15.689 14.3 10.137 4533 1.219
12 19.456 103 12.147 5.773 1.536
13 16.051 104 11 120 5.385 1.546
14 18.580 185 9295 6.979 2.306
1 16.760 teten leland 12 1 10.085 5.180 1.495
2 10.961 104 6395 1206 1.360
3 7.380 68 4966 1.985 429
iurce ana Notes S*eAPP§NDtX TABLE B
114
PERCENT OF POPULATION
65 YEARS OF AGE AND OLD
1980

UNDER 10.0%
10.0% TO 16.9%
17.0% AND OVER
COMMUNITY DISTRIC


TABLE 4
Community District* by Number of Agod Parsons and
Agsd aa Proportion of Total Population
Now York City, 1980
At #f Tatal Aopuletiw
Afd_>o > too-14. no-iMWOiQw
UndBf 5000 X ? R if ;
x 3 M 1 |
5.000 to 9 999 X 1 h-4 i M 5
X-4 K B 1
5 K 9 1
X 6 R 17 i
K 7 S3
R 3 i
10.00010 14 999 R 5 R M 11] M- 4
R 6 0 4 1
R 7 0 10-
M ? S 7
M 9
15000 to 19999 X 1? 0 171X to 0 3
M 3 0 13!M 10 0 9
on si 10 0 14
70 000 tc ?4 999 X 9 ]7 M 6 X-B K 10
K 1 |k 14 0 9 X 1 t K 13
75 00010 79 999 M 1? K 11 K 15 0 6
0 1 iK 1? 0 5
XOOO&Ovti M 7 MB 0 7
N0? * 0po* B'oony* V ktaonattan 0 Queens S
0 *1 B'O** Community District
TABLE S
Now York City Agod Population, By Ago
1980 Population and 1990 Protections*
(In 000a)
1M0
A#M 10Poo*Btio* Law
Total 95? 900 960
65 74 571 465 5?5
75-64 304 305 325
65* 77 no no
*Thmaorofetom aredasedon thaassumotion that
mqraton levels mli t* OO'On'nBfa'y tne IS Ounng
me r S 70-80 0ac*OB tows os rwo-rn*os mar wvm inigni
APPENDIX TABLE B
Porcontago Diatrlbutlon ot Agod Population
by Ago and Community Dlatrlct, Now York City,
1080
Community Parcantaga Diatrlbutlon. 19S02
Olatrtet1 Total 66-74 78-64 6S +
Bronx
i 1000 635 790 7 t,
?a 100 0 689 759 5 7
3 1000 66 3 27? 65
4 1000 57 8 31 4 100
5 1000 62 4 30 7 70
6 1000 67 5 30 3 72
l 1000 51 5 370 116
flb 1000 560 37 8 11 7
9 1000 60 1 37 3 76
10 1000 59 7 33 5 68
11 1000 556 34 4 100
1? 1000 56 3 32 3 11 4
Brooklyn
1 1000 67? 76? 6 6
? 1000 609 30 9 8?
3 1000 653 776 69
4 1000 610 79 7 98
5 1000 61 6 300 85
6 1000 59? 31 2 96
7 1000 61 7 30 9 7 4
8 100 0 63 7 286 78
9 1000 645 78 3 72
to 1000 59 4 33 8 68
11 1000 61 3 31 7 75
17 1000 60 9 3i 1 8 1
13 1000 56 8 35? 80
14 1000 59 4 334 7 1
15 1000 630 30 e 6?
16 1000 69 6 75 i 53
17 1000 64 1 79 1 60
18 1000 653 282 65
Manhattan
1 1000 775 754 7 1
7 1000 59 7 326 7 7
3 1000 6t 6 30 5 79
4 1000 503 360 68
5 100 0 57 7 34 5 79
6 100 0 fit 1 3? i 69
7 100 0 575 37 3 1C 1
8 1000 54 4 36? 95
9 1000 60 3 320 7 7
10 1000 633 30 0 66
11 1000 63 4 75 i 7 5
12 1000 56 1 34 9 90
Quaana
1 tooo 6i 7 31 9 69
7 1000 61 7 32 1 6 2
3 1000 61 4 32 2 65
4 1000 60 5 3i 6 79
5 tooo 60? 37 4 74
6 1000 600 33 C 70
7 1000 59 5 30 9 96
8 1000 636 290 7 3
9 1000 59 0 37 7 83
10 <00 0 64 9 20 4 66
11 1000 63 8 28 5 7 7
17 1000 62 4 29 7 79
13 1000 . 61 6 29 0 86
14 1000 50 0 376 1 ? 4
Btatan Inland
t 1000 60? 30 9 89
2 100 0 58 3 29 ? 1 7 4
3 1000 67 3 26 9 58
1 Does not include Joint tnte'tist Areas therefore sum of community
districts mav not eauai Oorough totals
^May not add ur> to 1001 due to rounding
aB*ciudes Pmers island Census Tract 1 assigned to CD 1
Queen s
bincludes Marble Hill Manhattan Census Tract 309
cE*ctudes Maroie Hiii Census Tract 309 assigned to C D 8 B'on*.
aincludes Pikers island Census Tract t Bron*
Additional Cantus Malarial
Available at:
Mid-Manhattan Library
455 Fifth Avenue
New York. New York 10016
New York Public Library
Research
Fifth Avenue at 42nd Street
New York New York 10018
Bronx Reference Center
Fordham Library
2556 Bainbridge Avenue
Bronx. New York 10458
Brooklyn Public Library
Grand Army Plaza
Brooklyn. New York 11238
Brooklyn Public Library Business
280 Cadman Plaza West
Brooklyn, New York 11201
Queens Public Library
89 11 Memck Boulevard
Jamaica, New York 11432
St. George Library Center
10 Hyatt Street
Staten Island. New York 10301
Municipal Reference & Research
Center
31 Chambers Street
New York. New York 10007
Department of Commerce Library
26 Federal Plaza
New York. New York 10007
Department ot City Planning
Herbert Sturz. Chairman
Aianne Baerson. Executive
Director
Human Resources
Marvin D Roth Director
Rita Barnsh Deouty Director
Nathan Kantrowitz Protect
Director
Heidi Berman Protect planner
Population
Evelyn S Mann. Director
Information Systems
Robert Amsterdam. Director
Sarah Hsiung Programmer
Grabhics/Draftmg
Barbara Bartlett. Director
Laura Chestnut. Frances Jackso'
Henry Nicholas. Barbara Vaienta
Stan Shabronsky. Ed Whitman
Information Services Mission
Phillip B Waiiick Assistant
Executive Director
Ann Goetcheus. Deouty Mission
Coordinator
Source 419P0Csnsus Summary Tape File t


REPORT NO
of New York
irtment of City Planning
fayette Street
York, N.Y. 10007
i is the first of a series
ports on the Citys
jlation. The series will
include:
uth population
led population
mily income
ucational Attainment
verty status
bor force participation
Chart A
POPULATION BY BOROUGH
NEW YORK CITY
1900-1990
<900 <0 70 30 40 SO 60 70 <990
} 05 JUNE 1981
Portrait of the Citys Population
POPULATION CHANGE 1970-1980
AGE DISTRIBUTION IN 1980
Population Change
The creation of Greater New York in 1898
with a population of three-and-one-half
million initiated an era of rapid population
growth that lasted for thirty years. By the
1930s, the city's population had doubled.
More than seven million people lived in
New York. The city's population de-
creased during the 1970s, ending a few
decades of relative stability.
This overall change masks the diversity
of the population changes within the
boroughs. Manhattan and Brooklyn (and
to a lesser extent, the Bronx) constitute
the older parts of the city, and its areas of
early growth; Queens and Staten Island,
the areas of more recent development,
have a lower density pattern.
Manhattan, the core of the city, had a
population of nearly two million in 1900,
peaked at 2.3 million by 1910, then
began 70 years of slow decline. Brooklyn,
had a population of more than one million
in 1900. At first, Brooklyn grew quickly. Its
growth slowed through the Depression
and the Second World War, peaked in
1950, and then began to decline. The
Bronx had a population of 201,000 in
1900 which nearly doubled every decade
until 1930 when it reached 1.3 million.
After the Depression, growth slowed; the
Bronx reached its peak population in
1970.
Queens and Staten Island both had small
populations less than 200,000 in
1900. Most of their growth took place
since the consolidation of the city in
1898. Queens' population reached 1.1
million in 1930, peaked in 1970 with
nearly two million people, and declined
only during the last decade. Staten Island,
with a less dense settlement pattern, is
the only borough that continued to grow;
in 1980, Staten Island's population
reached 352,000. (See Chart A).
Age Patterns
The relative distribution of population
among the age groups has also shifted
since the turn of the century. But trends
among the age groups have not been con-
sistent. The size of the youngest cohort,
those under 15, is now, paradoxically,
about the same as it was in 1910. Begin-
ning with one million in 1900, there was a
steady rise until a 1930 slowdown, a peak
in 1970 at 1.9 million, followed by a pre-
cipitous decline in the most recent
decade to 1.4 million.
The number of those in the younger work-
ing ages, between 15 and 44, increased
steadily from 1.8 million in 1900 to a peak
of 3.9 million in 1940 and then slowly de-
clined to 3.2 million in 1980. Among
those in the older working ages, 45 to 64,
the population of less than half-a-million
in 1900 rose steadily to two million in
1960, after which a decline ensued.
These working ages include those who
are most likely to be in the labor force; it
does not preclude work among those out-
side this range.
Persons aged 65 and over constitute the
only group to have increased consistently
since the consolidation of the city. Begin-
ning with 96,000 in 1900, they had in-
creased to nearly a million persons by
1980.
These shifts in the numbers are also re-
flected in the proportionate changes
which are shown in the percentages of
Chart B. This chart shows how the youth
and younger working age groups have
steadily declined as a proportion of the
citys population since the turn of the cen-
tury, with the post-Second World War in-
crease in youth lasting only a generation.
On the other hand, the older working age
population (45 to 64) has increased
steadily while the aged (65 and over)
have increased at a high rate.
An analysis of the changes that occurred
from 1970 to 1980, indicates that there
was considerable variation in the
changes among the age groups. Although
the city's total population declined by
10.4 percent, those in the under 15 age
group declined by one-fourth. At the
same time, the younger working ages re-
mained steady, while those of the older
working ages declined nearly one-fifth, or


TABLE 1
POPULATION BY AQE AND BOROUGH, NEW YORK CITY, 1970 AND 1980
OPOIATION B> AGI AND St A
Nttt YORK CITY
1970 1990
OX X C 60
Population 111 ThOuMQOl
Motion Olt'MM Pooutotion IWMtf
ro I960 970 1990
Age and Yaar City Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Quaans Statan Island 1
Total 1970 1980 % change 1970-80 7.894,862 7.071.639 -10 4 1.471.701 1.168.972 -20.6 2.602.012 2,230.936 -14.3 1.539.233 1.428.285 -7.2 1.986.473 1.891,325 -4.8 295443 352.121 + 19.2
0-14 1970 1980 % change 1970-80 1.871,745 1,424,304 -23 9 394.253 274.654 -30.3 685.870 514.040 -25 1 276.954 203.898 -26 4 427.997 349.057 -184 86.671 82.655 -4.6
15-44 1970 1980 % change 1970-80 3.243.188 3.204,107 -1.2 600.345 518.396 -13.7 1.050.555 986,536 -61 683.845 717.527 +4.9 785.801 816.458 +3.9 122.642 165.190 +34.7
45-64 1970 1980 % change 1970-80 1,832.051 1,491,496 -18.6 306.183 224,624 -266 576.510 450.816 -21.8 363.461 302.423 -16 8 525.389 444,482 -15.4 60.508 69,151 + 14.3
65+ 970 1980 % change 1970-80 947.878 951.732 +0.4 170.920 151.298 -11.5 289.077 279,544 -3.3 214.973 204.437 -4.9 247.286 281.328 + 13.8 25.622 35.125 +37.1
Chart B
RCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION BY AGE
NEW YORK CITY
IMV 1900 1980
i August 1980 the State of New York
>e City of New York, and other plaintiffs
led suit agamst the United States
lureau of the Census and other defen-
iants claiming that the Dureau had un-
le'counted the population of the state
ihd the city in the i960 Decennial
Census The Feoera> District Court heic
nat the state and the city had been dis
iroportionateiy unoercounted and Of-
fered the bureau to use reasonable
methods which the court held were
ivaiiabfe to adiust the 1980 population
rgures for the state and city to compen
ate for tne disooiponionete under
:ount The Court o' Appeals tor the
fee one Circuit reversed the district
:ourfs order on procedural grounds
ino remanded the case to the district
;ouh for further proceedings This litiga
ion is stiii active therefore all 1680
'ensus data discussed m mis report
rvusl be considered preliminary pending
he ftnai outcome Conclusions drawn
rorr mis end other 1980 Census data
ire subject to the Qualification mal me*
Jo not take undercounting tnlo
:on$tderatio
almost as much as the child population.
The number of elderly remained steady,
showing a 0.4 percent increase. The
population pyramid illustrates these
changes for the city, which lost population
in every age group except for young work-
ers (25 to 34), and among very elderly
women aged 75 and over.
Borough Patterns 1970-1980
There was no consistent pattern in the
relative level of change by age group for
the boroughs. An analysis of the four
major age groups (under 15. 15 to 44. 45
to 64, and 65 and over) indicates declines
in all groups for the boroughs of early
growth (Manhattan, Bronx and Brooklyn)
except for a slight increase in younger
working ages in Manhattan. In Queens,
the younger working age group and the
aged increased, while in Staten Island all
age groups except the youngest
increased.
Among those under 15. the population de-
clined (23.9 percent) for the city as a
whole, as it did in every borough. The lar-
gest loss took place in the Bronx (30.3
percent), the smallest in Staten Island
(4.6 percent).
The younger working ages showed stabil-
ity in the city as a whole but the boroughs
varied considerably, from an appreciable
loss in the Bronx (13.7 percent) to a gain
in Staten Island (34.7 percent). This ap-
pears to be the result of differential migra-
tion, since the younger working ages, par-
ticularly those in their 20s tended to mi-
grate into the city. The Bronx and Brook-
lyn, which lost more population from
1970 to 1980 than any of the other
boroughs, were the only ones to lose in
this category.
Manhattan and Queens, which had much
smaller losses overall, actually showed
gains in the 15 to 44 group, while Staten
Island posted large gains both in its total
population and in this group. In the older
working ages, a citywide loss of one-fifth
was mirrored in every borough except
Staten Island (which had a 14.3 percent *
gain). I
Among the aged, the city population re-
mained stable while it varied widely in the
boroughs: There was a drop of 11.5 per-
cent in the Bronx but a 37.1 percent gain
in Staten Island. (See Table 1).
Community District Changes
Even though there was a ten percent de-
cline in the citys enumerated population
between 1970 and 1980, one-fourth of
the citys 59 community districts had an
increase. Table 2 shows the number of
districts with gains and losses in popula-
tion. As the map indicates, a little over
half, or 33 districts, had changes of be-
tween plus and minus 9.9 percent.
Among those with large gains were two
Staten Island districts (Staten Island Dis-
trict 1 also gained, but less than 10.0 per-
cent). The other districts with gains were
scattered through lower Manhattan, and
one was in the Bronx.
Districts with larger proportionate losses |
were concentrated in the South Bronx
and the ad)acent edge of upper Manhat-
tan and northern Brooklyn. Other scat-
tered losses occurred in lower Manhattan,
Brooklyn and eastern Queens
2


COMMUNITY DISTRICT DATA
POPULATION* PERCENT DISTRIBUTION
_____________________BYA0E19S03
CD' 1970 1980 %CHA 0-14 16-44 45-64 65+
1 138.6 784 BRONX -43 4 29.9 46 7 16 8 6.6
2* 939 34 3 -63.5 30.6 46.0 174 6.0
3 1506 53.8 -64 3 28.9 45.9 17.8 74
4 1442 114.5 -206 299 48.0 14.9 73
5 1219 1081 -113 321 49.1 13.2 57
6 114.1 649 -431 297 46.5 156 82
7 1137 116.9 +28 22.1 429 17.4 17.5
86 103 5 98.3 -51 16.4 40.6 22.6 204
9 1164 167.9 +09 237 446 19.3 124
10 84 9 1063 +251 162 40.1 255 18.2
11 1060 98.9 -67 14 6 38.1 249 '22.5
12 135.0 128.3 -5.0 197 43.4 227 14.2
1 1794 1424 BROOKLYN -206 27.1 426 20.0 10.3
2 110.2 929 -157 188 531 18.2 9.9
3 196.6 133.5 -321 28.3 45.9 18.3 7.4
4 137.9 931 -325 32 7 45.6 14.7 7.0
5 167 3 155 0 -7.4 30.5 465 154 7.6
6 138 9 110 3 -20.6 21.8 491 18.3 10.8
7 111.6 986 -116 254 44.0 18.8 11.8
e 121.8 89 0 -27.0 261 47.6 18.2 8.0
9 1010 969 4 1 256 50.1 17.5 69
10 1298 1176 -9 3 14.8 394 24 6 20.9
11 1701 1550 -89 167 40.2 247 18.4
12 166 3 1558 -6.3 226 39.5 21 1 16.9
13 104 5 995 -48 185 35.5 22.8 231
14 140 9 144 5 +2 5 21 8 45.3 179 15.1
15 1684 149 5 -11.2 15.3 387 263 197
16 122.5 73 9 -39.7 329 46.5 15.1 55
17 1456 154 5 +6.1 259 50.8 16 9 6.5
18 1886 1691 -104 17 6 41.7 27.2 134
1 80 MANHATTAN 159+100 2 12.9 661 136 7.3
2 84 3 872 +34 7.5 592 20.5 12.7
3 181.8 154 8 -14 9 19.9 47.0 205 12.6
4 833 82 0 -1 6 93 531 21 9 15.7
5 31 1 39 5 +273 36 565 234 165
6 122 5 127 6 +4 2 6.3 51.8 254 164
7 2124 206 6 -2 7 112 54 1 199' 147
8 2009 204 3 + 17 96 527 217 161
9 1136 1031 -92 17 6 498 20.2 12.3
10 159.3 105.8 -336 184 404 249 16.3
11 154 7 1144 -260 24 1 456 198 10.5
12c 180.6 1799 -04 20 9 45 4 18 9 14.7
1a 1944 185 5 OUEENS -4 6 18 2 45.0 21 9 14 8
2 92 1 89 0 -34 157 443 229 17.0
3 1236 122.3 11 181 438 230 151
4 108 2 1183 +93 200 492 194 11.3
5 161 0 1498 -70 167 398 24 8 188
6 1204 1123 -68 118 39.8 257 227
7 2077 2050 -13 169 435 24 5 15.1
8 141.6 125 1 11 7 159 428 251 16.2
9 1107 109 2 -1 4 184 433 22 4 15 8
10 113.5 105 5 -7 0 20 1 433 24 7 11.8
11 1279 110 9 -133 159 41.6 282 14 3
12 209 5 1896 -95 231 442 22 4 10.3
13 182 5 1736 -4 9 20 9 44 6 239 104
14 982 1005 +28 23 5 39 1 188 185
1 135.9 STATEN ISLAND 1382 +1 7 224 450 20 4 121
2 860 105.3 +22 5 22 1 47 1 20 3 104
3 72 8 1083 +489 26 1 49 1 180 68
1 Does riot include /om interest areas therefore sum of community
Oistncts may not equal borough totals
2 Population rounded to nearest hundred
3 May not add uo to one hundred percent due to rounding
a Excludes Pikers island Census Tract 1. assigned to CD 1 Queens
b includes Marble Hill Manhattan Census Tract 309
c Excludes Ma'bte Hill Census Tract 309 atsrgned to CD 8 Broni
d includes Rikers island Census Tract 1 Bronu
Sources t970Census fourth Count
I960 Census Summary Tape file 1
PERCENT CHANGE
IN TOTAL POPULATION 1B70-198I
+ 10% AND OVER
-9.9% TO +9.9%
i
-10% AND BELOW
m COMMUNITY DISTF
3