Post on 23-May-2018
transcript
Longfellow Community Population and Housing Characteristics, 1940-2000
Prepared by Nick Boettcher
Research Assistant, University of Minnesota Conducted on behalf of the Longfellow Community Council
July, 2007
This report (NPCR 1265) is also available on the CURA website: www.cura.umn.edu/search/index.php
July, 2007
Neighborhood Planning for Community Revitalization (NPCR) supported the
work of the author of this work, but has not reviewed it for publication. The content is
solely the responsibility of the author and is not necessarily endorsed by NPCR.
NPCR is coordinated by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of
Minnesota. NPCR is supported by grants from The Minneapolis Foundation, the
McKnight Foundation, The Bremer Foundation, and The St. Paul Travelers Foundation.
Neighborhood Planning for Community Revitalization
330 Hubert H. Humphrey Center
301 - 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
phone: 612/625-1020
e-mail: ksn@umn.edu
website: http://www.npcr.org
Longfellow Community Population and Housing Characteristics, 1940-2000
An Analysis of the Census Data
September 2006
Prepared by: Nick Boettcher, Student Researcher University of Minnesota – Twin Cities
On Behalf of the Longfellow Community Council
Copyright 2006 Nick Boettcher and Longfellow Community Council
- 2 -
This project was supported [in part] through student research assistance provided by Neighborhood Planning for Community Revitalization (NPCR), a program of the University of Minnesota�s Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA). This assistance was requested by the Longfellow Community Council (LCC), the citizen participation group for the Longfellow, Cooper, Howe and Hiawatha neighborhoods, and directed by Eric Hart of the LCC History Project. Special thanks to: Jeff Matson at CURA for his guidance during the GIS portion of this report; Prof. Patrick Nunnally with the University of Minnesota�s College of Design and Metropolitan Design Center (MDC); Katie Thering with the MDC; my friend Nicholas Andreoli for his help with graphics; the staff of the Minnesota History Center, Minneapolis Public Library and University of Minnesota�s Wilson Library, particularly the government documents collection, map library, and special collections librarians; Katie Hatt, Eric Hart, and Joan Krey with the Longfellow Community Council, and everyone involved with the LCC�s history project.
- 3 -
Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 4 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Area of Study........................................................................................................................................... 5
Census Tracts............................................................................................................................. 6 Methodology............................................................................................................................................ 7
Obtaining Tract-Level Data.......................................................................................................... 7 Population ............................................................................................................................................... 8
Population Changes at Smaller Levels within the Longfellow Community .................................... 9 Causes of Population Decline & the Decline in Context ............................................................... 9
Race and Ethnicity................................................................................................................................. 12 Blacks and African Americans................................................................................................... 12 Hispanic and Latino Population ................................................................................................. 13
Employment & Labor Force Characteristics ........................................................................................... 17 Women in the Labor Force........................................................................................................ 19 Employment in 1940 ................................................................................................................. 21 Major Industries in Which Workers are Employed...................................................................... 22 Manufacturing Employment....................................................................................................... 24
Income Characteristics .......................................................................................................................... 25 Educational Attainment.......................................................................................................................... 28 Housing................................................................................................................................................. 30
Age of Housing Stock................................................................................................................ 30 Type of Occupancy: Owners & Renters..................................................................................... 34 Vacancy.................................................................................................................................... 36 Longevity .................................................................................................................................. 37 Longevity Figures...................................................................................................................... 37
Means of Transportation........................................................................................................................ 40 Foreign-Born Population........................................................................................................................ 42
Foreign-Born Population in 1940 ............................................................................................... 44 Recommendations for Further Research................................................................................................ 45 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 46 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................... 48
Appendix A: Additional Maps..................................................................................................... 48 Appendix B: Effective Tract Boundaries..................................................................................... 50 Appendix C: Data...................................................................................................................... 50
General Population Data............................................................................................... 50 Housing Data................................................................................................................ 52 Education Data............................................................................................................. 55 Employment Data ......................................................................................................... 57 Income Data ................................................................................................................. 62 Means of Transportation to Work Data.......................................................................... 63 Country of Origin Data .................................................................................................. 64
- 4 -
Executive Summary
This report presents census data for the Longfellow Community over the sixty years from 1940
to 2000 and analyzes the data for trends and differences between the community and the City of
Minneapolis as a whole, as well as between different areas of the community. The major areas
covered include total population changes, race and ethnicity (particularly white to �non-white�
ratio, Black and African American population and Hispanic or Latino population), foreign-born
population characteristics, employment and labor force characteristics (including manufacturing
employment and women in the labor force), income distribution, educational attainment, housing
characteristics and means of transportation to work. The key findings produce an image of the
Longfellow Community as a place where:
! As in the city as a whole, population declined. Most significantly, the community lost
over 12 percent of its population between 1970 and 1980.
! The number of persons per unit declined at a faster rate than population.
! Diversity increased. In 1940, the Longfellow Community was 99.5 percent white. By
2000, minorities comprised twenty percent of the total population.
! The population is still �more white� than the city�s total population.
! Blacks and African Americans were concentrated south of 33rd Street East between
Hiawatha Avenue and Minnehaha Avenue, especially in the mid-20th Century.
! The Hispanic and Latino population tripled between 1990 and 2000.
! In 1940, Norwegians and Swedes were the predominant foreign-born populations. Danes,
Germans and Canadians were also well represented.
! The northwestern section of the community was the most diverse and also relatively
distressed, with high unemployment, high vacancy rates, low home ownership and low
income.
! The working population has relied on manufacturing, a declining industry. In 1960,
nearly a third of the Longfellow Community�s population worked in manufacturing; by
2000 only 11 percent did.
! The labor force continued to grow as women entered in significant numbers.
! Educational attainment, income and property values are lowest in the western edge of the
community (except in the southwest) and highest near the Mississippi River and
Minnehaha Park.
- 5 -
! Most of the housing stock dates to before World War II. This is truer in the Longfellow
Community than in the city as a whole.
! Homeownership predominates. The rate has been significantly above the city average, as
high as 81 percent and lower than 70 percent only in 1940.
! A significant percentage of residents are long-time residents.
! Workers heavily favor the private auto for transportation to work. The percentage of
Longfellow Community workers who do so climbed gradually between 1960 and 2000.
The data presented and analyzed in this report is based on official decennial census data. Much
of it has been adjusted to account for incongruities between the boundaries of the Longfellow
Community and the census tracts.
Introduction
This report is the culmination of an effort to compile and analyze various Census data for the
Cooper, Hiawatha, Howe and Longfellow neighborhoods of the Longfellow Community in south
Minneapolis, for the period 1940 to 2000. The original goal of the project was to include data
from 1900 to 1930, but this was deemed infeasible given the time allotted and the difficulty of
obtaining such data; the smallest area of analysis in published Census reports from that period is
the ward; tract data was first compiled for Minneapolis and St. Paul in the 1940 Census. The
main areas studied include population, race, ethnicity, nativity, employment, labor force
characteristics, income, educational attainment and housing characteristics. All figures are based
on decennial census reports cited in the bibliography section of this report. The method by which
the figures were derived is described later. Tract-level data is used for the period 1940-1970,
while most data for the period 1980-2000 is at a neighborhood level. This presents a significant
limitation of the study, as much data from the earliest forty years cannot be directly compared to
data from the last thirty years.
Area of Study
For the purposes of this study, the Longfellow Community does not include the Seward
neighborhood (included as a part of the Longfellow Community in many maps and documents
published by the city) but only the area occupied by the neighborhoods of Cooper, Hiawatha,
Howe and Longfellow: the Greater Longfellow Community represented by the Longfellow
- 6 -
Community Council. This area is bounded on the west by Hiawatha Avenue, on the east by the
Mississippi River, on the south by Minnehaha Park, and on the north by the railroad tracks near
27th Street E. (see Figure 2).
Census Tracts
For the period 1940 to 1990, all or part of census tracts 74, 75, 76, 88, 89, 90, 103, 104, 105 and
111 fall within the Longfellow Community. A map of the tracts, the boundaries of which did not
change until the 2000 Census, can be found on the following page. As mentioned above, data for
the period 1940-1970 is displayed at a tract level, so calculations were made to adjust data for
tracts 74, 75, 76, 88, 103 and 111, which lie partly outside and partly within the Longfellow
Community (Figure 1). These calculations are explained in the methodology section of this
report.
Figure 1: Tract Boundaries and Conflicting Longfellow Community Boundary1 (in red)
Right: Figure 2: Neighborhoods
1 The Longfellow Community boundary shown is an approximation. It is meant only to show the difference between the community boundary and the census tract boundaries as well as the effective relative size of the tracts.
(GIS Business Services, 2004)
- 7 -
Methodology
The research relied exclusively on published census data. The two major geographic units at
which data are displayed are the census tract and the neighborhood; tract-level data is used
exclusively for the period 1940 to 1970, and only in several instances (for several maps and
graphs) for the 1980 and 2000 censuses. Neighborhood-level data is used exclusively for the
1990 data and for most of the 1980 and 2000 data displayed in this report. This means that trends
and changes within the community can be examined from 1940 to 1970 and from 1980 to 2000
but not, for instance, from 1960 to 1990. Also, the four neighborhoods examined for the period
1980 to 2000 are smaller and fewer than the ten tracts examined for the earlier period.
The researcher made the decision to display data by two different, if incomparable, units in order
to display the most accurate data. Beginning with the 1980 decennial census, the Minneapolis
Planning Department began obtaining and publishing neighborhood-level data, which is reported
to be more accurate than a combination of tract and block data. Therefore, mostly neighborhood
data is used for the 1980-2000 period. Available tract-level data is used for the 1940-1970
period, but, as Figure 1 shows, the study area contains parts of, as well as whole, census tracts as
they were for the 1940 through 1990 censuses. Thus, adjustment of the published tract-level
figures was necessary.
Obtaining Tract-Level2 Data
! For the 1940 census, the available tract-level data was adjusted based on a percentage of
the housing units within the present-day boundaries of the Longfellow Community.
! For the 1950, 1960, 1970 and 1980 censuses, the available tract-level data was adjusted
based on an average of the percentage of housing units and the percentage of the
population within the present-day boundaries of the Longfellow Community.
! No 1990 tract data was used.
! For the 2000 census, no adjustment was necessary because the tract boundaries match
neighborhood boundaries.
2 Refers to tract boundaries specific to this study, not to official U.S. Census Bureau tract boundaries.
- 8 -
These percentages were determined by examining available block-level data. An example of the
tract-level data adjustment technique follows.
1. Obtaining a percentage of housing units reported in a given tract that are within the
boundaries of the Longfellow Community. Housing units in Longfellow Community Housing units reported in entire tract Percentage
40 ÷ 400 = 10.0%
2. Adjusting available tract-level census figures using the percentage obtained in step 1. Labor force reported in entire tract Percentage of housing units within study area New figure
3,100 X 10.0% = 310
For the following sections of this report, all mentions of tract 74, tract 75, tract 76, tract 88, tract
103 and tract 111 will refer to only the area of those tracts within the boundaries of the present-
day Longfellow Community, and all of the figures reported for these tracts will have been
adjusted using the method described. Therefore, much of the data displayed in the following
sections of this report are based on official census data, but are not official census data
themselves.
Population
The Longfellow Community lost population from 1940 to 2000 (Figure 3). This mirrors a trend
seen in the city as a whole (Figure 4), except over the last decade of the study period � the 1990s
- when the population of Minneapolis increased 3.9 percent. During one ten-year period, from
1960 to 1970, the city�s population dropped ten percent, while the community�s population
dropped only 0.3 percent (Figure 5). Tracts 88, 103 and 105 actually saw population gains during
this period � nearly 300 persons in tract 105, for instance. The most significant drop in
population in both the community and the city as a whole occurred between 1970 and 1980,
when the community�s population declined 12.4 percent, from 25,293 to 22,161. Some of this
decline may be attributable to the data collection methods used in producing these figures, but
during this same period, the city�s reported population declined 14.6 percent, from 434,408 to
370,951.
- 9 -
Population Changes at Smaller Levels within the Longfellow Community
With few exceptions, all the census tracts of the community reported declines in total population
at every 10-year interval over the study period (Figure 6). There are only six instances of census-
to-census population gains in a census tract between 1940 and 1970, as displayed in Figure 6 and
Figure 7. More recently, modest population gains were seen in the Hiawatha neighborhood
between 1980 and 1990, and in the Longfellow neighborhood between 1990 and 2000 (Figure 8).
Otherwise, an examination of neighborhood population statistics reveals a general decline in
population over the period 1980-2000.
On the whole, the population losses within the Longfellow Community are small; the most
significant declines occurred between 1950 and 1960 and between 1970 and 1980. The one
geographic area to experience consistently high percentages of population loss - during each
decade interval over the period 1940 to 1980 � is tract 74 (Figure 7). Much of this area is
predominately commercial and industrial (it contains the Lake Street-Hiawatha Avenue
intersection) and has seen a great deal of changes in its physical form. These changes, such as
urban renewal and transportation projects, and their quantifiable impact on the population and
the housing stock, merit further study.
Causes of Population Decline & the Decline in Context
One definite cause (or correlate) of population decline in the Longfellow Community as well as
in the city as a whole is observable in the census data: the decrease in persons per housing unit
(Figure 9). In the community, the number of persons per housing unit declined steadily from a
peak of over 3.5 in 1940 to just above two persons per unit in 2000, a decline of 39 percent! The
population decline over the same period amounted to around 27 percent, from 28,215 in 1940 to
20,602 in 2000. Increases in the numbers housing units offset some of the population losses
attributable to declines in the number of persons per unit. Housing figures, such as vacancy rates
as well as a total number of units, are closely linked to total population. Housing statistics and a
discussion on them can be found in the �Housing� section of this report.
- 10 -
Figure 3 Figure 4
Longfellow Community Population
05,000
10,00015,00020,00025,00030,000
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Tota
l Pop
ulat
ion
Minneapolis Population
0100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Tota
l Pop
ulat
ion
Figure 5
Percent Population Change Over Previous Census, 1950-2000
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
Longfellow CommunityMinneapolis
Longfellow Community -1.5 -8.7 -0.3 -12.4 -2.5 -4.6
Minneapolis 6.0 -7.4 -10.0 -14.6 -0.7 3.9
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Figure 6
Population by Tract
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1940 1950 1960 1970
Year
Tota
l Pop
ulat
ion
Tract 74Tract 75Tract 76Tract 88Tract 89Tract 90Tract 103Tract 104Tract 105Tract 111
- 11 -
Figure 7
Percent Population Change Over Previous Census (Tracts) 1950-1980
-30.0
-25.0
-20.0
-15.0
-10.0
-5.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
Tract 74 -9.8 -24.0 -24.5 -23.3Tract 75 0.3 -5.9 -9.1 -2.1Tract 76 -7.2 -2.5 -1.4 -15.9Tract 88 0.0 -6.2 3.6 -12.7Tract 89 -4.9 -9.6 -3.1 0.0Tract 90 -0.8 -8.7 -3.6 0.0Tract 104 -4.0 -7.8 -3.5 0.0Tract 105 3.8 -12.1 7.2 0.0Tract 111 10.6 2.4 -0.3 -5.1
1950 1960 1970 1980
Figure 8
Population by Neighborhood
010002000300040005000600070008000
1980 1990 2000
Year
Tota
l Pop
ulat
ion
Cooper
Hiaw atha
How e
Longfellow
- 12 -
Figure 9
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Persons per Occupied Unit
LongfellowCommunity
Minneapolis
Race and Ethnicity
Much like the city as a whole, the Longfellow Community grew more diverse between 1940 and
2000 (Figure 10). In 1940, races other than white made up only one half of one percent of the
community�s total population. By 1970 the figure was two percent and by 1990 it stood at nine
percent. The greatest rise in the population reporting itself as a race other than white occurred
between 1990 and 2000, when the figure rose to nearly 20 percent. The community has,
however, retained a statistically greater white majority than has the city as a whole. In 2000, for
example, 65 percent of all persons in Minneapolis reported their race as white, while 80 percent
in the Longfellow Community did.
Blacks and African Americans
The black and African American3 population comprises the largest minority group in the
Longfellow Community and in the city as a whole. Unlike other races tabulated in recent
censuses, such as �Asian or Pacific Islander,� �American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut,� and �Some
Other Race,� the black and African American population was counted in each decennial census
3 Persons of this race were counted as �Negroes� in the 1940-1970 censuses, �Blacks� in the 1980 and 1990 censuses, and �Blacks and African Americans� in the 2000 Census (U.S. Bureau of the Census).
- 13 -
over the study period. Study of this population over the period highlights its historic
concentration, most pronounced in the middle of the 20th century, in tract 88 (Figure 11),
especially between Hiawatha Avenue and Minnehaha Avenue and 33rd Street and 38th Street, in
the west-central area of the community (the southwestern part of the Longfellow neighborhood
and northwestern and west-central part of the Howe neighborhood). Not until 1980 did the black
and African American population in all tracts besides tract 88 combined surpass the black
population in tract 88 (Figure 11).
Whereas the black and African American population in the city as a whole grew steadily
between each census over the entire 60-year study period (Figure 12, Figure 13), growth of the
same population in the Longfellow Community did not approach city-average rates until after
1970 (Figure 12, Figure 14). At a neighborhood level, between 1980 and 2000, the most
significant increases in the numbers of black persons and African Americans were in the Howe
and Longfellow neighborhoods.
Hispanic and Latino4 Population
Statistics on the number of persons of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity were not included in
decennial census reports until relatively recently; the 1970 census is the first census of those
examined to contain such information. Rapid growth of the Hispanic and Latino ethnic
population occurred between 1980 and 1990 and especially between 1990 and 2000. Over the
latter period, the number of persons identified as Hispanic or Latino in the Longfellow
Community nearly tripled, from 439 persons in 1990 to 1,216 in 2000, and nearly quadrupled
citywide, from 7,900 to 29,175 (Figure 15 � Figure 17). At the time of the 2000 census,
Hispanics and Latinos comprised nearly six percent of the Longfellow Community�s total
population and nearly eight percent of the city�s population (Figure 16).
Of the four neighborhoods comprising the community, the Longfellow and Howe neighborhoods
have the largest Hispanic and Latino populations. In the 2000 census, 483 Hispanics or Latinos
lived in the Longfellow neighborhood and 436 lived in the Howe neighborhood (see Appendix). 4 Persons of this ethnicity were counted as persons of �Spanish Mother Tongue� in the 1970 Census, persons of �Spanish Language� in 1980, and persons of �Spanish or Latino� ethnicity in 2000.
- 14 -
The neighborhood with the greatest percentage of Hispanic or Latino persons, however, is and
has been Longfellow (Figure 16). In 2000, this figure stood at ten percent (two points above the
city average); in the Howe neighborhood, it was just above six percent, and in the Cooper and
Hiawatha neighborhoods the percentage was around three and a half.
Figure 10
Whites & Other Races
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
% White, LongfellowCommunity% White, Minneapolis
% Black, Longfellow
% Black, Minneapolis
% Other Races,Longfellow% Other Races, City
Figure 11
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Num
ber
of P
erso
ns
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Black and African American Population, Tracts and Neighborhoods
Tract 88
All Other Tracts
Cooper
Hiaw atha
How e
Longfellow
- 15 -
Figure 12
Blacks & African Americans as Percentage of Total Population
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Per
cent
Longfellow Community Minneapolis
Figure 13
Black and African American Population, City of Minneapolis
0
20,00040,000
60,000
80,000
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Num
ber o
f Per
sons
Figure 14
Black and African American Population, Longfellow Community
0500
1,0001,5002,000
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Num
ber o
f Per
sons
- 16 -
Figure 15
Spanish Mother Tongue, Spanish Origin, and Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1970 1980 1990 2000
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
LongfellowCommunity
Cooper
Hiaw atha
How e
LongfellowNeighborhood
Figure 16
Spanish Mother Tongue, Spanish Origin, and Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
1970 1980 1990 2000
Perc
enta
ge o
f Tot
al P
opul
atio
n LongfellowCommunityMinneapolis
Cooper
Hiaw atha
How e
LongfellowNeighborhood
Figure 17
Spanish Mother Tongue, Spanish Origin, and Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity
05,000
10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,000
1970 1980 1990 2000
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
Minneapolis
- 17 -
Employment & Labor Force Characteristics5
Longfellow Community�s unemployment rate has in every census examined remained below the
city average (Figure 18). With unemployment rates between three and four percent in every
census but 1940, most Longfellow residents able and willing to work, it seems6, have historically
been able to do so. The Longfellow Community average, however, does not apply to every tract
and neighborhood. Up to 1970, Tract 74, in the northwestern corner of the community, had
unemployment rates significantly higher than any other tract in the community and higher than
the city average (Figure 19).The western part of the community - tracts 75, 88, 103 and 104 - has
also seen high unemployment rates relative to Longfellow�s eastern edge. Only in a few
instances, however, have any areas of the community outside Tract 74 seen rates higher than the
city average.
Labor force statistics - on the �class of worker� (government or private sector, for instance),
employment numbers and the size of the labor force - are displayed in figures 20 and 21.
Interesting to note here is the great rise in employment between 1940 and 1950, accompanied by
a significant decline in unemployment, in both the community and the city, followed by a short
decline (longer termed in the city as a whole) in the numbers of people employed and in the
entire labor force. Much of this can be attributed to the overall population decline experienced in
the community and in the city as a whole (see �Population� section). Between 1970 and 2000 in
Longfellow, and between 1980 and 2000 in the city as a whole, total employment and the size of
the labor force grew. The proportion of persons of working age not in the labor force dropped
sharply over the study period, from 47 percent and 45 percent in the community and city as a
whole, respectively, in 1940 to just under a quarter in the community and 28 percent in the city
in 2000. This, as well as the fact that employment and the total labor force often increased even
over periods when the total population decreased, can largely be attributed to the entrance of
women into the labor force.
5 The Census Bureau tabulated labor force and employment characteristics for persons 14 years of age and over for the 1940, 1950, and 1960 censuses, and for persons 16 years of age and over for the 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 censuses. 6 The figures used in this report, of course, say very little about who the unemployed are and nothing about the chronically unemployed, discriminatory hiring practices, or persons who are not actively seeking employment.
- 18 -
Figure 18
Unemployment
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Perc
enta
ge o
f Lab
or
Forc
e
Longfellow Community Minneapolis
Figure 19
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
Perc
enta
ge o
f Lab
or
Forc
e
1940 1950 1960 1970
Unemployment by Tract Tract74
Tract 75
Tract 76
Tract 88
Tract 89
Tract 90
Tract 103
Tract 104
Tract 105
Tract 111
Longfellow
City
Figure 20
Class of Worker & Labor Force Characteristics, Longfellow Community
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
# of
Per
sons
Employed
Private Wage & Salary
Government
Self-Employed
Unemployed, Seeking Work
Total Labor Force
Not in Labor Force
- 19 -
Figure 21
Class of Worker & Labor Force Characteristics, Minneapolis
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
# of
Per
sons
, in
thou
sand
s Employed
Private Wage & Salary
Government
Self-Employed
Unemployed, Seeking Work
Total Labor Force
Not in Labor Force
Women in the Labor Force
In 1940, females comprised nearly 52 percent of the Longfellow Community�s population but
only 26 percent of its labor force. Citywide, the figures were 53 percent and 33 percent,
respectively. Tellingly, of the 26 percent of all persons of working age in 1940 reported as being
�engaged in own housework� in Minneapolis, over 99 percent were female. Every subsequent
decade saw increases in the percentage of females in the Longfellow Community�s labor force
(Figure 22). Citywide, however, similar growth was seen up until the period 1980-2000, when
the proportion actually declined slightly, but remained just above 47 percent. In both the
Longfellow community and the city as a whole, women in 2000 remained underrepresented in
the labor force, comprising roughly 53 percent of Longfellow�s population and nearly half of its
labor force; citywide figures were 50 percent and 47 percent. Unlike totals for persons employed
and persons in the labor force, which saw some decline over the study period (see previous), the
number of women in the labor force increased every year (Figure 23, Figure 24).
- 20 -
Figure 22
Females: in Population & in Labor Force
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
% F
emal
e
Longfellow , % ofPopulation
City, % of Population
Longfellow , % of LaborForce
City, % of Labor Force
Figure 23
Females in Labor Force & Total Labor Force, Longfellow Community
02,0004,0006,0008,000
10,00012,00014,000
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
Females in LaborForce
Total Labor Force
Figure 24
Females in Labor Force & Total Labor Force, City of Minneapolis
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
Num
ber
of P
erso
ns
Females in LaborForce
Total Labor Force
- 21 -
Employment in 1940
1940 is a significant year in this study because it is anomalous; unemployment and the number of
persons not in the labor force peaked, while the numbers of people employed or not in the labor
force were at their highest (Figure 20, Figure 21). This has a lot to do with the Second World
War and the Great Depression; impacts of public policies to counter the effects of the latter,
especially, are observable in the census data. For instance, in 1940, nearly 400 Longfellow
residents (3.3 percent of the labor force) reported working for the WPA or doing some other
form of public emergency work; over 10,000 people citywide (4.6 percent of the labor force)
reported doing so. Variations between census tracts of people on public emergency work are
shown in Figure 25. As expected, the greatest percentage of people on public emergency work
can be found in Tract 74.
Figure 25
- 22 -
Major Industries in Which Workers are Employed
A census-to-census analysis of employment in particular industries is made difficult by the
changing nature of the categories; rarely were the occupational categories of one census repeated
in the next without significant changes. However, a sampling of the major industries in which
Longfellow and Minneapolis residents reported working over the study period is available in
figures 26 through 28. The proportions of persons employed in each industry are generally
comparable to those of the city as a whole. The average Longfellow worker did, however, in
1960 did seem to have a more concrete idea about the kind of work he or she did, reporting
�Other Industries� less frequently than did the average Minneapolitan. Also in 1960, as well as in
1980, Longfellow residents were more likely to work in manufacturing; manufacturing work has
declined significantly over the study period, a trend examined in the following section.
Figure 26
Workers in Major Industries, 1960:Longfellow Community (Inner Ring) & City (Outer Ring)
Construction Manufacturing Railroad & Railw ay
Other Transportation Commun., Utilities & Sanitary Wholesale Trade
Eating & Drinking Places Other Retail Trade Business and Repair
Private Households Other Personal Services Hospitals
Educational Other Professional Public Admin.
Other Industries
- 23 -
Figure 27
Workers in Major Industries, 1980:Longfellow Community (Inner Ring) & City (Outer Ring)
Construction Manufacturing
Transportation Communications & Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Business and Repair
Personal, Entertainment, Rec. Services Health services
Educational Services Other Professional & related
Public Administration
Figure 28
Workers in Major Industries, 2000:Longfellow Community (Inner Ring) & City (Outer Ring)
Construction Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade Retail Trade
Transp. & Warehousing, and utilities Information
Finance, Insur., Real Estate Prof., scientif ic, mgmt., admin. & w aste mgmt.
Educ., Health and Social Serv. Arts, Enter., Rec., Accomodation, & Food Services
Other Services Public Administration
- 24 -
Manufacturing Employment
Manufacturing has an important place in Longfellow Community history. The Minneapolis
Moline plant and its closing in 1972 is the best-known and perhaps the most significant aspect of
this history; this closing no doubt contributed to the decline in Longfellow workers employed in
manufacturing, although its precise effects were not researched as part of this report. As can be
observed in figures 25, 26, 27, and Table 1, the share of workers employed in the manufacturing
industry declined significantly over the study period. The greatest drop in the Longfellow
Community occurred between 1960 and 1970 (Figure 29, Figure 30), when manufacturing
employment declined six percent. The city as a whole experienced a lesser decline of three
percent during this period.
Table 1: Manufacturing Employment as a Share of Total Employment
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Community 29% 23% 19% 16% 11%
City 24% 21% 17% 14% 11%
Minneapolis Steel & Machinery Co., 1929 (Minnesota Historical Society photo)
- 25 -
Figure 29
Persons Reporting as Manufacturing Industry Workers, Longfellow Community
0500
1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Year
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
Total Mfg. Durable Goods
Figure 30
Persons Reporting as Manufacturing Industry Workers, City of Minneapolis
010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Num
ber o
f Per
sons
Total Mfg. Durable Goods
Income Characteristics
The general pattern with income in the Longfellow Community, as with most communities in the
Twin Cities bounded by such amenities as the Mississippi River and its bluffs, sizeable parks and
parkways, is a pattern of higher incomes near these amenities, with lower incomes further from
- 26 -
them (Martin and Lanegran 1983). The highest median incomes are found in those areas that
border the river and/or Minnehaha Park: tracts 76, 90, 105, 103 and 111 (figures 31-33). The
lower median incomes are to the north and west of those higher-income tracts. By far the area
with the lowest median income over the period 1950-1970, however, is tract 74. Table 2 shows
median income by tract, community, and the city over the study period. Notice that median
incomes for the Longfellow Community remained comfortably above those for the city as a
whole over the study period.
Table 2: Median Income7
1950 19608 1970 19809 1990 2000
Community $3,589 $6,497 $8,195 $16,279 $30,292 $44,591
Minneapolis $3,078 $6,401 $6,243 $14,351 $25,324 $37,974
Tract 74 $3,038 $4,676 $6,259
Tract 75 $3,435 $4,936 $7,304
Tract 76 $4,034 $5,777 $8,149
Tract 88 $3,333 $5,115 $7,108
Tract 89 $3,697 $5,755 $8,240
Tract 90 $4,078 $6,208 $8,669
Tract 103 $3,299 $5,460 $7,944
Tract 104 $3,481 $5,770 $8,610
Tract 105 $3,892 $5,995 $9,584
Tract 111 $3,845 $6,441 $9,132
7 Not adjusted for inflation. Also, tract data is not shown past 1970 because neighborhood-level data was primarily used thereafter and the tract boundaries and labels were altered for the 2000 Census. 8 Median income of families and unrelated individuals (same in 1970) 9 Household median income (same in 1990 and 2000)
- 27 -
Figure 31 Figure 32
Figure 33
- 28 -
Educational Attainment
In Longfellow, as well as in the city as a whole, high school graduation rates, meaning the
percentage of adults over 25 who have completed high school, and the percentage of persons
who have attended college rose over the study period. The most significant gains in these fields
occurred during the twenty years between 1970 and 1990, when the high school graduation rate
increased over 28 percent, from just over 50 percent of Longfellow residents 25 years of age or
older to 81.9 percent (Figure 34). Citywide, the high school graduation rate increased nearly 25
percent from 58 percent in 1970 to over 82 percent in 1990. Longfellow Community high school
graduation rates have been markedly lower than the citywide average, although the gap closed
steadily over the study period, as graduation rates increased at a faster pace in the community
than in the city as a whole. Tract 74 had the lowest high school graduation rate of the Longfellow
tracts from 1940 to 1960; Tract 75, with the lowest rate in 1970, actually saw a drop between
1960 and 1970 in the percentage of its adult population that had graduated. Over this period,
tracts 90, 76, 105, and 111 � those on the eastern and southern edges of the community - were
regularly the tracts with the highest educational attainment (Figure 35).
From 1940 up until the 1970 Census, persons 25 and older were much more likely to have
completed only seven to eight years of grade school or one to three years of high school than to
have graduated high school or gone to college. After 1970, however, this changed: it became far
more likely for someone to have completed high school and an increasingly greater percentage of
the adult population had attended college (Figure 36). Examining neighborhood-level data for
1980 and 1990, it is evident that the Longfellow neighborhood had the lowest percentage of high
school graduates - 69.2 percent in 1980 and 77.8 percent in 1990 � three percent lower than the
second lowest (Howe) in 1980 and four percent lower than Howe, again the second lowest, in
1990. The Cooper neighborhood had the highest percentage of persons 25 or older who had
graduated high school (Figure 37). In all neighborhoods the figure increased by nearly 10 percent
between 1980 and 1990.
- 29 -
Figure 34
High School Graduates & Equivalent
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990Perc
enta
ge o
f Pop
ulat
ion
25+
Longfellow Community Minneapolis
Figure 35
High School Graduates & Equivalent* by Tract
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
1940 1950 1960 1970
% o
f Pop
ulat
ion
25+
Longfellow Community
Tract 74
Tract 75
Tract 76
Tract 88
Tract 89
Tract 90
Tract 103
Tract 104
Tract 105
Tract 111
City
Figure 36
Persons with Bachelor's Degree or Higher
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
% o
f Pop
ulat
ion
25+
Longfellow Community City
- 30 -
Figure 37
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%
% o
f Pop
ulat
ion
25+
LongfellowCommunity
City Cooper Hiawatha Howe LongfellowNeighborhood
High School Graduates by Neighborhood
1980 1990
Housing
Age of Housing Stock
For this report, the age of housing units is analyzed at two points: the 1940 Census and the 2000
Census. In 1940, there were nearly 8,000 housing units in the Longfellow Community. Of these,
three percent were built in the 19th Century, and most of these were in tracts 74 and 75, near the
older industrial areas. Nearly 43 percent of the community�s units were built between 1900 and
1919 and just over 45 percent between 1920 and 1929. Only nine percent were built between
1930 and 1940; this period saw little housing construction nationwide as a result of the Great
Depression. Figures 38 through 41 show the percentage of housing units built over particular
periods in Longfellow as reported in the 1940 Census.
In 2000, there were 9,523 housing units in Longfellow. The bulk of these were built before 1939
(Figure 42), suggesting that relatively few older units were replaced between 1940 and 2000. A
housing structure in the Longfellow Community is more likely to be than in the city as a whole
to be built before 1939, with 50 percent of units having been built before 1939 citywide, as
opposed to figures between 60 and 75 percent for Longfellow�s neighborhoods. There were
spikes in housing construction in particular neighborhoods at certain times. For example, roughly
ten percent of the housing units in the Hiawatha neighborhood were built between 1980 and
1989. A slightly smaller percentage of that neighborhood�s units were built between 1960 and
- 31 -
1969. Similarly, about ten percent of units in the Longfellow neighborhood were built between
1970 and 1979. As with the 1940 data, the percentage of housing units built over particular
periods in Longfellow as of 2000 is displayed in figures 43 through 47.
Figure 38 Figure 39
Figure 40 Figure 41
- 32 -
Figure 42
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
% o
f All
Hou
sing
Uni
ts
1990 toMarch2000
1980 to1989
1970 to1979
1960 to1969
1940 to1959
1939 orearlier
Period
Year Structure Built, 2000 Census
Cooper
Hiaw atha
How e
Longfellow Neighborhood
Longfellow Community
City of Minneapolis
Figure 43 Figure 44
- 33 -
Figure 45 Figure 46
Figure 47
- 34 -
Type of Occupancy: Owners & Renters
The Longfellow Community has been and remains a predominately owner-occupied area (Figure
48). The city as a whole, meanwhile, has remained evenly split between owners and renters.
Homeownership rates in the community were reported below 70 percent only once, in 1940. The
figure reached a peak of over 81 percent in 1950, and declined steadily until after the 1990
Census; the owner-occupied rate in Longfellow stood at just over 74 percent in 2000. A glance at
Figure 48 reveals that the rental occupancy rate has, appropriately, been a nearly exact inverse of
this trend. There are clear differences between the Longfellow Community�s tracts and
neighborhoods. The appendix contains full figures on this, but it is worth noting that, between
1940 and 1970, Tract 74 experienced what were by far the lowest homeownership rates in the
community; in 1970, for instance, just one quarter of that tract�s units were occupied by their
owners. By contrast, over the same period tracts 76, 89, 90, 104 and 105 (Figure 1) saw much
higher rates, generally between 70 and 80 percent (Appendix; Figure 50, Figure 51). Between
1980 and 2000, the Longfellow neighborhood experienced homeownership rates below 55
percent (Figure 49), well below the rates in Longfellow�s other three neighborhoods.
Figure 48
Type of Occupancy
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
% o
f Occ
upie
d U
nits
Ow ner Occupancy, Longfellow
Ow ner Occupancy, City
Renter Occupancy, Longfellow
Renter Occupancy, City
- 35 -
Figure 49
Renter Occupancy by Neighborhood
0.05.0
10.015.020.025.030.035.040.045.050.0
1980 1990 2000
Cooper
Hiaw atha
How e
LongfellowNeighborhood
LongfellowCommunity
Figure 50 Figure 51
- 36 -
Vacancy
The housing vacancy rate in Longfellow has remained comfortably below the city average
(Figure 52). The vacancy rate was at its highest in 1990; just over four percent of all housing
units in Longfellow � roughly two percent more than in the 1980 and 2000 censuses - and seven
percent of all units citywide were reported vacant in that census. There may be a correlation
between low homeownership rates and high vacancy rates: Tract 74 for the period 1940-1970
(Figure 53) and the Longfellow neighborhood for the period 1980-2000, those areas with the
lowest homeownership, saw housing vacancies at a considerably higher rate than the community
and the city.
Figure 52
Vacant Housing Units
0.0
1.02.0
3.04.0
5.0
6.07.0
8.0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
% o
f All
Hous
ing
Units
LongfellowCommunityCity
Figure 53
Housing Vacancy by Tract
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
1940 1950 1960 1970
Tract 74Tract 75Tract 76Tract 88Tract 89Tract 90Tract 103Tract 104Tract 105Tract 111Longfellow Community
- 37 -
Longevity
Residents of the Longfellow Community tend to stay in their home for a longer period of time
than people citywide (Figure 54). For instance, according to the 1980 Census, slightly more than
a quarter of the community�s residents - 27 percent � had moved into the unit they currently
occupied in or before 1959, meaning they had been part of the community for over 20 years.
Fifteen percent of all occupied units in Longfellow � nearly 1,400 units housing over 3,300
people, based on the average number of persons per unit � had been moved into over 30 years
earlier. Citywide, only eight percent of all occupied units fit that description. Of course, there are
discrepancies between different areas of the community. The north and west of the community
saw the lowest percentages of longtime householders, while the eastern and southern areas saw
the greatest. Since renters tend to relocate more frequently than owners, it is not surprising that a
lower percentage of longtime householders could be found in areas with more renters.
Figure 54
Longtime Householders: Duration of Occupancy in Same Unit
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Census Year
% o
f Occ
upie
d Un
its 10-20 Years, Longfellow
10-20 Years, City
20 Years Or More,Longfellow
20 Years Or More, City
Longevity Figures The differences between the community population and the city�s entire population are
especially noticeable at both extremes: a much greater percentage of the city�s (housed)
population moved into the units they occupied at the time of the census in the few years before
the taking of the census than in the community and, as discussed previously, a significantly
- 38 -
higher percentage of the Longfellow Community�s population moved into the units they
occupied at the time of the census in the two to three decades before the taking of the census than
in the city as a whole. Figures 55 through 59 display when householders moved into their units in
the Longfellow Community and the City of Minneapolis for each Census from 1960 through
2000. 1940 and 1950 data of this type is not available in the reports examined. The Longfellow
Community is represented in the inner ring, the city in the outer.
Figure 55
Year Moved Into Unit: 1960
24%
18%31%
27%34%
22%
29%
15%
1958 to 3/1960
1954 to 1957
1940 to 1953
1939 or earlier
Figure 56
Year Moved Into Unit: 1970
22%
17%
14%20%
27% 37%
17%13%
16%
17%
1968 to March 1970
1965 to 1967
1960 to 1964
1950 to 1959
1949 or earlier
- 39 -
Figure 57
Year Moved Into Unit: 1980
18%
25%
13%17%
12%
15%29%
28%13%
14%
8%8%
1979 to March 1980
1975 to 1978
1970 to 1974
1960 to 1969
1950 to 1959
1949 or earlier
Figure 58
Year Moved Into Unit: 1990
16%
28%
13%17%
12%
14%28%
29%12%
14%
7%
10%
1989 to March 1990
1985 to 1988
1980 to 1984
1970 to 1979
1960 to 1969
1959 or earlier
Figure 59
Year Moved Into Unit: 2000
14%
31%
16%
17%
9%
13%26%
33%
15%
12%
6%8%
1999 to March 2000
1995 to 1998
1990 to 1994
1980 to 1989
1970 to 1979
1969 or earlier
- 40 -
Means of Transportation
The Longfellow Community has relied heavily on the private automobile for transportation to
work, even more than the city�s population has. The proportion of Longfellow and city residents
who do so, either by carpooling or driving alone to work, rose markedly over much of the study
period, from 68.9 percent in 1960 (the first year for which data is available in the reports
examined) to 87.6 percent in 2000, an increase of nearly 19 percent (Figure 60). The figure
dropped only in 1980, perhaps as a result of the late-1970s oil crisis. Correlating increases over
1970 are observable in the proportion of Longfellow and city residents who carpool or use public
transportation; 1980 is the peak year for transit ridership, at 17.4 percent for the community and
21.8 percent citywide. Excluding the 1980 data, the share of Longfellow residents who use
public transportation to get to work declined gradually between 1960 and 2000, from over 20
percent in 1960 to a historic low of ten percent in 2000. Citywide transit ridership was also at a
low in 2000 of 14.6 percent, down from just over 21 percent in 1960; in 2000, for the first time,
carpooling transported more workers than public transportation (Figure 61). The 2000 census
shows that the Longfellow neighborhood is the most transit-reliant, while the Cooper
neighborhood is the least (Figure 62). The Hiawatha LRT line�s impact on the community�s
transit ridership requires further research.
Besides driving and riding to work in a private auto, two other means of transportation gained
popularity over the study period: all �other means� and none at all (Figure 63). The census
category �Other Means,� which includes bicycling, but not walking, is a strikingly insignificant
means of transportation in the city and community: only one percent of all Longfellow residents
and Minneapolitans traveled to work via something other than the private auto, public
transportation or their own feet in 1960; the figure climbed slowly to two-and-a-half percent in
2000. Workers who do not travel to work at all, of course, work at home. The percentage of
Longfellow workers working from home rose from below one percent in 1970 (the first year
such figures are available) to four percent in 2000; citywide, the percentage rose from 2.2 to 3.4
over the same period. The advent of widespread internet use over the 1990s does not appear to
have led to a significant increase in the percentage of persons working from home; between 1990
and 2000, this figure rose 1.5 percent within the community and just .3 percent citywide.
- 41 -
Figure 60 Public Transportation vs. Private Auto Usage
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
% o
f All
Wor
kers
Public Transportation, Longfellow
Public Transportation, City
Carpool & Drove Alone,Longfellow
Carpool & Drove Alone, City
Drove Alone, Longfellow
Drove Alone, City
Figure 61
Means of Transportation (Excluding Driving Alone)
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
% o
f All
Wor
kers
Carpool, Longfellow
Carpool, City
Public Transportation, Longfellow
Public Transportation, City
Walked, Longfellow
Walked, City
Other Means, Longfellow
Other Means, City
Worked at Home, Longfellow
Worked at Home, City
Figure 62
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Cooper Hiawatha Howe LongfellowNeighborhood
Means of Transportation by Neighborhood, 2000
Drove Alone
CarpoolPublic TransportationWalked
Worked at HomeOther Means
- 42 -
Figure 63
Working at Home
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1970 1980 1990 2000
% o
f All
Wor
kers Cooper
Hiaw atha
How e
Longfellow Neighborhood
Longfellow Community
City of Minneapolis
Foreign-Born Population
The foreign-born population of the Longfellow Community declined over much of the study
period, from a high of over 4,000 people (10.8 percent of the total population) in 1940 to a low
of just over 700 people (3.3 percent of the total population) in 1990. The 2000 Census reveals
that the foreign-born population in the community more than doubled in the 1990s, to over 1,500
persons. The tripling of the Hispanic and Latino population over the same period (see the �Race
and Ethnicity� section of this report) no doubt accounts for much of the rise in the foreign-born
population. Citywide, as in the Longfellow Community, the foreign-born population declined
significantly from 1940 to 1960, presumably as the state�s early immigrants died. After 1960, the
foreign-born population as a percentage of total population leveled at around five percent (Figure
64), even though the total foreign-born population dropped by about 14,000 between 1960 and
1970. The foreign-born population grew rapidly in the 1990s; the 2000 Census reports that over
55,000 of the city�s residents � 14.5 percent of all Minneapolitans and by far the most since
before World War II - were born outside the U.S. The areas comprising parts of the Longfellow,
Cooper and Howe neighborhoods have traditionally seen the greatest foreign-born populations
(Figure 65, Figure 66). The 1990s foreign-born migrant boom, however, is concentrated in the
Longfellow neighborhood and the northern segment of the Howe neighborhood (Figure 67). In
these areas, the foreign-born population comprised over 12 percent of the total population in
2000, significantly more than in the other parts of the community.
- 43 -
Figure 64
Foreign-Born Population
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
% o
f Tot
al
Longfellow Community
City
Figure 65 Figure 66
- 44 -
Figure 67 Figure 68
Foreign-Born Population in 1940
Norway and Sweden are by far the two most common nations of birth for Longfellow�s mid-
century foreign born. In 1940, just over 1,000 Norwegians and over 1,700 Swedes lived in the
community, which had more than its share of persons of these nationalities: Longfellow
contained below six percent of the city�s total population, but nearly nine percent of its
Norwegians and Swedes. Danes, Germans and Canadians were also well-represented in the
community; Danes of Minneapolis especially were drawn to Longfellow, where 13 percent of the
city�s Danish population resided. Norwegian-Americans were represented in significant numbers
throughout the Longfellow Community in 1940; concentrations were greatest south of East 38th
Street � in tracts 104, 105 and 111 � and toward the northwest portion of the community � in
tracts 75 and 88 � where Norwegians accounted for more than a quarter of the total foreign-born
population and around four percent of the total population (Figure 68). In the area with the
greatest concentration, Tract 104 in south-central Longfellow, 150 Norwegian-born persons
accounted for nearly five percent of the total population. Swedes, like Norwegians, were well-
- 45 -
represented throughout the Longfellow Community in 1940. The greatest concentrations of
Swedes in 1940 within the community were in the northeastern quarter, where nearly 800 such
persons in tracts 76, 89 and 90 accounted for between 42 percent and 49 percent of the foreign-
born population and about seven percent of the total population in these areas.
Figure 69 Figure 70
Recommendations for Further Research
This project has compiled and analyzed a set of census data for the Longfellow Community
which spans sixty years. The original goal of the project was to produce and analyze a set of data
for the entire 20th Century, which was not possible given the scope of the project, since data
specific to the community before 1940 is not easily accessible. But ward-level data is available,
and could provide a researcher with an image of what the Longfellow Community was like early
in the 20th Century. Some readily available data, including age and gender distribution data, was
ignored in this project due to time considerations. This report effectively answers some questions
about what happened over the course of the community�s development and measures how much
happened: how much the population declined between 1940 and 1960, for instance. What it does
- 46 -
not answer is why these changes occurred. Did the loss of manufacturing jobs at the Minneapolis
Moline plant force any residents to find new work elsewhere? Why did the Hispanic and Latino
population increase so much in the Longfellow Community between 1990 and 2000? Answers to
such questions could be found through research of materials other than census data � reports
published by city, state, or county agencies, perhaps � or through interviews with Longfellow
residents.
Block-level data was incorporated into this report, but mainly as the means of producing new
tract-level data. Further analysis of block data could, for instance, chart the development of the
Black and African American community in the western section of the Longfellow Community.
Finally, this project compares the community to the city as a whole and compares parts of the
community to one another. Another possibility would be to compare Longfellow to another part
of Minneapolis or part of another city with shared characteristics. This could potentially lead to
the identification of more traits, trends or stories unique to Longfellow that this analysis did not
recognize.
Bibliography 1. City of Minneapolis Planning Department & U.S. Bureau of the Census (1993). 1990
Minneapolis Neighborhood Statistics. Minneapolis: City of Minneapolis Planning Department.
2. City of Minneapolis Planning Department & U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1980 Minneapolis Neighborhood Statistics: A Census �80 Data Report. Minneapolis: City of Minneapolis Planning Department.
3. GIS Business Services (2004). �City of Minneapolis Neighborhoods & Communities� [map]. City of Minneapolis. Retrieved August, 2006 from http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/about/maps/neighborhoods.asp
4. Martin, Judith A. and David A. Lanegran (1983). Where We Live: The Residential Districts of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
5. Minneapolis Planning Department, Research and Strategic Planning Division. Selected Economic Characteristics by Neighborhood: 1990 and 2000 Census. Accessed August, 2006 from http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/citywork/ planning/Census2000/maps/economic/
6. Minneapolis Planning Department, Research and Strategic Planning Division. General Demographic Characteristics by Neighborhood: 1990 and 2000 Census. Accessed August, 2006 from http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/citywork/ planning/census2000/maps/index.asp
- 47 -
7. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1972). Census of Housing: 1970 BLOCK STATISTICS. Final Report HC(3)-130 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Urbanized Area Minn. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
8. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1972). Census of Population and Housing: 1970 CENSUS TRACTS. Final Report PHC(1)132 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. SMSA. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
9. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1962). U.S. Census of Housing: 1960. Vol. III, City Blocks. Series HC(3), No. 224. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
10. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1962). U.S. Census of Population and Housing: 1960. Census Tracts. Final Report PHC(1)-93. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1952). U.S. Census of Housing: 1950. Vol. V, Block Statistics, Part 113. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
12. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1952). U.S. Census of Population: 1950. Vol. III, Census Tract Statistics, Minneapolis-St. Paul Minn. Chapter 33. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1952.
13. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1942). U.S. Census of Population and Housing: 1940. Statistics for Census Tracts: Minneapolis, Minn. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
14. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1942). U.S. Census of Housing: 1940. Vol. I, Block Statistics: Minneapolis, Minn. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office
App
endi
x
App
endi
x A
: Add
ition
al M
aps
- 49
-
App
endi
x B
: Eff
ectiv
e Tr
act B
ound
arie
s
For t
he p
urpo
ses o
f thi
s rep
ort,
the
1940
to 1
970
tract
bou
ndar
ies a
re a
s fo
llow
s (se
e al
so: F
igur
e 1)
:
Bou
ndar
y T
ract
74
Tra
ct 7
5 T
ract
76
Tra
ct 8
8 T
ract
89
Wes
tern
H
iaw
atha
A
venu
e 28
th A
ve. S
. 36
th A
ve. S
. 28
th A
ve. S
. &
Hia
wat
ha A
ve.
34th A
ve. S
.
East
ern
28th A
ve. S
. 36
th A
ve. S
. M
issi
ssip
pi R
iver
34
th A
ve. S
. 40
th A
ve. S
.
Nor
ther
n E.
26th
St.
&
Min
neha
ha A
ve.
E. 2
7th S
treet
E.
27th
Stre
et
E. L
ake
Stre
et &
E.
32nd
St.
E. L
ake
Stre
et
Sout
hern
E.
32nd
Stre
et
E. L
ake
Stre
et
E. L
ake
Stre
et
E. 3
8th S
treet
E.
38th
Stre
et
T
ract
90
Tra
ct 1
03
Tra
ct 1
04
Tra
ct 1
05
Tra
ct 1
11
Wes
tern
40
th A
ve. S
. H
iaw
atha
Ave
. M
inne
haha
Ave
nue
Min
neha
ha A
venu
e &
42nd
Ave
. S.
Hia
wat
ha
Ave
nue
East
ern
Mis
siss
ippi
Ri
ver
Min
neha
ha
Ave
nue
42nd
Ave
. S.
Mis
siss
ippi
Riv
er
Min
neha
ha
Ave
nue
Nor
ther
n E.
Lak
e St
reet
E.
38th
Stre
et
E. 3
8th S
treet
E.
38th
Stre
et &
E.
43rd
Stre
et
E. 4
3rd S
treet
Sout
hern
E.
38th
Stre
et
E. 4
3rd S
treet
E.
43rd
Stre
et
Min
neha
ha P
ark
Min
neha
ha
Park
App
endi
x C
: Dat
a
Gen
eral
Pop
ulat
ion
Dat
a 19
40 C
ensu
s
TRA
CT
Pop
ulat
ion
Whi
te,
Tota
l N
ativ
e W
hite
Fo
reig
n-B
orn
Whi
te
Non
whi
te,
Tota
l N
egro
/Bla
ck
Oth
er
Rac
es
%
Whi
te
% N
ativ
e W
hite
%
For
eign
-Bor
n W
hite
%
Non
whi
te
# O
ccup
ied
Uni
ts in
Tra
ct
Per
sons
per
U
nit
App
rox.
# O
cc. U
nits
in
Long
fello
w
% O
cc. U
nits
in
Long
fello
w
7400
97
3 96
6 84
0 12
6 7
5 2
99.3
86
.3
13.0
0.
7 1,
047
3.70
26
3 25
.12%
7500
1,
770
1,74
4 1,
438
306
26
26
- 98
.6
81.3
17
.3
1.5
1,16
7 3.
51
504
43.1
9%
7600
2,
098
2,09
8 1,
809
289
- -
- 10
0.0
86.2
13
.8
- 73
6 3.
55
591
80.3
0%
8800
4,
272
4,19
2 3,
558
635
80
79
1 98
.2
83.3
14
.9
1.9
1,29
7 3.
62
1,18
1 91
.06%
8900
4,
415
4,41
5 3,
748
667
- -
- 10
0.0
84.9
15
.1
- 1,
241
3.56
1,
241
100.
00%
9000
5,
446
5,43
8 4,
725
713
8 6
2 99
.9
86.8
13
.1
0.1
1,53
2 3.
55
1,53
2 10
0.00
%
1030
0 1,
000
994
872
122
6 5
1 99
.4
87.2
12
.2
0.6
904
3.77
26
5 29
.31%
1040
0 3,
258
3,24
8 2,
766
482
10
9 1
99.7
84
.9
14.8
0.
3 87
4 3.
73
874
100.
00%
1050
0 4,
543
4,54
0 3,
928
612
3 -
3 10
0.0
86.5
13
.5
0.1
1,24
2 3.
66
1,24
2 10
0.00
%
1110
0 44
0 43
9 38
7 52
-
- -
99.8
87
.9
11.9
-
1,16
5 3.
73
118
10.1
3%
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
28
,215
28
,075
24
,071
4,
004
139
130
10
99.5
85
.3
14.2
0.
5
3.63
7,
811
City
49
2,37
0 48
7,09
9 42
2,95
0 64
,149
5,
271
4,64
6 62
5 98
.9
85.9
13
.0
1.1
142,
834
3.45
1950
Cen
sus
Pop
ulat
ion
Whi
te,
Tota
l N
ativ
e W
hite
Fo
reig
n-B
orn
Whi
te
Non
whi
te,
Tota
l N
egro
/Bla
ck
Oth
er
Rac
es
%
Whi
te
% N
ativ
e W
hite
%
For
eign
-Bor
n W
hite
%
Non
whi
te
Tota
l Dw
ellin
g U
nits
(T
ract
)
App
rox.
# U
nits
in L
ongf
ello
w
% U
nits
in L
ongf
ello
w
Trac
t 74
878
872
798
74
6 4
1 99
.4
90.9
8.
5 0.
6 1,
071
25
8 24
.09%
Trac
t 75
1,77
6 1,
740
1,55
0 19
0 38
31
6
98.0
87
.3
10.7
2.
1 1,
257
53
0 42
.16%
Trac
t 76
1,94
6 1,
944
1,72
0 22
4 3
- 3
99.9
88
.4
11.5
0.
2 80
1
624
77.9
0%
Trac
t 88
4,27
3 4,
152
3,62
7 52
5 12
0 11
7 -
97.2
84
.9
12.3
2.
8 1,
383
1,
299
93.9
3%
Trac
t 89
4,19
8 4,
197
3,69
6 50
1 1
- 1
100.
0 88
.0
11.9
0.
0 1,
292
1,
292
100.
00%
Trac
t 90
5,40
5 5,
400
4,86
2 53
8 5
3 2
99.9
90
.0
10.0
0.
1 1,
633
1,
633
100.
00%
Trac
t 103
98
4 97
9 88
1 98
5
5 -
99.5
89
.5
10.0
0.
5 96
0
281
29.2
7%
Trac
t 104
3,
127
3,12
2 2,
806
316
5 5
- 99
.8
89.7
10
.1
0.2
934
93
4 10
0.00
%
Trac
t 105
4,
714
4,70
9 4,
205
504
5 -
5 99
.9
89.2
10
.7
0.1
1,39
5
1,39
5 10
0.00
%
- 51
-
Trac
t 111
48
7 48
7 44
7 40
-
- -
100.
0 91
.8
8.2
- 1,
511
14
4 9.
53%
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
27
,787
27
,602
24
,592
3,
010
188
165
18
99.3
88
.5
10.8
0.
7
8,
390
City
52
1,71
8 51
3,25
0 46
4,38
8 48
,862
8,
468
6,80
7 1,
661
98.4
89
.0
9.4
1.6
161,
974
19
60 C
ensu
s P
opul
atio
n W
hite
, To
tal
Fore
ign
Sto
ck
Fore
ign
Bor
n N
onw
hite
, To
tal
Neg
ro/B
lack
O
ther
R
aces
%
Whi
te
% F
orei
gn-
Bor
n %
Non
whi
te
%
Neg
ro/B
lack
H
ousi
ng U
nits
in
Trac
t P
erso
ns p
er
Uni
t A
ppro
x. #
Uni
ts in
Lo
ngfe
llow
%
Uni
ts in
Lo
ngfe
llow
Trac
t 74
667
651
163
25
16
7 9
97.6
3.
7 2.
4 1.
1%
1,00
1 3.
10
218
21.7
8%
Trac
t 75
1,67
2 1,
631
520
126
41
34
7 97
.5
7.5
2.5
2.0%
1,
276
3.03
55
2 43
.26%
Trac
t 76
1,89
8 1,
881
738
194
17
- 17
99
.1
10.2
0.
9
871
2.90
65
4 75
.09%
Trac
t 88
4,00
8 3,
790
1,39
6 31
2 21
8 19
9 19
94
.6
7.8
5.4
5.0%
1,
452
2.93
1,
362
93.8
0%
Trac
t 89
3,79
3 3,
789
1,49
7 38
2 4
- 4
99.9
10
.1
0.1
1,
291
2.94
1,
291
100.
00%
Trac
t 90
4,93
4 4,
928
1,93
3 39
7 6
5 1
99.9
8.
0 0.
1 0.
1%
1,65
7 2.
98
1,65
7 10
0.00
%
Trac
t 103
87
9 86
2 27
8 72
17
16
1
98.0
8.
2 2.
0 1.
8%
977
3.08
28
4 29
.07%
Trac
t 104
2,
884
2,87
9 1,
097
259
5 -
5 99
.8
9.0
0.2
94
3 3.
06
943
100.
00%
Trac
t 105
4,
143
4,14
0 1,
597
386
3 1
2 99
.9
9.3
0.1
0.0%
1,
463
2.83
1,
463
100.
00%
Trac
t 111
49
9 49
6 16
6 33
3
1 2
99.4
6.
6 0.
6 0.
2%
1,62
4 2.
88
168
10.3
4%
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
25
,376
25
,046
9,
384
2,18
6 33
1 26
4 67
98
.7
8.6
1.3
1.0
2.
97
8,59
2
City
48
2,87
2 46
7,27
8 15
1,05
3 34
,448
15
,594
11
,785
3,
809
96.8
7.
1 3.
2 2.
4 17
3,15
5
1970
Cen
sus
Pop
ulat
ion
Whi
te,
Tota
l Fo
reig
n S
tock
Fo
reig
n B
orn
Neg
ro/B
lack
%
Whi
te
% F
orei
gn-
Bor
n %
N
egro
/Bla
ck
Hou
sing
Uni
ts in
Tr
act
Per
sons
per
U
nit
App
rox.
# U
nits
in
Long
fello
w
Per
sons
of S
pani
sh
lang
uage
S
pani
sh M
othe
r To
ngue
Trac
t 74
503
481
110
13
1 95
.7
2.6
0.3%
60
7 2.
20
220
- -
Trac
t 75
1,52
0 1,
471
370
78
15
96.8
5.
1 1.
0%
1,18
7 2.
68
566
43
27
Trac
t 76
1,87
0 1,
844
521
120
98
.6
6.4
89
9 2.
80
671
- -
Trac
t 88
4,15
4 3,
913
1,05
5 22
2 15
0 94
.2
5.3
3.6%
1,
698
2.51
1,
650
42
32
Trac
t 89
3,67
7 3,
642
1,04
8 18
7 11
99
.0
5.1
0.3%
1,
322
2.78
1,
322
55
55
Trac
t 90
4,75
5 4,
710
1,53
9 30
4 7
99.1
6.
4 0.
1%
1,73
0 2.
75
1,73
0 69
63
Trac
t 103
1,
092
1,04
3 23
2 56
29
95
.5
5.2
2.6%
91
4 2.
84
385
- -
Trac
t 104
2,
783
2,74
7 67
8 14
9 5
98.7
5.
4
949
2.93
94
9 -
-
Trac
t 105
4,
441
4,42
8 1,
400
210
0 99
.7
4.7
0.0%
1,
624
2.73
1,
624
9 9
Trac
t 111
49
7 48
9 19
2 38
19
98
.4
7.7
3.8%
1,
538
2.62
18
4 4
3
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
25
,293
24
,769
7,
146
1,37
8 23
7 97
.9
5.4
0.9
2.
68
9,30
1 22
1 18
8
City
43
4,40
8 40
6,41
4 10
3,80
0 20
,875
19
,005
93
.6
4.8
4.4
3,
940
2,61
1 19
80 C
ensu
s -
Nei
ghbo
rhoo
ds
Pop
ulat
ion
Whi
te,
Tota
l B
lack
A
m. I
ndia
n, E
skim
o,
Ale
ut
Asi
an a
nd P
ac.
Isl.
Oth
er
Spa
nish
O
rigin
Fo
reig
n B
orn
%
Whi
te
%
Bla
ck
% A
m. I
nd, E
skim
o,
Ale
ut
% A
sian
and
Pac
. Is
l. %
O
ther
%
Spa
nish
O
rigin
%
For
eign
B
orn
Coo
per (
016)
3,
938
3,78
9 27
48
42
32
2720
496
.20.
71.
21.
10.
8 0.
7 5.
2H
iaw
atha
(033
) 5,
627
5,50
1 46
35
16
29
3821
397
.80.
80.
60.
30.
5 0.
7 3.
8H
owe
(036
) 7,
241
6,81
6 19
4 14
2 57
32
5523
394
.12.
72.
00.
80.
4 0.
8 3.
2Lo
ngfe
llow
(045
) 5,
355
4,75
9 80
11
8 70
51
100
247
88.9
1.5
2.2
1.3
1.0
1.9
4.6
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
22
,161
20
,865
34
7 34
3 18
5 14
422
089
794
.21.
61.
50.
80.
6 1.
0 4.
0C
ity
370,
951
323,
831
28,4
33
8,93
3 4,
104
5,65
04,
684
18,2
6087
.37.
72.
41.
11.
5 1.
3 4.
9
- 52
-
1990
Cen
sus
- N
eigh
borh
oods
P
opul
atio
n W
hite
, To
tal
Bla
ck
Am
. Ind
ian
or A
lask
a N
ativ
e A
sian
and
Pac
. Is
l. O
ther
H
ispa
nic
or
Latin
o Fo
reig
n B
orn
%
Whi
te
%
Bla
ck
% A
m. I
nd, E
skim
o,
Ale
ut
% A
sian
and
Pac
. Is
l. %
O
ther
%
His
pani
c or
La
tino
% F
orei
gn
Bor
n C
oope
r (01
6)
3,70
8 3,
573
97
83
91
2556
9096
.42.
62.
22.
5 0.
7 1.
5 2.
4H
iaw
atha
(033
) 5,
759
5,42
4 14
3 11
0 48
34
8513
394
.22.
51.
90.
8 0.
6 1.
5 2.
3H
owe
(035
) 7,
108
6,33
7 34
5 20
3 17
8 45
112
203
89.2
4.9
2.9
2.5
0.6
1.6
2.9
Long
fello
w (0
44)
5,02
3 4,
323
273
218
109
100
186
291
86.1
5.4
4.3
2.2
2.0
3.7
5.8
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
21
,598
19
,657
85
8 61
4 42
6 20
443
971
791
.04.
02.
82.
0 0.
9 2.
0 3.
3C
ity
368,
383
288,
967
47,9
48
12,3
35
15,7
23
3,41
07,
900
22,6
2478
.413
.03.
34.
3 0.
9 2.
1 6.
1 20
00 C
ensu
s -
Nei
ghbo
rhoo
ds
Pop
ulat
ion
Whi
te,
Tota
l B
lack
A
m. I
ndia
n or
Ala
ska
Nat
ive
Asi
an a
nd P
ac.
Isl.
Oth
er
His
pani
c or
La
tino
2 or
mor
e R
aces
%
W
hite
%
Bla
ck
% A
m. I
nd, E
skim
o,
Ale
ut
%
Asi
an
and
Pac
. Is
l. %
2 o
r Mor
e R
aces
%
O
ther
%
His
pani
c or
La
tino
Coo
per
3,44
8 3,
041
129
58
77
5912
784
88.2
3.7
1.7
2.2
2.4
1.7
3.7
Hia
wat
ha
5,30
4 4,
607
273
105
98
8017
014
186
.95.
12.
01.
82.
7 1.
5 3.
2H
owe
6,87
8 5,
374
622
205
170
238
436
269
78.1
9.0
3.0
2.5
3.9
3.5
6.3
Long
fello
w
4,97
2 3,
545
528
200
168
294
483
237
71.3
10.6
4.0
3.4
4.8
5.9
9.7
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
20
,602
16
,567
15
52
568
513
671
1,21
673
180
.47.
52.
82.
53.
5 3.
3 5.
9C
ity
382,
618
249,
186
68,8
18
8,37
8 23
,744
15
,798
29,1
7516
,694
65.1
18.0
2.2
6.2
4.4
4.1
7.6
Hou
sing
Dat
a 19
40 C
ensu
s
O
wne
r-O
ccup
ied
Ren
ter-
Occ
upie
d (E
ntire
Tra
ct)
Y
ear
Dw
ellin
g U
nit B
uilt
(Lon
gfel
low
)
TRA
CT
Pop
ulat
ion
Occ
upie
d U
nits
P
erso
ns p
er
Uni
t A
ll D
wel
ling
Uni
ts
Ow
ner
Occ
upie
d %
Ow
ner
Occ
upie
d Te
nant
O
ccup
ied
% T
enan
t O
ccup
ied
Vac
ant
%
Vac
ant
Avg
. V
alue
M
edia
n V
alue
A
vg. M
onth
ly
Ren
t M
edia
n M
onth
ly
Ren
t 19
30 to
19
40
1920
to
1929
19
00 to
19
19
1899
or
befo
re
7400
97
3 26
3 3.
70
270
90
34.3
17
3 65
.7
6 2.
2 2,
140
2,03
8 19
.32
18.7
0 2
8 20
3 43
7500
1,
770
504
3.51
50
9 27
0 53
.5
235
46.5
5
0.9
2,80
6 2,
863
25.9
9 26
.04
31
147
229
96
7600
2,
098
591
3.55
59
7 39
5 66
.8
196
33.2
4
0.7
4,27
8 3,
881
32.8
8 33
.69
42
266
281
10
8800
4,
272
1,18
1 3.
62
1,20
0 74
6 63
.1
435
36.9
19
1.
6 3,
300
3,44
4 28
.47
30.2
2 44
36
5 77
2 54
8900
4,
415
1,24
1 3.
56
1,25
5 91
5 73
.7
326
26.3
10
0.
8 3,
362
3,70
7 32
.44
33.8
6 80
69
6 46
3 2
9000
5,
446
1,53
2 3.
55
1,55
2 1,
147
74.9
38
5 25
.1
18
1.2
4,56
6 4,
428
33.6
8 34
.70
230
920
372
7
1030
0 1,
000
265
3.77
26
7 17
6 66
.4
89
33.6
2
0.7
3,33
9 3,
459
28.4
9 30
.31
19
113
129
5
1040
0 3,
258
874
3.73
88
1 58
4 66
.8
290
33.2
6
0.7
3,18
5 3,
380
29.5
1 31
.34
35
284
482
7
1050
0 4,
543
1,24
2 3.
66
1,25
8 90
5 72
.9
337
27.1
14
1.
1 3,
341
3,77
1 30
.23
32.2
7 20
8 69
4 34
9 0
1110
0 44
0 11
8 3.
73
121
81
68.6
37
31
.4
3 2.
2 3,
881
3,86
5 33
.62
34.3
8 8
56
45
5
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
28,2
15
7,81
1 3.
63
7,91
0 5,
308
68.0
2,
503
32.0
87
1.
1 3,
420
3,58
3 29
.46
31.8
1 69
9 3,
549
3,32
5 22
9
City
49
2,37
0 14
2,83
4 3.
45
147,
647
58,7
64
41.1
84
,070
58
.9
4,44
1 3.
0 4,
143
3,85
3 29
.07
27.7
0
- 53
-
1950
Cen
sus
Ow
ner
Occ
upie
d (L
ongf
ello
w)
Y
ear
Dw
ellin
g U
nit B
uilt
(Tra
ct)
TRA
CT
Pop
ulat
ion
Occ
upie
d U
nits
P
erso
ns p
er
Uni
t A
ll D
wel
ling
Uni
ts
Ow
ner
Occ
upie
d %
Ow
ner
Occ
upie
d R
ente
r O
ccup
ied
% R
ente
r O
ccup
ied
Vac
ant
%
Vac
ant
Med
ian
Val
ue ($
) (T
ract
) M
edia
n M
onth
ly R
ent
($)
1940
or
late
r 19
30 to
19
39
1920
to
1929
19
19 o
r ea
rlier
7400
87
8 25
2 3.
48
258
115
45.6
13
7 54
.4
6 2.
3 5,
783
28.7
8 5
80
94
5
7500
1,
776
528
3.36
53
0 37
1 70
.3
157
29.7
2
0.4
7,82
4 37
.97
45
90
220
875
7600
1,
946
624
3.12
62
4 50
5 80
.9
119
19.1
6
1.0
9,70
1 44
.31
50
65
370
310
8800
4,
273
1,29
2 3.
31
1,29
9 94
9 73
.5
343
26.5
7
0.5
8,72
1 39
.77
10
85
305
985
8900
4,
198
1,28
9 3.
26
1,29
2 1,
107
85.9
18
2 14
.1
3 0.
2 8,
936
44.5
9 20
90
72
5 45
5
9000
5,
405
1,62
7 3.
32
1,63
3 1,
412
86.8
21
5 13
.2
6 0.
4 10
,622
50
.11
50
260
945
335
1030
0 98
4 28
0 3.
52
281
230
82.1
50
17
.9
1 0.
4 8,
492
41.2
2 35
80
44
0 37
0
1040
0 3,
127
924
3.38
93
4 76
8 83
.1
156
16.9
10
1.
1 8,
496
42.9
1 30
35
23
0 61
0
1050
0 4,
714
1,38
6 3.
40
1,39
5 1,
223
88.2
16
3 11
.8
9 0.
6 9,
369
44.3
6 19
5 22
5 64
5 34
5
1110
0 48
7 14
3 3.
40
144
108
75.5
35
24
.5
1 0.
7 10
,431
50
.29
290
370
615
240
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
27,7
87
8,34
5 3.
33
8,39
0 6,
788
81.3
1,
557
18.7
51
0.
6 8,
829
43.6
1
City
52
1,71
8 15
9,34
5 3.
27
161,
974
83,7
37
52.6
75
,608
47
.4
2,62
9 1.
6
38.4
8 12
,435
12
,125
33
,535
10
0,47
5
1960
Cen
sus
Ow
ner
Occ
upie
d R
ente
r O
ccup
ied
Yea
r B
uilt
(Ent
ire
Trac
t)
Yea
r Mov
ed In
to U
nit (
Long
fello
w)
TRA
CT
Pop
ulat
ion
Occ
upie
d U
nits
P
erso
ns p
er
Uni
t A
ll H
ousi
ng
Uni
ts
Ow
ner
Occ
upie
d %
Ow
ner
Occ
upie
d R
ente
r O
ccup
ied
% R
ente
r O
ccup
ied
Vac
ant
%
Vac
ant
Med
ian
Val
ue
(Tra
ct)
Med
ian
Gro
ss R
ent (
$)
(Tra
ct)
1950
to M
arch
19
60
1958
to
3/19
60
1954
to
1957
19
40 to
19
53
1939
or
earli
er
7400
66
7 21
0 3.
17
218
92
43.8
11
8 56
.2
8 3.
7 9,
800
77
20
76
44
43
45
7500
1,
672
540
3.10
55
2 34
9 64
.6
191
35.4
12
2.
2 11
,300
80
55
17
2 11
4 14
8 10
6
7600
1,
898
647
2.93
65
4 51
6 79
.8
131
20.2
19
2.
9 13
,100
-
70
183
131
198
129
8800
4,
008
1,33
2 3.
01
1,36
2 91
9 69
.0
413
31.0
31
2.
3 12
,100
91
85
37
4 20
2 40
3 35
0
8900
3,
793
1,27
8 2.
97
1,29
1 1,
102
86.2
17
6 13
.8
13
1.0
12,3
00
- 12
22
8 24
1 44
1 36
8
9000
4,
934
1,64
4 3.
00
1,65
7 1,
431
87.0
21
3 13
.0
13
0.8
13,8
00
- 59
35
9 27
6 49
3 51
6
1030
0 87
9 28
1 3.
13
284
217
77.2
64
22
.8
3 1.
1 11
,700
-
18
61
56
87
76
1040
0 2,
884
925
3.12
94
3 77
3 83
.6
152
16.4
18
1.
9 11
,900
-
38
203
175
286
261
1050
0 4,
143
1,44
0 2.
88
1,46
3 1,
218
84.6
22
2 15
.4
23
1.6
12,6
00
104
115
325
217
503
395
1110
0 49
9 16
7 2.
99
168
114
68.3
53
31
.7
1 0.
6 13
,600
10
0 19
6 35
33
62
32
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
25
,376
8,
464
3.00
8,
592
6,73
1 79
.5
1,73
3 20
.5
141
1.6
12,2
00
91.0
0
2,01
5 1,
489
2,66
4 2,
278
City
48
2,87
2 16
5,79
1 2.
91
173,
155
87,4
12
52.7
78
,379
47
.3
7,36
4 4.
3
38.4
8 16
,579
55
,673
37
,028
47
,599
25
,491
% C
ity T
otal
s in
Lon
gfel
low
5.
3 5.
1
5.0
7.7
2.
2
1.9
3.6
4.0
5.6
8.9
1970
Cen
sus
Y
ear
Bui
lt (E
ntire
Tra
ct)
Y
ear M
oved
Into
Uni
t (Lo
ngfe
llow
, Occ
upie
d U
nits
)
TRA
CT
Pop
ulat
ion
Occ
upie
d U
nits
P
erso
ns p
er
Uni
t A
ll H
ousi
ng
Uni
ts
Ow
ner
Occ
upie
d %
O
wne
r R
ente
r O
ccup
ied
%
Ren
ter
Vac
ant
%
Vac
ant
Med
ian
Val
ue
Med
ian
Ren
t 19
69 to
3/
1970
19
65 to
19
68
1960
to
1964
19
68 to
3/
1970
19
65 to
19
67
1960
to
1964
19
50 to
19
59
1949
or
earli
er
7400
50
3 20
8 2.
42
220
52
25.0
15
6 75
.0
12
5.5
13,7
00
101
- 46
10
2 63
51
35
20
36
7500
1,
520
552
2.75
56
6 30
7 55
.6
245
44.4
14
2.
5 14
,600
10
7 8
35
38
165
127
47
80
131
7600
1,
870
666
2.81
67
1 53
3 80
.0
133
20.0
5
0.7
17,1
00
118
- 13
32
17
1 11
8 11
2 91
15
9
8800
4,
154
1,60
7 2.
58
1,65
0 86
5 53
.8
742
46.2
43
2.
6 15
,200
12
3 43
20
0 11
8 52
2 30
2 17
0 26
1 34
7
8900
3,
677
1,31
4 2.
80
1,32
2 1,
100
83.7
21
4 16
.3
8 0.
6 15
,600
11
4 -
4 15
18
4 25
6 18
5 26
2 42
7
9000
4,
755
1,70
9 2.
78
1,73
0 1,
435
84.0
27
4 16
.0
21
1.2
17,5
00
136
31
12
19
295
263
337
380
434
1030
0 1,
092
374
2.92
38
5 22
9 61
.2
145
38.8
11
2.
9 14
,800
12
6 49
-
16
103
38
65
69
104
1040
0 2,
783
929
3.00
94
9 75
4 81
.2
175
18.8
20
2.
1 14
,900
10
6 -
- 23
17
0 11
3 11
6 23
2 29
8
1050
0 4,
441
1,60
6 2.
77
1,62
4 1,
372
85.4
23
4 14
.6
18
1.1
17,3
00
119
10
68
150
289
255
212
373
477
1110
0 49
7 18
1 2.
75
184
107
59.1
74
40
.9
3 1.
6 17
,900
12
8 -
6 42
38
25
24
38
53
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
25,2
93
9,14
6 2.
77
9,30
1 6,
754
73.8
2,
392
26.2
15
5 1.
7 15
,400
11
9
1,99
9 1,
548
1,30
2 1,
806
2,46
5
City
43
4,40
8 16
1,14
1 2.
70
167,
196
79,6
53
49.4
81
,488
50
.6
6,05
5 3.
6 17
,900
10
5 3,
169
8,07
8 10
,042
59
,902
27
,075
21
,109
26
,059
27
,047
- 54
-
% C
ity T
otal
s in
Lon
gfel
low
5.
8 5.
7
5.6
8.5
2.
9
2.6
3.3
5.7
6.2
6.9
9.1
1980
Cen
sus
Ow
ner
Occ
upie
d (L
ongf
ello
w)
Ren
ter
Occ
upie
d (L
ongf
ello
w)
Y
ear
Hou
s
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Pop
ulat
ion
Occ
upie
d U
nits
P
erso
ns p
er
Uni
t A
ll H
ousi
ng
Uni
ts
Ow
ner
Occ
upie
d %
Ow
ner
Occ
upie
d R
ente
r O
ccup
ied
% R
ente
r O
ccup
ied
Vac
ant
%
Vac
ant
Avg
. Val
ue
($)
Med
ian
Val
ue
($)
Avg
. Mon
thly
Ren
t ($
) M
edia
n C
ontra
ct R
ent
($)
1979
to
3/19
80
1975
to 1
978
1970
to
1974
19
60 to
19
69
Coo
per (
016)
3,
938
1,65
8 2.
38
1,71
2 1,
239
74.7
41
9 25
.3
41
2.4
53
,100
252
0 12
7
14
Hia
wat
ha (0
33)
5,62
7 2,
244
2.51
2,
276
1,71
2 76
.3
532
23.7
38
1.
7
49,3
00
24
1 6
23
49
25
How
e (0
36)
7,24
1 2,
961
2.45
3,
013
2,37
2 80
.1
589
19.9
66
2.
2
49,1
00
22
3 8
25
94
16
Long
fello
w (0
45)
5,35
5 2,
318
2.31
2,
685
1,26
0 54
.4
1,05
8 45
.6
67
2.5
46
,200
217
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
22,1
61
9,18
1 2.
41
9,68
6 6,
583
71.7
2,
598
28.3
21
2 2.
2
49,2
00
23
2 14
60
15
0 56
City
37
0,95
1 16
1,85
8 2.
29
168,
836
79,6
50
49.2
82
,208
50
.8
6,97
0 4.
1
54,5
00
21
0 1,
556
3,22
3 10
,721
19
,46
% C
ity T
otal
s in
Lon
gfel
low
6.
0 5.
7
5.7
8.3
3.
2
3.0
-530
0
22
0.9
1.9
1.4
2.
1980
Cen
sus
Yea
r Mov
ed
Into
Uni
t (L
ongf
ello
w,
Occ
upie
d U
nits
)
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
1979
to 3
/198
0
1975
to 1
978
19
70 to
197
4
1960
to 1
969
19
50 to
19
59
1959
or
earli
er
1949
or
earli
er
O
wne
r R
ente
r To
tal
Ow
ner
Ren
ter
Tota
l O
wne
r R
ente
r To
tal
Ow
ner
Ren
ter
Tota
l O
wne
r R
ente
r O
wne
r
Coo
per (
016)
12
2 15
3 27
5 21
0 13
6 34
6 23
4 76
31
0 24
6 26
27
2 17
4 28
25
3
Hia
wat
ha (0
33)
173
224
397
316
190
506
194
68
262
417
37
454
267
13
345
How
e (0
36)
218
247
465
466
243
709
272
75
347
424
5 42
9 45
0 19
54
2
Long
fello
w (0
45)
138
364
502
304
494
798
171
85
256
283
74
357
191
32
226
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
65
1 98
8 1,
639
1,29
6 1,
063
2,35
9 87
1 30
4 1,
175
1,37
0 14
2 1,
512
1,08
2 92
1,
366
City
8,
696
37,4
61
46,1
57
17,7
59
26,0
78
43,8
37
11,2
96
9,86
4 21
,160
15
,528
6,
176
21,7
04
13,3
94
2,62
9 12
,977
% C
ity T
otal
s in
Lon
gfel
low
7.
5 2.
6 3.
6 7.
3 4.
1 5.
4 7.
7 3.
1 5.
6 8.
8 2.
3 7.
0 8.
1 3.
5 10
.5
1990
Cen
sus
Ow
ner O
ccup
ied
(Lon
gfel
low
) R
ente
r Occ
upie
d (L
ongf
ello
w)
Y
ear S
truct
ure
Bui
lt (L
ongf
ello
w)
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Pop
ulat
ion
Occ
upie
d U
nits
P
erso
ns p
er
Uni
t A
ll H
ousi
ng
Uni
ts
Ow
ner
Occ
upie
d %
O
wne
r R
ente
r O
ccup
ied
%
Ren
ter
Vac
ant
%
Vac
ant
Mea
n V
alue
($
) M
edia
n V
alue
M
ean
Gro
ss
Ren
t M
edia
n G
ross
R
ent
1989
to M
arch
19
90
1985
to 1
988
1980
to
1984
19
70 to
19
79
1960
to
1969
C
oope
r (01
6)
3,70
8 1,
599
2.32
1,
663
1,26
4 79
.0
335
21.0
64
3.
8 75
,200
70
,100
56
3 56
2 0
0 6
35
84
Hia
wat
ha (0
33)
5,75
9 2,
358
2.44
2,
516
1,82
2 77
.3
536
22.7
11
1 4.
4 72
,600
67
,300
50
6 49
6 6
205
25
83
351
How
e (0
35)
7,10
8 3,
006
2.36
3,
104
2,31
9 77
.1
687
22.9
98
3.
2 69
,000
63
,900
46
7 47
1 0
5 26
72
17
4 Lo
ngfe
llow
(044
) 5,
023
2,29
6 2.
19
2,42
0 1,
224
53.3
1,
072
46.7
12
4 5.
1 62
,700
62
,700
41
6 42
3 0
15
51
265
188
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
21
,598
9,
259
2.33
9,
703
6,62
9 71
.6
2,63
0 28
.4
397
4.1
69,8
75
65,6
00
488
484
6 22
5 10
8 45
5 79
7 C
ity
368,
383
160,
682
2.29
17
2,66
6 79
,845
49
.7
80,8
37
50.3
11
,984
6.
9 84
,800
71
,200
44
1 42
4 1,
032
3,68
2 5,
751
16,2
42
18,0
55
1990
Cen
sus
Yea
r Stru
ctur
e B
uilt
(Lon
gfel
low
)
Yea
r Mov
ed In
to U
nit (
Long
fello
w, O
ccup
ied
Uni
ts)
1990
Cen
sus
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
1950
to
1959
19
40 to
19
49
1939
or
earli
er
1989
to 3
/199
0
1985
to 1
988
19
80 to
198
4
1970
to 1
979
19
60 to
196
9
19
59 o
r ear
lier
O
wne
r R
ente
r To
tal
Ow
ner
Ren
ter
Tota
l O
wne
r R
ente
r To
tal
Ow
ner
Ren
ter
Tota
l O
wne
r R
ente
r To
tal
Ow
ner
Ren
ter
Tota
l C
oope
r (01
6)
106
120
1,28
7 93
14
6 23
9 30
1 16
9 47
0 19
4 30
22
4 20
0 13
21
3 21
0 4
214
232
0 23
2 H
iaw
atha
(033
) 16
9 23
0 1,
447
154
182
336
529
173
702
274
33
307
347
71
418
247
25
272
353
6 35
9 H
owe
(035
) 17
3 28
3 2,
367
116
384
500
584
178
762
256
84
340
535
50
585
358
8 36
6 42
1 5
426
Long
fello
w (0
44)
248
198
1,43
5 88
36
4 45
2 29
4 36
5 65
9 18
7 17
2 35
9 25
8 10
4 36
2 17
3 41
21
4 23
4 14
24
8
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
696
831
6,53
6 45
1 1,
076
1,52
7 1,
708
885
2,59
3 91
1 31
9 1,
230
1,34
0 23
8 1,
578
988
78
1,06
6 1,
240
25
1,26
5 C
ity
19,2
51
16,8
37
91,8
16
7,38
1 37
,435
44
,816
20
,621
27
,724
48
,345
10
,770
8,
162
18,9
32
16,1
67
5,62
5 21
,792
10
,061
1,
209
11,2
70
14,8
45
682
15,5
27
- 55
-
2000
Cen
sus
Ow
ner
Occ
upie
d (L
ongf
ello
w)
Ren
ter O
ccup
ied
(Lon
gfel
low
)
Yea
r Stru
ctur
e B
uilt
(Lon
gfel
low
)
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Pop
ulat
ion
Occ
upie
d U
nits
P
erso
ns p
er
Uni
t A
ll H
ousi
ng
Uni
ts
Ow
ner
Occ
upie
d %
Ow
ner
Occ
upie
d R
ente
r O
ccup
ied
% R
ente
r O
ccup
ied
Vac
ant
%
Vac
ant
Med
ian
Val
ue
($)
Med
ian
Gro
ss R
ent
($)
1999
to
3/20
00
1995
to 1
998
1990
to
1994
19
80 to
19
89
1970
to
1979
19
60 to
19
69
C
oope
r 3,
448
1,61
2 2.
14
1,64
6 1,
318
81.8
29
4 18
.2
34
2.1
111,
200
646
0 0
4 20
10
10
5 H
iaw
atha
5,
304
2,39
4 2.
22
2,44
7 1,
933
80.7
46
1 19
.3
53
2.2
105,
700
566
4 0
0 25
5 11
0 23
5 H
owe
6,87
8 3,
028
2.27
3,
091
2,42
5 80
.1
603
19.9
63
2.
0 10
4,50
0 55
1 0
10
20
55
110
135
Long
fello
w
4,97
2 2,
285
2.18
2,
339
1,25
6 55
.0
1,02
9 45
.0
54
2.3
92,0
00
559
0 0
0 70
24
0 13
0
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
20
,602
9,
319
2.21
9,
523
6,93
2 74
.4
2,38
7 25
.6
204
2.1
105,
100
563
4 10
24
40
0 47
0 60
5 C
ity
382,
618
162,
363
2.36
16
8,60
6 83
,408
51
.4
78,9
44
48.6
6,
254
3.7
113,
500
575
833
1,37
3 1,
986
10,5
00
16,0
57
15,7
79
2000
Cen
sus
Yea
r Stru
ctur
e B
uilt
(Lon
gfel
low
) Y
ear M
oved
Into
Uni
t (Lo
ngfe
llow
, Occ
upie
d U
nits
)
20
00 C
ensu
s
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
1940
to
1959
19
39 o
r ear
lier
1999
to M
arch
200
0
1995
to 1
998
19
90 to
199
4
1980
to 1
989
19
70 to
197
9
19
69 o
r ear
lier
Ow
ner
Ren
ter
Tota
l O
wne
r R
ente
r To
tal
Ow
ner
Ren
ter
Tota
l O
wne
r R
ente
r To
tal
Ow
ner
Ren
ter
Tota
l O
wne
r R
ente
r To
tal
Coo
per
295
1,20
5
21
5
41
5
32
0
30
5
12
0
23
5 H
iaw
atha
38
0 1,
490
280
815
375
405
185
355
How
e 36
0 2,
355
455
905
420
505
310
400
Long
fello
w
405
1,52
0
37
5
71
5
33
0
40
5
23
0
24
0
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
1,
440
6,57
0 0
0 1,
325
0 0
2,85
0 0
0 1,
445
0 0
1,62
0 0
0 84
5 0
0 1,
230
City
36
,174
85
,922
41
,749
52
,892
23
,863
19
,928
10
,416
13
,515
Edu
catio
n D
ata
1940
Cen
sus
Gra
de
Sch
ool
Hig
h S
choo
l
Col
lege
P
opul
atio
n P
erso
ns
25+y
rs.
6 ye
ars
or le
ss
7 to
8 y
rs.
1 to
3 y
rs.
4+ y
rs.
% 4
+ yr
s.
1 to
3
yrs.
4+
yrs
. %
4+
yrs
Med
ian
Yrs.
C
ompl
eted
Tr
act 7
4 97
3 55
0 83
26
1 96
82
18
.8%
15
6
1.1
8.4
Trac
t 75
1,77
0 1,
099
44
525
180
194
24.5
%
46
29
2.7
8.6
Trac
t 76
2,09
8 1,
348
106
544
178
328
38.2
%
97
91
6.7
9.3
Trac
t 88
4,27
2 2,
684
269
1,24
5 46
9 50
4 25
.4%
10
5 75
2.
8 8.
7 Tr
act 8
9 4,
415
2,77
0 27
0 1,
230
450
547
28.8
%
175
76
2.7
8.8
Trac
t 90
5,44
6 3,
390
212
1,29
3 55
9 80
8 37
.7%
23
1 23
9 7.
1 9.
9 Tr
act 1
03
1,00
0 57
7 78
24
7 10
9 10
3 24
.2%
24
13
2.
2 8.
7 Tr
act 1
04
3,25
8 1,
939
221
941
327
343
22.7
%
63
34
1.8
8.6
Trac
t 105
4,
543
2,65
6 20
6 1,
090
480
605
32.6
%
162
99
3.7
9.1
Trac
t 111
44
0 25
8 20
10
0 48
58
34
.6%
18
13
4.
9 9.
5 Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
28,2
15
17,2
71
1,50
9 7,
477
2,89
6 3,
572
30.0
%
936
674
3.9
9.0
City
49
2,37
0 31
0,60
4 31
,858
11
1,70
3 49
,382
67
,476
36
.4%
24
,721
20
,834
6.
7 9.
5 19
50 C
ensu
s
G
rade
S
choo
l H
igh
Sch
ool
C
olle
ge
P
opul
atio
n P
erso
ns
25+y
rs.
6 ye
ars
or le
ss
7 to
8 y
rs.*
1
to 3
yrs
. 4+
yrs
. %
4+
yrs.
1
to 3
yr
s.
4+ y
rs.
% 4
+ yr
s.
Med
ian
Yrs.
C
ompl
eted
Tr
act 7
4 91
5 52
0 65
22
0 87
98
25
.6%
20
15
2.
9 8.
8 Tr
act 7
5 1,
819
1,11
6 14
0 39
1 17
1 27
9 35
.2%
73
41
3.
7 9.
2 Tr
act 7
6 2,
006
1,33
3 92
42
6 18
9 33
3 46
.4%
10
0 18
5 13
.9
11.3
Tr
act 8
8 4,
142
2,70
9 26
0 1,
065
433
606
33.4
%
187
114
4.2
9.0
Trac
t 89
4,19
8 2,
795
240
1,05
5 32
5 76
0 40
.6%
25
0 12
5 4.
5 9.
7 Tr
act 9
0 5,
405
3,35
0 23
0 90
5 55
0 93
0 47
.5%
36
5 29
5 8.
8 11
.7
Trac
t 103
98
6 59
8 32
21
0 91
18
9 42
.6%
44
22
3.
7 10
.7
Trac
t 104
3,
127
1,84
5 18
0 68
0 35
5 43
5 34
.1%
12
0 75
4.
1 9.
5 Tr
act 1
05
4,71
4 2,
890
205
875
525
750
42.9
%
350
140
4.8
10.9
Tr
act 1
11
517
318
18
89
46
98
50.2
%
30
31
9.7
12.0
- 56
-
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
27
,829
17
,474
1,
463
5,91
5 2,
770
4,47
8 40
.4%
1,
540
1,04
2 6.
0 10
.3
City
52
1,71
8 32
8,05
0 26
,690
88
,530
50
,900
87
,305
46
.2%
35
,050
29
,235
8.
9 11
.5
Y
ears
of S
choo
l Com
plet
ed (H
ighe
st L
evel
Atta
ined
)
1960
Cen
sus
Gra
de
Sch
ool
Hig
h S
choo
l
Col
lege
Sch
ool E
nrol
lmen
t (5-
34 y
rs o
ld)
P
opul
atio
n P
erso
ns
25+y
rs.
Less
than
8 y
rs
8 yr
s.
1 to
3 y
rs.
4+ y
rs.
% 4
+ yr
s.
1 to
3
yrs.
4+
yrs
. %
4+
yrs.
M
edia
n Yr
s.
Com
plet
ed
Tota
l Enr
olle
d K
inde
rgar
ten
Ele
men
tary
H
igh
Sch
ool
Col
lege
Tr
act 7
4 66
7 35
9 68
92
74
99
34
.2%
16
8
2.3
9.7
141
23
93
23
3 Tr
act 7
5 1,
672
965
131
306
166
239
36.8
%
60
56
5.8
9.7
392
26
221
97
48
Trac
t 76
1,89
8 1,
189
149
278
188
270
47.8
%
146
152
12.8
11
.6
416
23
240
102
52
Trac
t 88
4,00
8 2,
375
308
746
465
577
35.4
%
201
64
2.7
9.8
814
62
480
202
70
Trac
t 89
3,79
3 2,
430
320
668
416
692
41.4
%
219
94
3.9
10.5
79
6 64
46
1 18
0 91
Tr
act 9
0 4,
934
3,19
1 25
2 68
3 55
3 80
2 53
.4%
53
4 36
7 11
.5
12.1
1,
063
70
604
217
172
Trac
t 103
87
9 52
3 54
13
4 10
9 14
8 41
.9%
56
15
2.
9 10
.8
203
22
113
49
19
Trac
t 104
2,
884
1,72
9 28
0 47
7 32
3 45
5 36
.8%
12
0 62
3.
6 9.
9 65
2 40
40
9 16
0 43
Tr
act 1
05
4,14
3 2,
678
292
664
460
808
46.7
%
277
165
6.2
11.4
89
9 32
50
1 25
4 11
2 Tr
act 1
11
499
311
32
67
63
94
47.9
%
31
24
7.8
12.0
11
9 10
61
32
15
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
25,3
77
15,7
50
1,88
7 4,
114
2,81
6 4,
183
43.5
%
1,66
0 1,
008
6.4
10.8
5,
495
371
3,18
3 1,
315
625
City
48
2,87
2 28
6,24
4 33
,501
61
,631
50
,008
77
,771
48
.4%
33
,463
27
,420
9.
6 11
.7
108,
866
7,72
3 58
,446
24
,183
18
,514
19
70 C
ensu
s
G
rade
S
choo
l H
igh
Sch
ool
C
olle
ge
S
choo
l Enr
ollm
ent (
5-34
yrs
old
)
P
opul
atio
n P
erso
ns
25+y
rs.
Less
than
8
yrs
8 yr
s.
1 to
3 y
rs.
4+ y
rs.
% g
radu
ates
1
to 3
yr
s.
4+ y
rs.
% 4
+ yr
s.
Med
ian
Yrs.
C
ompl
eted
To
tal E
nrol
led
Kin
derg
arte
n E
lem
enta
ry
Hig
h S
choo
l C
olle
ge
Trac
t 74
503
297
25
57
60
115
50.5
%
20
16
5.3
12.0
12
8 6
74
16
26
Trac
t 75
1,52
0 1,
059
111
179
207
249
34.6
%
83
35
3.3
11.0
38
9 29
21
0 84
61
Tr
act 7
6 1,
870
1,09
0 76
22
0 13
2 38
8 60
.2%
13
9 12
9 11
.8
12.3
45
5 22
22
8 10
9 85
Tr
act 8
8 4,
154
2,36
3 28
3 39
8 43
9 88
2 52
.0%
22
9 11
6 4.
9 12
.1
1,08
0 88
54
9 25
5 17
7 Tr
act 8
9 3,
677
2,29
1 24
4 42
3 46
2 80
7 50
.7%
21
3 14
2 6.
2 12
.0
858
41
166
216
117
Trac
t 90
4,75
5 2,
997
181
568
425
1,07
1 60
.7%
37
0 37
7 12
.6
12.3
1,
151
41
652
329
107
Trac
t 103
1,
092
628
54
113
176
230
44.4
%
35
14
2.2
11.4
28
0 18
14
8 89
21
Tr
act 1
04
2,78
3 1,
616
122
405
370
478
43.8
%
154
75
4.6
11.2
65
2 40
40
9 16
0 43
Tr
act 1
05
4,44
1 2,
802
167
432
479
1,18
9 61
.5%
32
5 21
0 7.
5 12
.3
899
32
501
254
112
Trac
t 111
49
7 30
7 21
53
62
11
5 55
.4%
27
28
9.
2 12
.1
120
4 65
31
16
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
25,2
92
15,4
50
1,28
4 2,
848
2,81
2 5,
524
53.5
%
1,59
5 1,
142
7.4
11.9
6,
010
321
3,00
3 1,
542
766
City
43
4,40
8 24
4,54
0 20
,167
38
,153
42
,616
80
,547
58
.0%
31
,081
30
,223
12
.4
12.2
11
5,29
7 5,
801
51,3
40
25,5
35
30,1
83
1980
Cen
sus
Ele
men
tary
H
igh
Sch
ool
C
olle
ge
S
choo
l Enr
ollm
ent (
5-34
yrs
old
)
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Pop
ulat
ion
Per
sons
25
+yrs
. 0-
8 yr
s.
1 to
3 y
rs.
4 yr
s.
%
grad
uate
s 1
to 3
yrs
. 4+
yrs
. %
4+
yrs
Tota
l E
nrol
led
Nur
sery
Sch
ool
Kin
derg
arte
n &
Ele
m.
Hig
h S
choo
l C
olle
ge
Coo
per (
016)
3,
938
2,65
8 38
9 25
5 92
9 75
.8%
46
1 62
4 23
.5
852
47
396
231
178
Hia
wat
ha (0
33)
5,62
7 3,
928
560
511
1,67
4 72
.7%
65
3 53
0 13
.5
1,26
1 23
57
9 39
5 26
4 H
owe
(036
) 7,
241
4,67
8 66
2 62
5 1,
663
72.5
%
975
753
16.1
1,
519
63
638
422
396
Long
fello
w (0
45)
5,35
5 3,
475
515
557
1,30
9 69
.2%
54
6 54
8 15
.8
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
22
,161
14
,739
2,
126
1,94
8 5,
575
72.4
%
2,63
5 2,
455
16.7
3,
632
133
1,61
3 1,
048
838
City
37
0,95
1 23
2,35
8 30
,654
27
,983
74
,879
74
.8%
43
,724
55
,118
23
.7
95,0
79
4,08
3 33
,263
16
,307
41
,426
- 57
-
1990
Cen
sus
H
igh
Sch
ool
Col
lege
(Edu
catio
nal A
ttain
men
t p. 8
4)
Sch
ool E
nrol
lmen
t (3+
yrs
old
) (p.
61)
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Pop
ulat
ion
Per
sons
25
+yrs
. Le
ss th
an 9
th
Gra
de
No
Dip
lom
a G
radu
ate
%
grad
uate
s S
ome
Col
lege
A
ssoc
iate
B
ache
lor's
G
rad.
or P
rof.
Deg
ree
% B
ache
lor's
or
Hig
her
Tota
l E
nrol
led
Pre
prim
ary
Ele
m. o
r Hig
h S
choo
l C
olle
ge
Coo
per (
016)
3,
708
2,67
7 13
4 24
0 77
3 86
.0%
47
1 19
5 62
1
243
32.3
%
2,61
7 23
7 1,
861
519
Hia
wat
ha (0
33)
5,75
9 4,
350
275
481
1,32
6 82
.6%
98
5 34
8 63
8
297
21.5
%
951
52
526
373
How
e (0
35)
7,10
8 4,
748
269
579
1,42
1 82
.1%
93
9 41
5 67
9
446
23.7
%
1,57
9 13
9 97
5 46
5 Lo
ngfe
llow
(044
) 5,
023
3,69
3 31
0 50
9 1,
280
77.8
%
645
286
406
25
7 18
.0%
1,
151
95
604
452
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
21,5
98
15,4
68
988
1,80
9 4,
800
81.9
%
3,04
0 1,
244
2,34
4
1,24
3 23
.2%
6,
298
523
3,96
6 1,
809
City
36
8,38
3 24
3,67
6 15
,931
26
,517
62
,004
82
.6%
49
,628
15
,768
50
,121
23,7
07
30.3
%
95,8
12
6,42
5 44
,930
44
,457
Em
ploy
men
t Dat
a 19
40 C
ensu
s
TRA
CT
Pop
ulat
ion
Per
sons
14+
yrs
Fe
mal
es 1
4+
yrs
Labo
r For
ce
Fem
ales
in L
abor
Fo
rce
% P
op. 1
4+ is
Fe
mal
e %
Labo
r For
ce is
Fe
mal
e E
mpl
oyed
O
n pu
b. E
mer
g. W
ork
(WP
A,
etc)
%
Lab
or fo
rce
on p
ub. E
mer
g.
Wor
k S
eeki
ng w
ork
% S
eeki
ng W
ork
Not
in la
bor
forc
e E
ngag
ed in
ow
n ho
usew
ork*
74
00
973
723
350
382
89
48.5
23
.2
291
40
10.4
51
13
.5
341
208
7500
1,
770
1,41
4 74
5 74
2 20
9 52
.7
28.2
62
6 43
5.
8 73
9.
8 67
2 41
2 76
00
2,09
8 1,
739
907
957
271
52.1
28
.4
855
10
1.0
92
9.6
782
475
8800
4,
272
3,48
8 1,
788
1,87
4 50
8 51
.3
27.1
1,
617
60
3.2
195
10.4
1,
615
991
8900
4,
415
3,63
5 1,
864
1,94
3 52
5 51
.3
27.0
1,
677
44
2.3
222
11.4
1,
692
1,06
8 90
00
5,44
6 4,
377
2,30
9 2,
236
559
52.8
25
.0
2,02
9 58
2.
6 15
1 6.
8 2,
141
1,31
5 10
300
1,00
0 78
9 40
5 41
6 10
3 51
.4
24.7
34
6 22
5.
2 49
11
.7
373
235
1040
0 3,
258
2,57
5 1,
299
1,34
7 33
2 50
.4
24.6
1,
171
58
4.3
118
8.8
1,22
8 80
6 10
500
4,54
3 3,
486
1,79
2 1,
907
489
51.4
25
.6
1,65
5 59
3.
1 19
3 10
.1
1,57
9 1,
036
1110
0 44
0 34
3 17
6 17
9 42
51
.3
23.6
15
8 5
2.6
16
9.0
164
107
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
28
,215
22
,569
11
,636
11
,983
3,
127
51.6
26
.1
10,4
25
398
3.3
1,16
0 9.
7 10
,587
6,
653
City
49
2,37
0 40
5,24
8 21
4,77
2 22
2,95
5 73
,276
53
.0
32.9
18
6,38
6 10
,364
4.
6 26
,205
11
.8
182,
293
106,
307
1940
Cen
sus
Maj
or O
ccup
atio
n G
roup
TRA
CT
Pro
fess
iona
l S
emip
rofe
ssio
nal
Pro
prie
tors
C
leric
al, S
ales
, K
indr
ed
Cra
ftsm
en, F
orem
en,
Kin
dred
O
pera
tives
, ki
ndre
d D
omes
tic
Ser
vice
S
ervi
ce, e
xc.
Dom
estic
La
bore
rs
Not
repo
rted
7400
6
3 17
55
62
86
8
30
23
2 75
00
27
9 35
15
2 13
1 15
7 21
52
40
3
7600
66
14
90
26
2 14
6 16
9 32
51
18
7
8800
55
17
12
3 44
5 36
2 30
9 47
17
5 78
5
8900
73
25
12
4 44
7 40
1 33
4 34
14
3 73
23
90
00
192
37
255
602
410
286
68
123
49
7 10
300
11
3 26
89
73
83
8
32
18
4 10
400
29
16
71
319
258
273
23
111
69
2 10
500
83
37
123
450
363
319
45
158
76
1 11
100
9 3
14
51
34
27
4 10
5
1 Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
551
165
877
2,87
1 2,
240
2,04
1 29
0 88
5 44
9 55
C
ity
15,3
96
2,90
0 19
,933
56
,073
24
,839
30
,439
8,
202
19,6
07
7,81
4 1,
183
1950
Cen
sus
E
mpl
oym
ent S
tatu
s, P
erso
ns 1
4+ y
rs.
TRA
CT
Pop
ulat
ion
Per
sons
14+
yr
s Fe
mal
es 1
4+
yrs
Labo
r Fo
rce
Fem
ales
in L
abor
Fo
rce
% P
op. 1
4+ is
Fe
mal
e %
Labo
r For
ce is
Fe
mal
e E
mpl
oyed
P
rivat
e w
age
and
sala
ry
wor
kers
G
ov't
Wor
kers
S
elf-
empl
oyed
U
nem
ploy
ed
%
Une
mpl
oyed
N
ot in
Lab
or
Forc
e %
Not
in L
abor
Fo
rce
7400
91
5 69
5 34
0 28
1 12
9 48
.9
46.0
39
2 34
2 26
23
18
6.
4 28
4 40
.9
7500
1,
819
1,40
5 73
7 83
6 27
5 52
.4
32.9
79
0 68
1 68
42
42
5.
1 56
9 40
.5
7600
2,
006
1,59
8 85
4 93
6 30
5 53
.4
32.6
91
1 72
6 11
7 66
25
2.
7 66
2 41
.4
8800
4,
142
3,29
4 1,
736
1,87
4 60
2 52
.7
32.1
1,
808
1,50
7 18
8 10
7 63
3.
4 1,
420
43.1
89
00
4,19
8 3,
363
1,73
1 1,
910
593
51.5
31
.0
1,87
0 1,
544
219
105
36
1.9
1,45
3 43
.2
9000
5,
405
4,31
9 2,
278
2,47
4 77
5 52
.7
31.3
2,
411
1,90
5 29
9 20
5 57
2.
3 1,
845
42.7
10
300
986
755
391
454
148
51.8
32
.6
430
358
49
23
21
4.6
301
39.9
10
400
3,12
7 2,
412
1,25
3 1,
396
454
51.9
32
.5
1,33
9 1,
098
165
79
54
3.9
1,01
6 42
.1
1050
0 4,
714
3,63
8 1,
891
2,11
2 64
3 52
.0
30.4
2,
058
1,67
3 25
2 12
3 49
2.
3 1,
526
41.9
11
100
517
394
204
226
66
51.8
29
.3
220
175
25
20
6 2.
5 16
8 42
.6
- 58
-
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
27
,829
21
,873
11
,414
12
,500
3,
990
52.2
31
.9
12,2
28
10,0
09
1,40
7 79
1 37
1 3.
0 9,
243
42.3
C
ity
521,
718
415,
441
220,
886
242,
054
88,9
64
53.2
36
.8
231,
300
189,
296
23,5
82
17,9
99
10,2
33
4.2
173,
387
41.7
19
50 C
ensu
s M
ajor
Occ
upat
ion
Gro
up
TRA
CT
Pro
fess
iona
l M
anag
ers
Cle
rical
and
K
indr
ed
Sal
es
Cra
ftsm
en, F
orem
en,
kind
red
Ope
rativ
es,
kind
red
Priv
ate
Hou
seho
ld
Ser
vice
w
orke
rs
Labo
rers
N
ot re
porte
d 74
00
14
19
63
26
73
109
5 46
34
4
7500
55
41
16
2 63
15
2 19
3 13
77
29
3
7600
11
5 96
18
9 76
18
2 16
6 14
44
26
3
8800
14
1 13
3 36
5 14
8 35
7 34
6 35
17
0 91
21
89
00
155
154
378
173
385
360
21
152
85
7 90
00
326
324
531
251
435
296
37
137
66
8 10
300
25
37
89
30
87
90
6 46
18
2
1040
0 10
0 10
9 25
6 10
8 26
7 28
6 21
14
0 46
6
1050
0 18
5 18
5 42
9 17
4 41
2 32
1 32
18
5 76
59
11
100
26
25
48
21
43
30
2 16
6
1 Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
1,14
2 1,
124
2,50
9 1,
071
2,39
4 2,
197
186
1,01
3 47
7 11
5 C
ity
26,9
37
22,2
25
47,8
12
22,3
18
32,8
71
39,8
97
3,86
7 23
,320
9,
853
2,20
0 19
60 C
ensu
s
Em
ploy
men
t Sta
tus
TRA
CT
Pop
ulat
ion
Per
sons
14+
yr
s Fe
mal
es 1
4+
yrs
Labo
r Fo
rce
Fem
ales
in L
abor
Fo
rce
% P
op. 1
4+ is
Fe
mal
e %
Labo
r For
ce is
Fe
mal
e E
mpl
oyed
P
rivat
e w
age
and
sala
ry
wor
kers
G
ov't
Wor
kers
S
elf-
empl
oyed
U
nem
ploy
ed
%
Une
mpl
oyed
N
ot in
Lab
or
Forc
e %
Not
in L
abor
Fo
rce
7400
66
7 46
6 23
8 28
2 99
51
.1
35.2
26
1 23
2 19
8
20
7.1
184
39.5
75
00
1,67
2 1,
240
663
713
279
53.5
39
.1
670
574
65
31
43
6.1
527
42.5
76
00
1,89
8 1,
467
772
879
343
52.6
39
.0
840
668
116
56
39
4.4
587
40.1
88
00
4,00
8 3,
084
1,64
2 1,
774
701
53.2
39
.5
1,66
8 1,
400
189
76
90
5.1
1,31
0 42
.5
8900
3,
793
2,95
7 1,
604
1,66
3 65
0 54
.2
39.1
1,
622
1,36
9 18
8 65
41
2.
5 1,
294
43.8
90
00
4,93
4 3,
874
2,11
3 2,
161
857
54.5
39
.7
2,09
2 1,
584
388
120
60
2.8
1,71
3 44
.2
1030
0 87
9 66
2 36
2 38
0 15
3 54
.7
40.1
37
2 32
7 31
14
8
2.1
282
42.6
10
400
2,88
4 2,
167
1,09
4 1,
309
458
50.5
35
.0
1,22
7 1,
060
105
62
67
5.1
858
39.6
10
500
4,14
3 3,
279
1,73
9 1,
937
750
53.0
38
.7
1,88
2 1,
532
265
81
51
2.6
1,34
2 40
.9
1110
0 49
9 38
7 20
5 22
2 80
53
.0
35.9
21
5 17
2 28
13
6
2.9
165
42.6
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
25,3
76
19,5
82
10,4
32
11,3
20
4,36
9 53
.3
38.6
10
,849
8,
919
1,39
4 52
7 42
5 3.
8 8,
262
42.2
C
ity
482,
872
369,
853
201,
080
222,
393
92,5
92
54.4
41
.6
212,
144
172,
901
25,4
75
13,1
63
9,62
1 4.
3 14
7,46
0 39
.9
1960
Cen
sus
Maj
or O
ccup
atio
n G
roup
Maj
or In
dust
ry
M
anuf
actu
ring
TRA
CT
Pro
fess
iona
l M
anag
ers
Cle
rical
and
Kin
dred
S
ales
C
rafts
men
, For
emen
, ki
ndre
d O
pera
tives
, ki
ndre
d P
rivat
e H
ouse
hold
S
ervi
ce
wor
kers
La
bore
rs
Not
repo
rted
Con
stru
ctio
n To
tal M
fg.
Met
al
Indu
strie
s M
achi
nery
Tr
ansp
orta
tion
Equ
ip.
7400
6
9 38
14
42
52
3 34
41
23
14
76
15
19
3
7500
65
25
12
0
39
94
155
23
82
38
28
35
208
52
61
19
7600
16
0 72
17
5
29
129
144
6 86
16
23
47
24
0 34
53
15
88
00
146
70
335
15
6 24
9 34
1 15
22
7 76
54
74
53
0 60
11
2 22
89
00
171
59
394
85
23
8 39
6 20
13
3 81
45
76
52
1 68
14
8 28
90
00
369
190
421
23
3 26
7 27
1 8
194
73
66
103
525
48
108
22
1030
0 30
13
93
32
61
68
6 42
15
11
18
12
7 13
42
10
10
400
74
60
290
82
21
5 26
0 15
13
1 49
51
57
44
0 76
84
23
10
500
202
139
410
18
0 28
9 31
6 51
17
1 56
68
56
54
1 52
16
7 32
11
100
27
20
50
23
33
28
1
20
5 7
10
60
7 13
5
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
1,
250
658
2,32
5
872
1,61
8 2,
032
148
1,12
0 44
9 37
6 49
0 3,
268
425
807
179
City
28
,100
14
,984
46
,795
17,4
66
24,2
90
32,9
85
3,60
2 23
,390
8,
297
12,2
35
9,11
8 51
,770
6,
497
11,2
68
1,66
8
- 59
-
1960
Cen
sus
Maj
or In
dust
ry (c
ont.)
M
anuf
actu
ring
R
ailro
ad &
R
ailw
ay
Oth
er
Tran
spor
tatio
n C
omm
unic
atio
ns, U
tiliti
es
& S
anita
ry
Who
lesa
le
Trad
e E
atin
g &
Drin
king
Pla
ces
Oth
er R
etai
l Tr
ade
Bus
ines
s an
d R
epai
r P
rivat
e H
ouse
hold
s O
ther
Per
sona
l S
ervi
ces
TRA
CT
Oth
er D
urab
le
Goo
ds
Food
and
Kin
dred
Pr
od.
Text
ile a
nd
App
arel
Pr
int,
Pub
lishi
ng
Oth
er
Non
dura
ble
74
00
9 13
3
6 8
11
9 6
17
18
31
4 3
13
7500
17
26
9
16
7 17
36
17
25
27
75
22
23
23
76
00
29
45
12
35
14
20
29
8 57
17
11
3 32
6
24
8800
13
3 96
31
55
17
38
85
44
64
63
23
1 61
22
51
89
00
83
80
45
31
19
69
64
57
110
31
206
40
20
49
9000
76
58
26
11
8 37
60
53
77
13
7 48
27
8 54
8
29
1030
0 21
12
7
13
5 7
9 9
18
13
52
11
6 16
10
400
81
56
4 64
40
23
57
31
67
40
14
0 35
15
38
10
500
73
109
23
48
20
48
106
66
93
39
296
60
51
29
1110
0 9
10
3 8
4 7
10
6 14
6
30
6 2
6 Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
531
505
163
393
170
299
459
321
602
302
1,45
2 32
6 15
6 27
9 C
ity
9,55
9 8,
247
3,47
7 5,
359
4,18
4 4,
704
6,20
1 5,
991
12,4
76
6,92
9 27
,181
6,
411
3,91
7 7,
645
1960
Cen
sus
Maj
or In
dust
ry (c
ont.)
H
ospi
tals
E
duca
tiona
l O
ther
P
rofe
ssio
nal
Pub
lic A
dmin
. O
ther
Indu
strie
s TR
AC
T
7400
7
6 11
9
27
7500
36
38
11
30
46
76
00
53
71
41
23
59
8800
81
56
28
82
15
7 89
00
95
49
60
91
84
9000
10
5 21
7 98
13
9 16
1 10
300
10
16
9 16
34
10
400
38
48
31
41
126
1050
0 60
11
1 68
12
2 13
6 11
100
7 9
13
12
16
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
49
2 62
1 37
1 56
6 84
6 C
ity
9,92
1 12
,833
10
,946
9,
177
26,8
20
1970
Cen
sus
E
mpl
oym
ent S
tatu
s
TRA
CT
Pop
ulat
ion
Per
sons
16+
yr
s Fe
mal
es 1
6+
yrs
Labo
r Fo
rce
Fem
ales
in L
abor
Fo
rce
% P
op. 1
6+ is
Fe
mal
e %
Labo
r For
ce is
Fe
mal
e E
mpl
oyed
P
rivat
e w
age
and
sala
ry
wor
kers
G
ov't
Wor
kers
S
elf-
empl
oyed
U
nem
ploy
ed
%
Une
mpl
oyed
N
ot in
Lab
or
Forc
e %
Not
in L
abor
Fo
rce
7400
50
3 38
1 20
4 25
1 11
8 53
.5
47.1
23
6 20
7 15
14
15
5.
8 13
0 34
.2
7500
1,
520
1,11
4 61
2 72
2 32
8 55
.0
45.4
68
3 57
9 91
13
30
4.
2 39
2 35
.2
7600
1,
870
1,33
3 73
6 79
8 33
0 55
.2
41.4
77
1 63
3 11
8 19
27
3.
4 53
6 40
.2
8800
4,
154
3,06
0 1,
720
1,85
1 85
3 56
.2
46.1
1,
788
1,43
3 28
9 63
63
3.
4 1,
208
39.5
89
00
3,67
7 2,
759
1,49
4 1,
583
682
54.2
43
.1
1,53
6 1,
262
223
51
43
2.7
1,17
6 42
.6
9000
4,
755
3,57
9 1,
991
2,06
5 86
2 55
.6
41.7
2,
024
1,64
8 31
1 65
35
1.
7 1,
514
42.3
10
300
1,09
2 78
5 44
6 43
5 20
1 56
.8
46.2
41
7 33
8 56
22
18
4.
2 35
1 44
.7
1040
0 2,
783
1,96
3 1,
066
1,17
9 47
0 54
.3
39.9
1,
127
983
128
16
45
3.8
784
39.9
10
500
4,44
1 3,
404
1,80
2 2,
069
829
52.9
40
.1
2,01
5 1,
576
389
50
50
2.4
1,33
5 39
.2
1110
0 49
7 37
8 20
8 22
9 3,
406
55.1
1,
485.
7 21
9 18
1 32
16
9
4.1
148
39.3
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
25,2
93
18,7
56
10,2
80
11,1
81
8,07
9 54
.8
72.3
10
,816
8,
840
1,65
2 33
0 33
6 3.
0 7,
575
40.4
C
ity
434,
408
331,
084
184,
420
204,
543
94,1
61
55.7
46
.0
196,
325
156,
330
32,2
60
7,26
3 7,
711
3.8
126,
541
38.2
1970
Cen
sus
Maj
or O
ccup
atio
n G
roup
M
ajor
In
dust
ry
TRA
CT
Pro
fess
iona
l M
anag
ers
Sal
es
Cle
rical
and
K
indr
ed
Cra
ftsm
en, F
orem
en,
kind
red
Ope
rativ
es, e
xc.
Tran
spor
t Tr
ansp
ort e
quip
O
per.
Labo
rers
S
ervi
ce
Wor
kers
P
rivat
e H
ouse
hold
C
onst
ruct
ion
Man
ufac
turin
g
Tran
spor
tatio
n C
omm
unic
atio
ns,
Util
ities
, San
itatio
n
- 60
-
Tota
l Mfg
. D
urab
le G
oods
7400
26
15
16
49
32
46
8
7 34
2
9 73
48
6
6 75
00
46
7 43
16
3 99
11
4 22
45
13
9 6
32
183
137
33
29
7600
15
2 66
59
22
3 61
90
51
14
47
3
28
187
122
39
28
8800
25
9 73
10
5 49
3 21
5 20
0 78
94
22
8 40
76
41
6 31
3 79
36
89
00
194
81
68
412
187
234
69
74
211
6 82
38
3 27
0 71
51
90
00
401
160
124
455
244
199
90
61
270
20
70
396
249
126
57
1030
0 31
7
11
124
87
72
13
18
48
6 23
11
4 85
21
8
1040
0 10
3 79
69
24
9 16
1 13
0 58
35
22
9 11
75
23
9 16
8 81
25
10
500
320
153
119
517
262
202
55
111
266
10
118
438
296
112
47
1110
0 36
15
12
66
26
20
12
7
24
1 12
51
31
13
7
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
1,
567
655
626
2,75
1 1,
374
1,30
8 45
6 46
6 1,
496
104
525
2,48
0 1,
719
582
294
City
32
,415
12
,730
12
,762
49
,179
21
,044
23
,064
6,
498
8,15
1 28
,361
1,
808
8,21
0 40
,327
25
,354
7,
872
5,96
5 19
70 C
ensu
s M
ajor
Indu
stry
(con
t.)
TRA
CT
Who
lesa
le
Trad
e R
etai
l Tr
ade
Fina
nce,
Insu
r., R
eal
Est
ate
Bus
ines
s an
d R
epai
r P
erso
nal
Ser
vice
s H
ealth
se
rvic
es
Edu
catio
nal
Ser
vice
s O
ther
Pro
f. &
re
late
d P
ublic
A
dmin
istra
tion
Oth
er In
dust
ries
All
Wor
kers
74
00
15
41
8 8
20
18
6 18
4
4 24
3 75
00
53
123
29
12
34
74
31
13
35
0 68
6 76
00
29
149
39
43
23
66
58
45
30
7 78
9 88
00
101
300
73
77
91
213
124
99
88
15
1,83
9 89
00
107
288
71
66
64
126
90
49
85
3 1,
532
9000
17
5 33
4 95
86
64
19
7 19
3 13
3 70
28
1,
943
1030
0 31
51
29
25
24
32
11
19
19
8
428
1040
0 74
16
5 53
68
45
10
7 68
49
58
20
1,
110
1050
0 15
1 33
4 92
11
9 55
15
1 18
5 79
13
4 0
1,93
1 11
100
10
42
17
11
5 20
13
6
13
1 21
0 Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
746
1,82
7 50
5 51
5 42
6 1,
004
778
510
536
86
10,7
12
City
11
,899
32
,706
14
,069
10
,472
9,
031
16,8
02
17,4
26
10,5
84
8,36
3 2,
599
190,
528
1980
Cen
sus
E
mpl
oym
ent S
tatu
s
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Pop
ulat
ion
Per
sons
16+
yr
s La
bor F
orce
Fe
mal
es 1
6+
yrs
Fem
ales
in L
abor
Fo
rce
% P
op. 1
6+ is
Fe
mal
e %
Labo
r For
ce is
Fe
mal
e E
mpl
oyed
P
rivat
e w
age
and
sala
ry
wor
kers
G
ov't
Wor
kers
Sel
f-em
ploy
ed
Une
mpl
oyed
%
U
nem
ploy
ed
Tota
l Fe
d. G
ov't
Stat
e G
ov't
Lo
cal G
ov't
C
oope
r (01
6)
3,93
8 3,
194
2,05
7 1,
735
1,01
3 54
.3
49.2
1,
980
1,59
8 33
4 61
18
1 92
48
70
3.
4 H
iaw
atha
(033
) 5,
627
4,67
5 2,
747
2,43
0 1,
352
52.0
49
.2
2,60
7 1,
987
479
141
137
201
129
140
5.1
How
e (0
36)
7,24
1 5,
887
3,80
9 3,
170
1,75
0 53
.8
45.9
3,
661
2,81
3 70
0 11
8 21
6 36
6 14
8 14
8 3.
9 Lo
ngfe
llow
(045
) 5,
355
4,36
9 2,
849
2,38
0 1,
331
54.5
46
.7
2,76
0 2,
066
544
150
170
224
150
84
2.9
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
22,1
61
18,1
25
11,4
62
9,71
5 5,
446
53.6
47
.5
11,0
08
8,46
4 2,
057
470
704
883
475
442
2.4
City
("Th
e A
rea"
) 37
0,95
1 30
6,28
9 20
0,62
1 16
4,73
1 95
,486
53
.8
47.6
19
0,72
7 14
7,90
0 34
,183
5,
615
13,5
60
15,0
08
8,45
2 9,
713
3.2
% C
ity T
otal
s in
Lo
ngfe
llow
6.
0 5.
9 5.
7 5.
9 5.
7
5.
8 5.
7 6.
0 8.
4 5.
2 5.
9 5.
6 4.
6 -0
.7
1980
Cen
sus
Maj
or O
ccup
atio
n G
roup
Indu
stry
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Not
in L
abor
Fo
rce
% N
ot in
Lab
or
Forc
e M
anag
eria
l and
P
rofe
ssio
nal
Tech
nica
l, S
ales
& A
dmin
. S
uppo
rt S
ervi
ce
Occ
upat
ions
P
reci
sion
Pro
d., C
raft,
R
epai
r O
pera
tors
, fab
ricat
ors,
la
bore
rs
Con
stru
ctio
n M
anuf
actu
ring
Tran
spor
tatio
n C
omm
unic
atio
ns &
Pub
lic
Util
ities
W
hole
sale
Tr
ade
To
tal
Mfg
. D
urab
le
Goo
ds
C
oope
r (01
6)
1,13
7 35
.6
617
678
257
164
259
91
390
272
149
40
115
Hia
wat
ha (0
33)
1,92
8 41
.2
616
948
397
293
353
164
412
263
157
37
151
How
e (0
36)
2,07
8 35
.3
802
1,36
3 52
3 30
9 65
1 17
3 70
3 50
4 21
9 75
15
6 Lo
ngfe
llow
(045
) 1,
520
34.8
61
1 87
6 35
5 32
9 54
8 12
6 57
2 44
5 14
5 20
19
4
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
6,66
3 36
.8
2,64
6 3,
865
1,53
2 1,
095
1,81
1 55
4 2,
077
1,48
4 67
0 17
2 61
6
- 61
-
Tota
ls
City
("Th
e A
rea"
) 10
5,66
8 34
.5
50,0
74
66,4
78
30,0
25
15,7
72
27,5
44
7,10
6 33
,736
22
,777
8,
976
4,01
1 9,
111
% C
ity T
otal
s in
Lo
ngfe
llow
6.
3
5.3
5.8
5.1
6.9
6.6
7.8
6.2
6.5
7.5
4.3
6.8
1980
Cen
sus
Indu
stry
(con
t.)
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Ret
ail
Trad
e Fi
nanc
e, In
sura
nce
& R
eal
Est
ate
Bus
ines
s an
d R
epai
r P
erso
nal,
Ent
erta
inm
ent,
Rec
. S
ervi
ces
Hea
lth s
ervi
ces
Edu
catio
nal
Ser
vice
s O
ther
Pro
fess
iona
l &
rela
ted
Pub
lic
Adm
inis
tratio
n A
ll W
orke
rs
Coo
per (
016)
29
2 11
6 75
43
22
2 22
4 14
0 83
1,
939
Hia
wat
ha (0
33)
463
196
127
122
322
177
121
153
2,55
0 H
owe
(036
) 62
6 27
4 18
7 72
45
7 29
8 20
8 20
1 3,
532
Long
fello
w (0
45)
484
175
123
140
319
187
110
155
2,67
8
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
1,86
5 76
1 51
2 37
7 1,
320
886
579
592
10,6
99
City
("Th
e A
rea"
) 32
,037
15
,093
10
,742
9,
329
20,5
47
18,6
72
12,8
59
7,80
8 18
3,68
9 %
City
Tot
als
in
Long
fello
w
5.8
5.0
4.8
4.0
6.4
4.7
4.5
7.6
5.8
1990
Cen
sus
E
mpl
oym
ent S
tatu
s, P
erso
ns 1
6+ y
rs.
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Pop
ulat
ion
Per
sons
16+
yr
s La
bor F
orce
Fe
mal
es 1
6+
yrs
Fem
ales
in L
abor
Fo
rce
% P
op. 1
6+ is
Fe
mal
e %
Labo
r For
ce is
Fe
mal
e E
mpl
oyed
P
rivat
e w
age
and
sala
ry
wor
kers
G
ov't
Wor
kers
Sel
f-em
ploy
ed
Une
mpl
oyed
%
U
nem
ploy
ed
Tota
l Fe
d. G
ov't
Stat
e G
ov't
Lo
cal G
ov't
C
oope
r (01
6)
3,70
8 3,
045
2,18
3 1,
514
1,03
0 49
.7
47.2
2,
095
1,56
9 40
9 66
19
1 15
2 11
2 88
2.
9 H
iaw
atha
(033
) 5,
759
4,85
6 3,
051
2,43
5 1,
523
50.1
49
.9
2,89
1 2,
283
440
114
140
186
168
155
3.2
How
e (0
35)
7,10
8 5,
380
3,74
9 2,
925
1,86
2 54
.4
49.7
3,
533
2,72
3 58
8 86
18
2 32
0 21
7 21
6 4.
0 Lo
ngfe
llow
(044
) 5,
023
4,28
4 2,
873
2,25
1 1,
349
52.5
47
.0
2,71
3 2,
059
514
70
203
241
140
160
3.7
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
21,5
98
17,5
65
11,8
56
9,12
5 5,
764
51.9
48
.6
11,2
32
8,63
4 1,
951
336
716
899
637
619
3.5
City
36
8,38
3 29
8,97
9 20
6,47
7 15
5,56
4 97
,397
52
.0
47.2
19
2,50
8 15
1,89
7 29
,275
4,
566
11,7
29
12,9
80
11,0
36
13,7
81
4.6
% C
ity T
otal
s in
Lo
ngfe
llow
5.
9 5.
9 5.
7 5.
9 5.
9
5.
8 5.
7 6.
7 7.
4 6.
1 6.
9 5.
8 4.
5 -1
.1
1990
Cen
sus
Indu
stry
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Not
in L
abor
Fo
rce
% N
ot in
Lab
or
Forc
e M
anag
eria
l and
P
rofe
ssio
nal
Tech
nica
l, S
ales
& A
dmin
. S
uppo
rt S
ervi
ce
Occ
upat
ions
P
reci
sion
Pro
d., C
raft,
R
epai
r O
pera
tors
, fab
ricat
ors,
la
bore
rs
Con
stru
ctio
n M
anuf
actu
ring
Tran
spor
tatio
n C
omm
. & P
ublic
U
tiliti
es
Who
lesa
le
Trad
e R
etai
l Tra
de
To
tal
Mfg
. D
urab
le
Goo
ds
Coo
per (
016)
86
2 28
.3
808
576
287
133
268
67
333
211
67
32
74
265
Hia
wat
ha (0
33)
1,80
5 37
.2
734
1,17
6 32
5 23
3 41
3 87
52
8 32
1 24
0 78
17
1 41
5 H
owe
(035
) 1,
631
30.3
1,
087
1,16
3 47
7 33
0 44
8 12
9 58
7 39
3 20
0 41
18
1 46
1 Lo
ngfe
llow
(044
) 1,
411
32.9
75
0 89
7 42
5 22
6 40
0 13
8 35
8 23
4 91
85
15
1 48
3
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
5,
709
32.5
3,
379
3,81
2 1,
514
922
1,52
9 42
1 1,
806
1,15
9 59
8 23
6 57
7 1,
624
City
92
,502
30
.9
61,1
79
65,2
94
30,1
42
12,2
17
22,5
58
5,73
7 27
,195
16
,110
8,
813
3,57
3 8,
217
32,8
53
% C
ity T
otal
s in
Lo
ngfe
llow
6.
2
5.5
5.8
5.0
7.5
6.8
7.3
6.6
7.2
6.8
6.6
7.0
4.9
1990
Cen
sus
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Fina
nce,
Insu
r., R
eal
Est
ate
Bus
ines
s an
d R
epai
r P
erso
nal,
Ent
er.,
Rec
. S
ervi
ces
Hea
lth s
ervi
ces
Edu
c. S
ervi
ces
Oth
er P
rof.
&
rela
ted
Pub
lic
Adm
inis
tratio
n A
ll W
orke
rs
C
oope
r (01
6)
131
99
84
323
233
257
110
2,04
4 H
iaw
atha
(033
) 18
9 15
6 12
3 34
2 12
5 30
5 11
7 2,
872
How
e (0
35)
255
257
140
489
334
300
135
3,50
1 Lo
ngfe
llow
(044
) 12
9 17
1 13
3 36
8 26
5 19
6 97
2,
672
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
704
683
480
1,52
2 95
7 1,
058
459
11,0
89
City
15
,370
13
,579
10
,521
20
,444
18
,280
20
,748
6,
001
188,
558
% C
ity T
otal
s in
4.
6 5.
0 4.
6 7.
4 5.
2 5.
1 7.
6 5.
9
- 62
-
Long
fello
w
2000
Cen
sus
E
mpl
oym
ent S
tatu
s, P
erso
ns 1
6+ y
rs.
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Pop
ulat
ion
Per
sons
16+
yr
s La
bor F
orce
Fe
mal
es 1
6+
yrs
Fem
ales
in L
abor
Fo
rce
% P
op. 1
6+ is
Fe
mal
e %
Labo
r For
ce is
Fe
mal
e E
mpl
oyed
(Tot
al
Pop
.) P
rivat
e w
age
and
sala
ry
wor
kers
G
ov't
Wor
kers
S
elf-
empl
oyed
U
nem
ploy
ed
%
Une
mpl
oyed
N
ot in
Lab
or
Forc
e %
Not
in L
abor
Fo
rce
Tota
l
Coo
per
3,44
8 2,
850
2,17
5 1,
545
1,11
5 54
.2
51.3
2,
125
1,63
5 35
0 13
5 50
1.
8 67
5 23
.7
Hia
wat
ha
5,30
4 4,
140
3,05
1 2,
165
1,46
5 52
.3
48.0
2,
825
2,22
0 47
5 13
5 17
0 4.
1 1,
145
27.7
H
owe
6,87
8 5,
500
4,22
5 2,
870
2,15
5 52
.2
51.0
4,
000
3,01
5 71
0 27
0 23
0 4.
2 1,
275
23.2
Lo
ngfe
llow
4,
972
4,11
5 3,
125
2,13
5 1,
515
51.9
48
.5
2,93
5 2,
280
385
255
190
4.6
995
24.2
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
20,6
02
16,6
05
12,5
76
8,71
5 6,
250
52.5
49
.7
11,8
85
9,15
0 1,
920
795
640
3.9
4,09
0 24
.6
City
38
2,61
8 30
6,37
8 22
0,79
0 15
3,44
9 10
4,08
7 50
.1
47.1
20
7,89
0 16
7,92
2 28
,815
10
,730
12
,778
4.
2 85
,588
27
.9
% C
ity T
otal
s in
Lo
ngfe
llow
5.
4 5.
4 5.
7 5.
7 6.
0
5.
7 5.
4 6.
7 7.
4 5.
0 -0
.3
4.8
20
00 C
ensu
s In
dust
ry
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Mgm
t., P
rofe
ssio
nal &
R
elat
ed
Ser
vice
O
ccup
atio
ns
Sal
es a
nd o
ffice
oc
cupa
tions
C
onst
., ex
tract
ion
& m
aint
enan
ce
Pro
duct
ion,
tran
sp.,
and
mat
eria
l m
ovin
g C
onst
ruct
ion
Man
ufac
turin
g
Who
lesa
le
Trad
e R
etai
l Tra
de
Tran
sp. &
War
ehou
sing
, and
ut
ilitie
s In
form
atio
n
Tota
l Mfg
. D
urab
le G
oods
Coo
per
1,07
0 29
5 51
0 95
15
5 75
20
0
50
120
95
100
Hia
wat
ha
1,19
0 35
0 74
0 19
5 35
0 12
0 29
0
75
325
135
130
How
e 1,
710
520
1,09
0 22
5 44
5 13
0 42
0
125
460
260
130
Long
fello
w
930
620
815
190
375
170
385
30
35
0 14
0 11
0
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
4,
900
1,78
5 3,
155
705
1,32
5 49
5 1,
295
0 28
0 1,
255
630
470
City
85
,409
33
,771
53
,357
10
,025
25
,045
6,
844
22,4
39
5,
393
22,0
76
9,75
8 7,
402
% C
ity T
otal
s in
Lo
ngfe
llow
5.
7 5.
3 5.
9 7.
0 5.
3 7.
2 5.
8 #D
IV/0
! 5.
2 5.
7 6.
5 6.
3 20
00 C
ensu
s In
dust
ry
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Fina
nce,
Insu
r., R
eal
Est
ate
Prof
., sc
ient
ific,
mgm
t., a
dmin
. & w
aste
m
gmt.
Edu
c., H
ealth
and
Soc
ial
Ser
v.
Arts
, Ent
er.,
Rec
., A
ccom
mod
atio
n, &
Foo
d S
ervi
ces
Oth
er S
ervi
ces
Pub
lic
Adm
inis
tratio
n A
ll W
orke
rs
Coo
per
220
240
665
120
150
80
2,11
9 H
iaw
atha
18
0 38
5 72
5 18
0 17
5 11
0 2,
770
How
e 35
5 45
0 96
5 36
0 17
0 16
5 3,
925
Long
fello
w
175
260
760
305
200
45
2,86
0
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
930
1,33
5 3,
115
965
695
400
11,6
74
City
17
,929
28
,446
47
,442
22
,867
10
,672
6,
187
203,
951
% C
ity T
otal
s in
Lo
ngfe
llow
5.
2 4.
7 6.
6 4.
2 6.
5 6.
5 5.
7 In
com
e D
ata
1950
Cen
sus
Inco
me
in 1
949
(Lon
gfel
low
)
Le
ss th
an
$500
$5
00 to
$99
9 $1
,000
to
$1,4
99
$1,5
00 to
$1
,999
$2
,000
to
$2,4
99
$2,5
00 to
$2
,999
$3
,000
to
$3,4
99
$3,5
00 to
$3
,999
$4
,000
to
4,49
9 $4
,500
to
$4,9
99
$5,0
00 to
$5
,999
$6
,000
to $
6,99
9 $7
,000
to
$9,9
99
$10,
000
or
mor
e N
ot
Rep
orte
d M
edia
n In
com
e Tr
act 7
4 18
19
28
16
26
33
40
26
20
18
18
10
13
-
17
$3,0
38
Trac
t 75
42
25
23
23
46
59
97
78
34
38
53
36
46
6 19
$3
,435
Tr
act 7
6 47
8
16
19
31
55
97
70
86
55
90
74
31
19
12
$4,0
34
Trac
t 88
89
52
70
103
136
146
155
207
127
85
131
52
9 9
56
$3,3
33
Trac
t 89
45
70
50
50
110
165
185
190
140
100
175
120
95
5 40
$3
,697
Tr
act 9
0 11
0 65
45
50
11
0 85
13
0 17
0 14
5 13
0 18
5 16
0 11
5 75
35
$4
,078
Tr
act 1
03
25
7 16
28
18
32
53
38
25
23
18
15
18
-
12
$3,2
99
Trac
t 104
75
45
35
60
70
70
13
5 75
10
0 10
5 11
5 45
35
5
20
$3,4
81
- 63
-
Trac
t 105
35
50
60
65
60
80
14
5 22
0 12
5 10
5 19
5 10
5 65
25
15
$3
,892
Tr
act 1
11
6 4
4 3
9 13
20
18
11
8
19
9 15
4
5 $3
,845
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
492
346
347
418
616
737
1,05
7 1,
092
813
666
998
625
443
149
230
$3,5
89
City
19
,160
15
,095
12
,965
13
,635
16
,705
16
,445
20
,575
16
,920
14
,070
10
,160
14
,990
8,
455
9,50
0 5,
735
10,5
00
$3,0
78
1960
Cen
sus
# Fam
ilies
M
edia
n In
com
e
19
70 C
ensu
s Fa
mili
es
Fa
mili
es &
Unr
elat
ed In
divi
dual
s 19
80 C
ensu
s
Fam
ilies
Fa
m. &
Unr
el. I
ndiv
.
Med
ian
Inco
me
Mea
n In
com
e M
edia
n In
com
e M
ean
Inco
me
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Fam
ilies
H
ouse
hold
s
Trac
t 74
163
$5,3
73
$4,6
76
Tr
act 7
4 $9
,750
$1
0,64
2 $6
,259
$7
,572
M
edia
n In
com
e M
ean
Inco
me
# H
ouse
hold
s M
edia
n In
com
e M
ean
Inco
me
Trac
t 75
456
$5,7
77
$4,9
36
Tr
act 7
5 $9
,360
$9
,746
$7
,304
$7
,804
Coo
per
$21,
842
$24,
504
1,63
3 $1
8,40
2 $2
0,78
7 Tr
act 7
6 52
0 $6
,819
$5
,777
Trac
t 76
$10,
794
$11,
845
$8,1
49
$9,2
40
H
iaw
atha
$2
0,72
6 $2
2,57
6 2,
245
$16,
237
$19,
024
Trac
t 88
1,05
6 $6
,186
$5
,115
Trac
t 88
$9,7
97
$9,7
71
$7,1
08
$7,4
88
H
owe
$20,
456
$22,
833
3,04
8 $1
6,32
0 $1
9,40
0 Tr
act 8
9 1,
053
$6,6
57
$5,7
55
Tr
act 8
9 $9
,494
$9
,705
$8
,240
$8
,497
Long
fello
w
$19,
233
$19,
711
2,37
2 $1
4,70
7 $1
6,50
5 Tr
act 9
0 1,
439
$6,9
75
$6,2
08
Tr
act 9
0 $1
0,34
4 $1
2,22
3 $8
,669
$1
0,31
2
Trac
t 103
23
4 $6
,341
$5
,460
Trac
t 103
$9
,380
$1
0,86
4 $7
,944
$8
,990
Trac
t 104
81
9 $6
,393
$5
,770
Trac
t 104
$1
0,03
9 $1
0,08
9 $8
,610
$8
,712
Trac
t 105
1,
244
$6,6
01
$5,9
95
Tr
act 1
05
$11,
273
$12,
779
$9,5
84
$10,
887
Tr
act 1
11
142
$7,0
81
$6,4
41
Tr
act 1
11
$11,
206
$12,
117
$9,1
32
$10,
259
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
7,12
6 $6
,497
$5
,763
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
$9
,918
$1
0,97
8 $8
,195
$8
,976
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
$2
0,59
1 $2
2,40
6 9,
298
$16,
279
$18,
929
City
12
1,18
1 $6
,401
$4
,716
City
$9
,960
$1
1,12
7 $6
,243
$7
,855
City
$1
9,73
7 $2
2,50
9 16
2,17
1 $1
4,35
1 $1
7,77
5 19
90 C
ensu
s
20
00 C
ensu
s
N
EIG
HB
OR
HO
OD
Fa
mili
es
Hou
seho
lds
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Fam
ilies
Hou
seho
lds
M
edia
n In
com
e M
ean
Inco
me
# H
ouse
hold
s M
edia
n In
com
e M
ean
Inco
me
Med
ian
Inco
me
# Hou
seho
lds
Med
ian
Inco
me
Mea
n E
arni
ngs
Coo
per
$33,
417
$39,
436
1,59
2 $3
1,97
7 $3
7,31
5
Coo
per
$56,
250
1,62
0 $5
0,68
8 $5
7,04
1 H
iaw
atha
$3
8,59
1 $4
3,75
0 2,
381
$33,
146
$36,
601
H
iaw
atha
$5
7,46
4 2,
375
$43,
912
$54,
911
How
e $3
5,38
2 $3
8,97
2 2,
908
$28,
606
$33,
607
H
owe
$54,
116
3,07
5 $4
5,27
0 $5
1,74
3 Lo
ngfe
llow
$2
9,47
9 $3
0,58
7 2,
433
$22,
965
$26,
412
Lo
ngfe
llow
$4
2,70
4 2,
320
$34,
156
$40,
627
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
$3
4,40
0 $3
8,18
6 9,
314
$30,
292
$33,
484
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
$55,
183
9,39
0 $4
4,59
1 $5
1,08
1 C
ity
$32,
998
$40,
903
160,
531
$25,
324
$33,
245
C
ity
$48,
602
162,
382
$37,
974
$52,
245
Mea
ns o
f Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
to W
ork
Dat
a 19
60 C
ensu
s
Mea
ns o
f Tra
nspo
rtatio
n
1970
Cen
sus
Priv
ate
Aut
o
Bus
W
alke
d W
orke
d at
H
ome
Oth
er
Pr
iv.
Aut
o/C
arpo
ol
Rai
lroad
B
us
Wal
ked
Oth
er M
eans
W
orke
d at
H
ome
Not
Rep
orte
d
D
river
P
asse
nger
Tr
act 7
4 14
7 0
51
39
1 2
17
Tr
act 7
4 11
6 45
48
24
5
6 Tr
act 7
5 39
0 2
128
94
7 3
29
Tr
act 7
5 36
3 96
13
0 87
7
3 Tr
act 7
6 54
6 0
183
35
11
3 30
Trac
t 76
487
101
173
19
4 5
Trac
t 88
1,11
8 0
315
121
22
27
50
Tr
act 8
8 1,
136
258
270
136
23
16
Trac
t 89
1,08
7 4
362
64
16
21
28
Tr
act 8
9 1,
004
184
243
55
34
12
Trac
t 90
1,50
9 4
370
101
8 21
32
Trac
t 90
1,20
3 35
6 26
8 64
39
13
Tr
act 1
03
232
0 78
33
4
1 12
Trac
t 103
26
6 60
73
21
2
5 Tr
act 1
04
819
0 25
8 57
9
19
40
Tr
act 1
04
677
130
220
64
5 14
Tr
act 1
05
1,31
5 0
356
63
25
40
36
Tr
act 1
05
1,37
0 23
7 20
6 60
51
7
Trac
t 111
14
9 0
43
11
3 2
4
Trac
t 111
13
2 27
28
14
4
4 Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
7,31
1 10
2,
143
617
107
138
278
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
6,75
3 1,
494
1,66
0 54
4 17
4 86
C
ity
123,
832
142
44,1
12
22,8
83
2,04
6 4,
659
10,1
57
C
ity
102,
912
23,8
21
35,7
50
21,0
05
4,05
4 2,
952
- 64
-
1980
Cen
sus
Mea
ns o
f Tra
nspo
rtatio
n
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Priv
ate
Aut
o
P
ublic
Tr
ansp
orta
tion
% P
ub.
Tran
spor
tatio
n W
alke
d %
W
alke
d W
orke
d at
H
ome
% W
orke
d at
H
ome
Oth
er M
eans
%
Oth
er M
eans
D
rove
A
lone
%
Dro
ve
Alo
ne
Car
pool
%
Car
pool
C
oope
r 1,
157
59.7
32
1 16
.6
314
16.2
90
4.
6 16
0.
8 41
2.
1 H
iaw
atha
1,
550
60.8
31
8 12
.5
545
21.4
62
2.
4 47
1.
8 28
1.
1 H
owe
2,07
5 58
.7
677
19.2
58
7 16
.6
94
2.7
48
1.4
54
1.5
Long
fello
w
1,44
5 54
.0
542
20.2
41
9 15
.6
229
8.6
19
0.7
24
0.9
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
6,22
7 58
.2
1,85
8 17
.4
1,86
5 17
.4
475
4.4
130
1.2
147
1.4
City
93
,025
50
.6
28,1
50
15.3
39
,964
21
.8
16,4
46
9.0
2,93
6 1.
6 3,
168
1.7
1990
Cen
sus
Mea
ns o
f Tra
nspo
rtatio
n
NE
IGH
BO
RH
OO
D
Priv
ate
Aut
o
P
ublic
Tr
ansp
orta
tion
% P
ub.
Tran
spor
tatio
n W
alke
d %
W
alke
d W
orke
d at
H
ome
% W
orke
d at
H
ome
Oth
er M
eans
%
Oth
er M
eans
D
rove
A
lone
%
Dro
ve
Alo
ne
Car
pool
%
Car
pool
C
oope
r 1,
434
70.2
30
0 14
.7
163
8.0
56
2.7
41
2.0
50
2.4
Hia
wat
ha
2,02
0 70
.3
363
12.6
33
1 11
.5
40
1.4
83
2.9
35
1.2
How
e 2,
424
69.2
52
3 14
.9
363
10.4
59
1.
7 93
2.
7 39
1.
1 Lo
ngfe
llow
1,
571
58.8
39
4 14
.7
390
14.6
17
2 6.
4 58
2.
2 87
3.
3
Long
fello
w C
omm
unity
To
tals
7,
449
67.2
1,
580
14.2
1,
247
11.2
32
7 2.
9 27
5 2.
5 21
1 1.
9 C
ity
113,
703
60.3
19
,837
10
.5
30,2
14
16.0
14
,798
7.
8 5,
754
3.1
4,25
2 2.
3 20
00 C
ensu
s
C
omm
utin
g to
Wor
k
N
EIG
HB
OR
HO
OD
P
rivat
e A
uto
Pub
lic T
rans
port
atio
n W
alke
d
Wor
ked
at H
ome
Oth
er M
eans
D
rove
A
lone
%
Dro
ve
Alo
ne
Car
pool
%
Car
pool
% P
ublic
Tra
nsp.
%
Wal
ked
% W
orke
d at
Hom
e %
Oth
er M
eans
C
oope
r 1,
500
70.8
26
0 12
.3
165
7.8
4 0.
2 12
0 5.
7 70
3.
3 H
iaw
atha
1,
965
70.9
32
0 11
.6
250
9.0
55
2.0
125
4.5
55
2.0
How
e 2,
740
69.8
49
0 12
.5
375
9.6
85
2.2
135
3.4
100
2.5
Long
fello
w
1,79
5 62
.8
455
15.9
37
5 13
.1
70
2.4
90
3.1
75
2.6
Lo
ngfe
llow
Com
mun
ity
Tota
ls
8,00
0 68
.5
1,52
5 19
.1
1,16
5 10
.0
214
1.8
470
4.0
300
2.6
City
12
5,58
3 61
.6
23,1
32
18.4
29
,681
14
.6
13,4
88
6.6
6,93
6 3.
4 5,
131
2.5
Cou
ntry
of O
rigi
n D
ata
1940
Cen
sus
Sel
ecte
d* C
ount
ry o
f Birt
h, F
orei
gn-B
orn
Whi
te
TRA
CT
Pop
ulat
ion
Whi
te, T
otal
N
egro
/Bla
ck
Fore
ign-
Bor
n W
hite
E
ngla
nd &
W
ales
S
cotla
nd
Irela
nd (N
. and
F.
S.)
Nor
way
S
wed
en
Den
mar
k G
erm
any
Pol
and
Cze
chos
lova
kia
Aus
tria
Rus
sia
Finl
and
Rum
ania
Ita
ly
Asi
a (c
ontin
ent)
7400
97
3 96
6 5
126
3 3
1 31
43
7
10
1 4
3 1
1 1
1 1
7500
1,
770
1,74
4 26
30
6 9
1 5
82
121
11
20
2 16
10
3
8 0
1 -
7600
2,
098
2,09
8 -
289
6 -
1 59
14
3 14
18
2
10
5 2
2 3
2 -
8800
4,
272
4,19
2 79
63
5 15
6
5 17
8 26
0 40
35
3
22
9 3
4 1
8 -
8900
4,
415
4,41
5 -
667
20
2 6
171
326
44
29
5 6
6 1
3 2
2 1
9000
5,
446
5,43
8 6
713
22
1 2
156
322
61
38
3 20
10
3
1 2
5 -
1030
0 1,
000
994
5 12
2 3
1 2
25
46
13
7 1
1 3
3 1
0 1
- 10
400
3,25
8 3,
248
9 48
2 11
4
3 15
0 17
4 41
28
0
18
7 3
2 2
8 -
1050
0 4,
543
4,54
0 -
612
20
6 3
162
257
29
33
3 18
17
2
5 3
12
- 11
100
440
439
- 52
1
1 1
14
22
3 3
1 1
1 1
- -
- -
Long
fello
w
Com
mun
ity
28,2
15
28,0
75
130
4,00
4 11
0 26
29
1,
028
1,71
3 26
3 22
1 21
11
6 70
21
27
14
40
2
City
49
2,37
0 48
7,09
9 4,
646
64,1
49
1,97
2 78
7 95
4 11
,777
19
,244
2,
010
4,43
3 3,
637
1,50
3 1,
564
4,48
1 91
7 1,
099
702
836
1940
Cen
sus
- 65
-
TRA
CT
Can
ada-
Fren
ch
Can
ada-
Oth
er
Mex
ico
7400
1
6 6
7500
3
10
0 76
00
1 11
-
8800
3
23
- 89
00
5 22
-
9000
3
44
- 10
300
4 6
- 10
400
12
10
- 10
500
3 24
-
1110
0 0
2 -
Long
fello
w
Com
mun
ity
35
158
6 C
ity
836
4,61
4 18
9 19
50 C
ensu
s
S
elec
ted*
Cou
ntry
of B
irth,
For
eign
-Bor
n W
hite
TRA
CT
Pop
ulat
ion
Whi
te, T
otal
N
egro
/Bla
ck
Fore
ign-
Bor
n W
hite
E
ngla
nd &
W
ales
S
cotla
nd
Irela
nd (N
. and
F.
S.)
Nor
way
S
wed
en
Den
mar
k G
erm
any
Pol
and
Cze
chos
lova
kia
Aus
tria
Rus
sia
(U.S
.S.R
.) Fi
nlan
d R
uman
ia
Italy
74
00
915
909
5 77
3
0 0
18
25
2 6
1 3
1 1
1 1
0 75
00
1,81
9 1,
782
32
195
5 1
2 51
69
10
12
2
17
5 1
5 0
0 76
00
2,00
6 2,
003
- 23
0 7
- 1
49
113
11
10
2 3
2 1
2 2
- 88
00
4,14
2 4,
026
117
509
11
5 7
141
183
33
29
5 18
9
2 2
1 6
8900
4,
198
4,19
7 -
501
8 1
4 12
2 24
7 22
17
6
10
9 4
6 -
2 90
00
5,40
5 5,
400
3 53
8 12
4
4 12
4 20
9 58
35
3
18
7 2
- 1
4 10
300
986
981
5 98
2
2 1
23
35
6 4
1 3
2 1
1 1
1 10
400
3,12
7 3,
122
5 31
6 8
5 4
91
114
24
9 1
11
2 3
2 -
8 10
500
4,71
4 4,
709
- 50
4 10
6
3 13
0 20
3 33
25
2
22
9 3
4 1
11
1110
0 51
7 51
7 -
42
1 1
1 11
17
2
3 -
- 1
- -
- -
Long
fello
w
Com
mun
ity
27,8
29
27,6
47
166
3,01
2 67
25
27
76
1 1,
216
201
149
24
105
47
19
24
7 32
C
ity
521,
718
513,
250
6,80
7 48
,862
1,
550
581
699
8,56
8 13
,442
1,
520
3,33
0 2,
915
1,34
7 1,
110
3,63
8 77
0 68
4 56
5 19
50 C
ensu
s
TRA
CT
Asi
a (c
ontin
ent)
Can
ada-
Fren
ch
Can
ada-
Oth
er
Mex
ico
7400
1
1 4
3 75
00
0 3
7 -
7600
4
2 10
-
8800
-
5 26
1
8900
2
1 27
-
9000
2
3 29
-
1030
0 2
1 7
- 10
400
- -
13
- 10
500
2 3
19
- 11
100
- -
2 -
Long
fello
w
Com
mun
ity
13
19
144
4 C
ity
408
515
3,84
8 18
0
- 66
-
1960
Cen
sus
Cou
ntry
of O
rigin
, For
eign
Sto
ck
TRA
CT
Pop
ulat
ion
Fore
ign
Sto
ck
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Ire
land
N
orw
ay
Sw
eden
G
erm
any
Pol
and
Cze
chos
lova
kia
Aus
tria
Hun
gary
U
.S.S
.R.
Italy
C
anad
a M
exic
o A
ll O
ther
& N
ot
repo
rted
7400
66
7 16
3 4
3 28
57
24
4
7 6
1 0
0 7
1 95
75
00
1,67
2 52
0 7
8 11
4 15
4 78
13
35
10
0
7 3
22
0 15
9 76
00
1,89
8 73
8 9
21
170
270
53
10
40
22
3 23
2
20
0 12
9 88
00
4,00
8 1,
396
39
63
367
439
178
28
38
19
12
7 11
71
5
127
8900
3,
793
1,49
7 53
35
33
9 53
7 96
20
70
29
16
12
0
85
28
177
9000
4,
934
1,93
3 87
17
45
3 70
1 22
3 26
54
37
8
12
20
119
4 17
2 10
300
879
278
14
3 59
78
39
5
13
6 2
4 2
14
0 12
9 10
400
2,88
4 1,
097
39
19
242
333
169
11
70
29
4 10
0
45
0 12
6 10
500
4,14
3 1,
597
48
25
438
536
129
28
74
24
12
26
16
71
0 17
0 11
100
499
166
10
4 35
52
17
5
6 4
1 1
2 11
0
188
Long
fello
w
Com
mun
ity
25,3
76
9,38
4 31
0 19
8 2,
245
3,15
7 1,
006
149
407
185
59
103
56
465
38
1,47
2 C
ity
482,
872
151,
053
5,79
1 3,
146
27,3
65
35,9
61
19,8
19
8,56
2 4,
424
3,25
3 1,
022
7,32
9 2,
032
11,8
60
690
19,7
99
1970
Cen
sus
Cou
ntry
of O
rigin
, For
eign
Sto
ck
TRA
CT
Pop
ulat
ion
Fore
ign
Sto
ck
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Ire
land
S
wed
en
Ger
man
y P
olan
d C
zech
oslo
vaki
a A
ustri
a H
unga
ry
U.S
.S.R
. Ita
ly
Can
ada
Mex
ico
Cub
a O
ther
A
mer
ica
All
othe
r &
N.R
. 74
00
503
110
3 2
43
9
11
43
7500
1,
520
370
4 7
60
51
3 42
18
9
10
17
3
146
7600
1,
870
521
4
127
87
40
16
53
19
4 88
00
4,15
4 1,
055
43
6 29
0 10
4 15
36
44
6
18
7 49
15
42
5 89
00
3,67
7 1,
048
36
16
399
101
20
46
10
12
6
37
55
310
9000
4,
755
1,53
9 35
12
61
0 14
1 7
58
81
12
6
63
63
451
1030
0 1,
092
232
16
81
22
5
3 12
3
8
12
71
10
400
2,78
3 67
8 7
19
7 69
6
48
5
20
54
272
1050
0 4,
441
1,40
0 26
9
539
145
21
49
49
27
49
13
35
43
8 11
100
497
192
6 1
40
14
3 3
2 3
3
10
2 44
Lo
ngfe
llow
C
omm
unity
25
,293
7,
146
180
53
2,38
5 74
2 60
29
9 27
2 48
12
3 40
33
5 86
0
68
2,39
4 C
ity
434,
408
103,
800
3,86
6 1,
785
23,3
36
12,3
47
5,68
0 3,
039
2,43
2 62
2 3,
653
1,39
5 8,
315
665
293
1,10
0 35
,272