loisaida

changing demographics of the lower east side

The past twenty five years have seen great changes in the population of Manhattan's Community District #3, otherwise known as the Lower East Side. Broadly speaking, three communities presently comprise the bulk of the district. A growing Chinese community has expanded eastward from its traditional home on Mott Street, into the areas east of the Bowery and below the Manhattan Bridge. A large Hispanic/Puerto Rican population is centered around the public housing complexes along the FDR Drive, Alphabet City east of Avenue B and in formerly Jewish areas along Rivington Street. Most recently, yuppies and college students have developed a neighborhood in the blocks off either side of Third Avenue, from 14th Street to 8th Street. This paper will examine changes to the district's population makeup over the past 25 years and some of the social changes that may have influenced them.
Changes to Aggregate Number of Residents and Housing Units
During the 1970's, the district lost 28,000 residents, or just over 15% of its population. In the 1950's and 1960's, construction of public housing across much of the eastern edge of the district and increased suburban migration helped to empty out the existing tenement fabric. The effects of this transition is most apparent on the blocks east of Avenue B. The tracts in this area all sustained heavy population losses, causing the deterioration of much of the housing stock into vacant units, abandonment and empty lots.
Although the district gained 7,873 residents during the 1980's, growth in individual tracts differed based on specific cultural and economic changes affecting certain communities. Increased immigration, particularly from China, raised population levels in Chinatown tracts 18.00 and 36.01 by more than 30%. The growth of renovated and new apartment housing in the northwest areas of the district was due to the influx of yuppies and college-educated residents to tracts 40.00 and 42.00. In the heart of Alphabet City, tract 26.02 showed high population growth during the decade, due to a wave of assisted housing construction on vacant lots. The greatest loss of population occurred in tract 36.02. It is unclear whether the large homeless population also measured in this district is related to the population loss.
Recent estimates show large population gains in tract 26.01 and 26.02, correlating with 200 new housing units built between 1990-1994. Tract 22.02, in contrast, experienced a high loss in population due to the abandonment of many housing units. High unit vacancy rates are also indicated in tract 34.00, the location of the recent controversy over squatter rights over abandoned housing. During 1990-1994, the district, overall, has gained only 146 new residents, an increase of less than 1 percent.
Changes in Locational Distribution of Residents
During the 1980's, locational distribution indicators varied throughout the district. Tracts 16.00 and 18.00 in Chinatown reported increasingly larger person to room ratios, suggesting overcrowded conditions. In contrast, tracts with high percentages of vacant housing units were scattered throughout the district, with large numbers reported in the high-rent professional neighborhood of tract 42.00 as well as the squatter community in tract 34.00. Tracts 24.00, 10.02, 20.00 and 25.00 all had vacant unit percentages lower than 1/2% - all of these tracts contain public housing projects run by the Housing Authority.
Tracts 14.01 and 42.00 report minority populations greater than 80%. Conversely, tracts 24.00 and 20.00 had the highest white populations, although both reported Hispanic populations over 75%. Tracts with more than 50% population of Hispanic origin were located within Alphabet City and in the housing projects along the FDR Drive. Tract 10.02 had the largest population of Black residents - 25.4%. Foreign-born residents were concentrated in the tracts corresponding to high numbers of residents of Chinese origin. Tracts 16.00 and 8.00 had populations of more than 75% Chinese origin.
Locational Distribution of Economically/Socially Disadvantaged Residents
Overall, 26.1% of the district's residents are considered living below the poverty line, although only 10.7% receive public assistance. The lowest median family income in located in tract 20.00. The percentage of the population below the poverty line is the highest in this tract, 55.1%, as is the percentage of persons receiving public assistance, 37.2%. It has very few college-educated residents and the lowest average rent of all tracts in the district. Households in this tract also average 3.27 members, one of the highest in the district.
Group housing in the district is concentrated in tract 36.01. A large concentration of homeless individuals is located in neighboring tract 36.02, which also has a high male to female ratio of 1.7 to 1. Tract 22.02 shows a high percentage of children under 5. This tract also has high vacancy rates and high numbers of homeless residents. All of these lower income tracts front along Houston Street. As the population of these tracts continue to grow, policies must be developed to address the related increase in families and individuals in need of assistance.
Technical Note Regarding the Use of "Housing Unit Method" for Population Estimates
The Housing Unit Method forecasts a very small increase in the district's population over the 1990-1994 time period. In contrast to the huge loss occurring during the 1970's and the moderate increases reported for the 1980's, the population gain forecasted for 1990-1994 seems quite small in comparison. Although the low number may have been caused by economic changes related to the recession, it is more likely that the housing unit method does not take into account the diverse communities specific to the district.
One possible reason for the undercount is the use of housing unit estimates in an area already devastated by disinvestment and abandonment. By definition, the IHU89 variable is in itself a secondary data source purchased by the NYC Dept. of City Planning. The population estimate, therefore, is dependent on the accuracy of this data source in tracking new construction. In an area where many buildings are located on deteriorating blocks, viable units may have been overlooked. For example, squatter communities have taken over city-condemned and owned apartment buildings on 13th Street. In addition, increases in the number of homeless persons throughout the district do not figure into the estimate. These group communities are not considered in counts of inhabited housing stock and therefore may be undercounted as actual residents of the tract.
Cultural preference in family makeup is another area in which the housing unit method may undercount particular tracts. The household size variable is a static number that may not adequately track changes in the economic fortunes of certain families and individuals. To certain members of the community, "doubling up" with another family during hard times is not only encouraged, but necessary. In Chinatown and Hispanic areas of Alphabet City, the cultural differences of the Chinese and Puerto Rican populations may help obscure the number of residents to population estimates that do not include family size as a changing variable.
comments to fanfon@interport.net
back to fountain
december 1999