Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) Quarterly Report: Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Presented by the Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) School of Social Ecology University of California, Irvine Š June 2018
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015 June 1, 2018
Report Authors:
John R. Hipp
Graduate Student Researcher: Young-An Kim
Cite this Report: Cite this report: John R. Hipp. (2018) “Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015” MFI Report: 2018_1. Irvine, CA: Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI), University of California Irvine. June 1, 2018.
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
About the Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) The Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) in the School of Social Ecology at the University of California, Irvine aims to develop an improved understanding of communities and their potential for integrative and collaborative planning and action to ensure a bright future for the region. It approaches these goals by bringing together an interdisciplinary research team along with the insights and techniques of “big data” research. By combining various large longitudinal and spatial data sources, and then employing cutting edge statistical analyses, the goal is to come to a better understanding of how the various dimensions of the social ecology of a region move together to produce the outcomes observed within our neighborhoods. With initial focus on Orange County and its location within the larger Southern California area, The Metropolitan Futures Initiative is a commitment to build communities that are economically vibrant, environmentally sustainable, and socially just by partnering the School of Social Ecology’s world class, boundary-crossing scholarship with expertise throughout Southern California. The MFI Quarterly Report series presents cutting edge research focusing on different dimensions of the Southern California region, and the consequences for neighborhoods in the region. Reports released each quarter focus on issues of interest to the public as well as policymakers in the region. In addition, the MFI webpage (mfi.soceco.uci.edu) provides interactive mapping applications that allow policymakers and the public to explore more deeply the data from each Quarterly Report. The MFI gratefully acknowledges the Heritage Fields El Toro, LLC for their funding support.
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
The MFI Research Team: John R. Hipp is the Director of the Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI). He is a professor in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society, the Department of Policy, Planning, and Design, and the Department of Sociology, at the University of California, Irvine. He is also co-director of the Irvine Lab for the Study of Space and Crime (ILSSC). His research interests focus on how neighborhoods change over time, how that change both affects and is affected by neighborhood crime, and the role networks and institutions play in that change. He approaches these questions using quantitative methods as well as social network analysis.
Jae Hong Kim is a member of the MFI Executive Committee and a faculty member in the Department of Planning, Policy, and Design at the University of California, Irvine. His research focuses on urban economic development, land use change, and the nexus between these two critical processes. His academic interests also lie in institutional environments — how institutional environments shape urban development processes — and urban system modeling. His scholarship attempts to advance our knowledge about the complex mechanisms of contemporary urban development and to develop innovative urban planning strategies/tools for both academics and practitioners.
Kevin Kane is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Planning, Policy and Design at the University of California, Irvine. He is an economic geographer interested in the quantitative spatial analysis of urban land-use change and urban development patterns, municipal governance, institutions, and economic development. His research uses land change as an outcome measure – in the form of changes to the built environment, shifting patterns of employment, or the socioeconomic composition of places – and links these to drivers of change including policy, structural economic shifts, or preferences for how we use and travel across urban space.
Young-An Kim is a Ph.D. student in the department of Criminology, Law and Society, at the University of California, Irvine. His research interests focus on crime patterns at micro places, effects of structural characteristics of street segments on crime, and immigration and crime. Besides criminology, he is interested in sociology of health, urban sociology, and quantitative research methods.
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Table of Contents Chapters
Page
Chapter 1. Assessing change in neighborhood home values over time
10
10
The plan of the Report
Chapter 2. Typology of 16 types of neighborhoods for change in home values
11
Overview of the typology of classes
13
Chapter 3. Describing the home value clusters
14
Summary of classes of low-home value neighborhoods
14
Summary of classes of changing home values neighborhoods
14
Summary of classes of highest-level home values
16
Socio-demographic variables for analyses
16
Class 4: Lowest home values – Coachella, Banning, Hemet, Colton, San Bernardino
18
Class 5: Low home values – Bell Gardens, Florence-Graham, Maywood, Bell, East Los Angeles, Lynwood, Paramount, South Gate, Compton, El Monte
22
Class 7: Low and declining home values – East Hemet, Baldwin Park, Hesperia, La Puente, Rubidoux, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Apple Valley, Fontana, Azusa, Palmdale, Compton, Lancaster, Indio, Ontario, Riverside
26
Class 2: Low but improving home values – Huntington Park, Inglewood, Glendale, Costa Mesa, Long Beach, Los Angeles
30
Class 9: Low but recent improvement in home values – Imperial Beach, Alhambra, Gardena, Hawthorne, National City
34
Class 1: Declining home values – Temecula, Palm Springs, Ventura, Inglewood, Irvine
38
Class 10: Urban gentrifying neighborhoods – Long Beach, Los Angeles, San Diego
42
Class 12: Freeway-close gentrifying neighborhoods – Laguna Woods, San Diego
46
Class 15: Coastal gentrifying neighborhoods – Santa Monica, Glendale, San Diego, Los Angeles
50
Class 6: Mid-level home values, but declining – Norwalk, Pico Rivera, South Whittier, Carson, Rosemead, West Covina
54
Class 3: Mid-level home values – Temple City, La Mirada, Lakewood, Chino Hills, Westminster, Corona, Simi Valley, Poway, Cypress, Buena Park
58
Class 16: Improving home values – Redondo Beach, Encinitas, Carlsbad, Irvine, Costa Mesa
62
Class 11: Above average home values, but declining – Cerritos, Diamond Bar, Aliso Viejo, Fountain Valley, Red Bluff, Mission Viejo, Hacienda Heights, Placentia, Camarillo, Lake Forest
66
Class 8: Above average home values, but declining – Laguna Niguel, Yorba Linda, Arcadia, San Clemente, Thousand Oaks
70
Class 13: High home values– Manhattan Beach, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Coronado
74
Class 14: Highest home values – Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles
78
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Chapters (cont.)
Page
Chapter 4. Mapping the location of these 16 types of neighborhoods
82
Los Angeles County
82
Orange County
85
Riverside County
88
San Bernardino County
91
San Diego County
94
Ventura County
97
Chapter 5. Conclusion
Appendix
100
Page
Technical Appendix 101 Appendix 1. City profiles of home value typology
102
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology
112
List of Figures Figure 1: Overview of the typology of classes
11
Average home values for Class 4
18
Figure 4a 19 Figure 4b 19 Figure 4c
20
Figure 4d 21 Average home values for Class 5
22
Figure 5a
23
Figure 5b
23
Figure 5c
24
Figure 5d
25
Average home values for Class 7
26
Figure 7a 26 Figure 7b 27 Figure 7c
28
Figure 7d 29 Average home values for Class 2
30
Figure 2a 31 Figure 2b
31
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015 Figure 2c
32
Figure 2d 33 Average home values for Class 9
34
Figure 9a 35 Figure 9b 35 Figure 9c
36
Figure 9d 37 Average home values for Class 1
38
Figure 1a
39
Figure 1b
39
Figure 1c
40
Figure 1d
41
Average home values for Class 10
42
Figure 10a 43 Figure 10b 43 Figure 10c 44 Figure 10d 45 Average home values for Class 12
46
Figure 12a 47 Figure 12b 47 Figure 12c 48 Figure 12d 49 Average home values for Class 15
50
Figure 15a 51 Figure 15b 51 Figure 15c 52 Figure 15d 53 Average home values for Class 6
54
Figure 6a 55 Figure 6b 55 Figure 6c
56
Figure 6d 57 Average home values for Class 3 Figure 3a
58
59
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015 Figure 3b
59
Figure 3c
60
Figure 3d
61
Average home values for Class 16
62
Figure 16a 63 Figure 16b 63 Figure 16c 64 Figure 16d 65 Average home values for Class 11
66
Figure 11a 67 Figure 11b 67 Figure 11c 68 Figure 11d 69 Average home values for Class 8
70
Figure 8a 71 Figure 8b 71 Figure 8c
72
Figure 8d 73 Average home values for Class 13
74
Figure 13a 75 Figure 13b 75 Figure 13c 76 Figure 13d 77 Average home values for Class 14
78
Figure 14a 79 Figure 14b 79 Figure 14c 80 Figure 14d 81 Figure 4.1. Low home value neighborhoods in Los Angeles County 82 Figure 4.2. Changing home value neighborhoods in Los Angeles County 83 Figure 4.3. High home value neighborhoods in Los Angeles County 84 Figure 4.4. Low home value neighborhoods in Orange County 85 Figure 4.5. Changing home value neighborhoods in Orange County 86
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015 Figure 4.6. High home value neighborhoods in Orange County 87 Figure 4.7. Low home value neighborhoods in Riverside County 88 Figure 4.8. Changing home value neighborhoods in Riverside County 89 Figure 4.9. High home value neighborhoods in Riverside County 90 Figure 4.10. Low home value neighborhoods in San Bernardino County 91 Figure 4.11. Changing home value neighborhoods in San Bernardino County 92 Figure 4.12. High home value neighborhoods in San Bernardino County 93 Figure 4.13. Low home value neighborhoods in San Diego County 94 Figure 4.14. Changing home value neighborhoods in San Diego County 95 Figure 4.15. High home value neighborhoods in San Diego County 96 Figure 4.16. Low home value neighborhoods in Ventura County 97 Figure 4.17. Changing home value neighborhoods in Ventura County 98 Figure 4.18. High home value neighborhoods in Ventura County 99
List of Tables
Page
Appendix Table 1: City profiles of home value typology
103-111
Appendix Table 2: Zip code profiles of home value typology
113-130
9
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Chapter 1. Assessing change in neighborhood home values over time For many households, a home is their largest investment. In addition, for households much of their lives are lived within the neighborhood that contains their house. For these reasons, and many others, there is naturally an interest in understanding the pattern of home value appreciation, or depreciation, across neighborhoods over time. We explore the change in home values across Southern California neighborhoods over a 50 year period. For our analyses, we use data from 5 U.S. Censuses: 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000; as well as the American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data in 2005-09 and 2011-15. We adopt a statistical approach that allows us to create a typology of how neighborhoods change based on their home values over time. Our analyses yielded 16 different classes of neighborhoods. In this Report, we will describe these classes of neighborhoods based on their demographic composition over this period, and where they are located spatially. The plan of the Report In Chapter 2, we provide an overview of our data and analysis. We then give an overview of the 16 classes that were found in our analyses. In Chapter 3, we describe each of the 16 neighborhood types based on their socio-demographic characteristics. We describe how each of these 16 classes of neighborhoods have changed over this period based on a number of socio-demographic measures. In Chapter 4, we show the geographic distribution of these classes of neighborhoods by presenting a series of maps. In Chapter 5, we conclude and discuss the implications of our study. In the Appendices, we present the profile of neighborhood types that exist in each of the cities in the region. That is, what percentage of neighborhoods in a city is classified into each class in our typology? We also present the profile of neighborhood types that exist in each of the zip codes in the region. Our neighborhoods (census tracts) are smaller than zip codes, and thus a zip code will be composed of several neighborhoods.
10
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Chapter 2. Typology of 16 types of neighborhoods for change in home values In this Report, we use U.S. Census data for each decennial time point from 1960 to 2000, and then for the last two time points we use American Community Survey (ACS) data 5-year estimates given that the Census no longer uses the long form. We use data from the 2005-09 5-year estimates (and refer to that as “2007” to capture the midpoint), and from the 2011-15 5-year estimates (and refer to that as “2013”). We compute the average home value in a tract as reported by respondents to the Census. We focus on six counties in Southern California: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura. We standardized each of our measures at each time point. This means that at each time point, the average home values measure will be 0, and the standard deviation will be 1. This gives us a comparable value to compare at each time point. Therefore, we are not trying to capture how the actual home values have changed in a neighborhood over time, but rather are capturing a neighborhood’s home value at a point in time compared to the rest of the region. We then capture how the neighborhood’s standing relative to the rest of the region changes over the 50 year period. We thus are capturing the standardized home values at each time point. Given that census tracts can change over time due to growth or loss of population, we placed all data into 2000 tract boundaries. Our study looks at the change in home values for a particular geographic area based on the tract boundaries defined in the year 2000. We classify tracts into a typology of neighborhoods based on how the relative home values changed over this period. We used a statistical technique to accomplish this: latent class analysis (LCA). The clustering technique yielded 16 classes.
11
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015 Figure 1 presents the standardized average home values for each of the clusters. They are approximately ordered from lowest average home value to highest average home value. Each bar shows the relative home values for the average neighborhood in this class in a particular year. For example, the average neighborhood in the class at the far left of this graph (class 4) has an average home value about -0.8 in 1960. This indicates that home values in these neighborhoods were about .8 standard deviations below the mean in 1960. These average values drifted down over the study period and by 1980 were over 1 standard deviation below the mean of the region. We briefly describe the classes here, and then describe them in more depth in the next chapter. Note that the class number is arbitrarily assigned by the statistical procedure, and therefore in this figure we simply ordered them based on relative average home value over time. Classes 4 and 5 have the lowest average home values over time. Classes 7 and 9 have low home values, although class 7 appears to be falling in recent years whereas class 9 is improving. Class 2 previously had quite low values but is improving in recent years. The next group of classes contains neighborhoods neither at the high or low ends of the home values spectrum. Furthermore, they are characterized as generally having experienced changing home values over this time period: either increasing or decreasing in home values at various points in time. Three classes: 1, 6, and 3 are declining in recent years (though class 1 has stabilized in the most recent decade). The other three classes among this group—10, 12, and 15—are quite interesting in that they are gentrifying neighborhoods. One notable feature about these classes is that they have all seen a very big jump in average home values in the last decade; however another notable feature is that all had above average home values in 1960 before falling to below average values from 1970-2000. Note also that group 12 contains just 22 neighborhoods and group 14 contains 81 neighborhoods, whereas the other fourteen classes typically have at least 120 neighborhoods in each, or more. The final group of classes contains the high home value neighborhoods. Class 14 contains the highest home value neighborhoods over time, and class 13 is the next highest. The next three highest classes show different recent trajectories: whereas class 16 is seeing increasing relative home values, classes 8 and 11 are experiencing decreasing relative home values.
12
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 1: Overview of the typology of classes
13
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Chapter 3. Describing the home value clusters In this Chapter we describe each of the 16 types of neighborhoods based on change in home values over this period. We focus on the demographic characteristics of these neighborhoods. For each neighborhood, we display the demographic characteristics as standardized values. That is, the variables are standardized within year: thus values of 0 represent neighborhoods with a value at the average for the region for a particular variable of interest, and positive values show how much higher in standard deviations the neighborhoods in that class are above the average on the variable of interest, whereas negative values show how much lower in standard deviations the neighborhoods in that class are below the average on the variable of interest. One common pattern is that the lowest home value neighborhoods tend to have a lower percent white residents and higher percentages of black and Latino residents. However, the relationship to the presence of Asians is more ambiguous. It is also the case that lower value neighborhoods tend to have higher unemployment rates. Summary of classes of low-home value neighborhoods What if we look closer among the classes with similar levels of home values, but different recent trajectories? Among the low home value neighborhoods, recall that classes 2 and 9 have shown recent relative increases in home values. The improving neighborhoods (classes 2 and 9) have relatively more Asians than do the stagnant low value neighborhoods. Although class 2 is experiencing relatively increasing home values whereas class 5 is not, they are similar in that they have older housing and higher population density (both in the neighborhood and in the surrounding area), low percentages of whites, decreasing percentages of blacks and increasing percentages of Latinos (both within the neighborhood and in the surrounding area). Four of these low home value classes have been experiencing a relative increase in the presence of children over this period. Summary of classes of changing home values neighborhoods Turning to the classes with changing home values, we distinguish the recent gentrifiers (classes 10, 12, and 15) with those that are experiencing relative decreases in home values until 2000 (class 1) and even more recently (classes 3 and 6). Among this group, the neighborhoods experiencing the largest relative decrease in percent whites are in class 6 (and an increase in Latinos in the neighborhood and nearby), which is experiencing falling home values. Among gentrifiers, whereas class 12 neighborhoods have a relatively high percent white in the neighborhood and nearby and an increasing relative presence of Asians in the neighborhood and nearby, class 10 neighborhoods are actually experiencing a relative increase in blacks and decrease in Asians. Two of the declining classes have increasing racial heterogeneity (classes 1 and 3) whereas a gentrifying class has decreasing heterogeneity (class 12), suggesting that increasing racial heterogeneity has a negative effect within this subset. Class 10 gentrifiers are unusual in that they have consistently had a relatively high unemployment rate in the neighborhood and nearby (though this unemployment has fallen in the most recent decade). Classes 10 and 15 look like typical gentrifiers as they have relatively older housing and higher population
14
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
15
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015 density in the neighborhood and nearby (though class 12 neighborhoods are peculiar in that they are the opposite; though recall that there are very few neighborhoods in class 12), and their cities have higher violent crime rates. The gentrifying classes all have lower percentages of families with children. Summary of classes of highest-level home values Among the highest home value classes, what distinguishes the two consistently high home value classes of neighborhoods (class 14 and 13) from the high home value neighborhoods that are appreciating (class 16) and those that are experiencing relative decreases in home values (classes 8 and 11)? These classes all have relatively high proportions of whites, and these relative proportions are even increasing. The two decreasing classes (1 and 11) have higher relative proportions of Asians in the neighborhood and nearby. It is notable that whereas the improving class (16) fits the typical gentrifying model—somewhat older housing, average levels of population density in the neighborhood and nearby, and relatively few children—the two decreasing classes (8 and 11) are the opposite with relatively newer housing, low population density in the neighborhood and nearby, and higher percentages of families with children (especially in the earlier decades). It is also notable that the improving class 16 neighborhoods are in cities that have gone from somewhat above average violent crime rates in earlier decades to below average in the most recent decade. The two decreasing classes appear to be in suburban locations, and they have lower violent crime rates. Socio-demographic variables for analyses We created several demographic variables using data from the U.S. Census to describe how these neighborhoods have changed over time from 1960 to now within the various classes. One set of variables capture the racial/ethnic composition of these neighborhoods. We created measures of the percent white, percent Black, percent Latino, and percent Asian. Information on the Asian population in neighborhoods was not available prior to 1980. We also created a measure of the amount of racial/ethnic mixing based on these same four racial groups.
16
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015 We also created measures of the racial/ethnic composition in the area surrounding the neighborhood. To do this, we first found all neighborhoods within 5 miles of the neighborhood of interest, and then created measures of the racial/ethnic composition in which we weighted nearby neighborhoods more heavily than more distant ones (with an inverse distance decay). We then created measures of the surrounding 5 miles based on percent white, percent Black, percent Latino, and percent Asian. We also computed the racial/ethnic mixing in the surrounding 5 miles. We created measures of the population in the neighborhood and nearby. We created a measure of population density (population divided by land area) in the neighborhood, and in the surrounding 5 miles (based on a distance decay). To measure the amount of population in the broader area around the neighborhood we created measures of the amount of population in the surrounding 5 miles (no distance decay) and the surrounding 20 miles. We created measures of commuting based on average commute distance (not available before 1990) and average commute time (not available before 1980). We created measures of the unemployment rate in the neighborhood, and the surrounding 5 mile area (with a distance decay). We created a measure of the percent of households with children. A measure of the average age of housing gives information on the age of housing, but also gives information on recent development: if the average age of housing drops noticeably, this indicates that there has been a notable amount of recent housing development. Finally, we created a measure of the violent crime rate of the city that the neighborhood is in (since we do not have neighborhood-level crime data over this long period of time). In addition to providing a description of the neighborhoods in each class, we also note the cities in which the neighborhoods of a particular class are most prevalent.
17
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Average home values for Class 4
Class 4: Lowest home values – Coachella, Banning, Hemet, Colton, San Bernardino The neighborhoods in this class tend to have the lowest home values over all of the decades. There are 190 of these neighborhoods in Southern California. Thus, they have consistently had low home values that have actually slightly declined since 1970. These neighborhoods tend to be located in inland areas, and are most prevalent in Coachella, Banning, Hemet, Colton, and San Bernardino. The racial/ethnic composition of these neighborhoods is largely Latino residents. This is seen in Figure 4a, where the top line (green) shows the percentage of Latino residents relative to the region: the positive slope of the line since 1990 indicates that even though the percentage of Latinos in the region is increasing, the percentage of Latinos is increasing even faster in these neighborhoods. These neighborhoods have relatively few Asian residents (the purple line), but the percentage of AfricanAmerican residents is pretty similar to the region average (and thus the red line hovers near 0 over the decades). The light blue line measures the level of racial/ethnic mixing in these neighborhoods (measured as racial/ethnic heterogeneity) and whereas these neighborhoods had above average mixing in 1960-70, they have shown a consistent decline in the decades since and by 2013 had below average levels of racial/ethnic mixing. That is, they evolved into relatively homogeneous neighborhoods with a high percentage of Latinos Figure 4b shows the racial/ethnic composition of the neighborhoods in the area surrounding these neighborhoods. We see that the surrounding areas look relatively similar to these neighborhoods based on racial/ethnic composition.
18
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 4a
Figure 4b 19
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 4c
In Figure 4c we show the population density and commuting patterns for these neighborhoods. We see that these neighborhoods tend to be located in relatively rural areas, as the measure of population within 20 miles (the orange line) is consistently much smaller than other neighborhoods in the region. These neighborhoods also tend to relatively low population density in them (the dark blue line), relatively low population density in the surrounding area (the purple line), and relatively low population in the surrounding 5 miles (the light blue line). Not surprisingly, the average commute distance is very long in these neighborhoods (the red line) --- note that we only have commute distance data since 1990. The average commute time (the green line) is actually slightly below the average in the region, which likely indicates that there is less traffic congestion where these neighborhoods are located.
20
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 4d
Finally, Figure 4d displays information on a few other measures of interest. We see that the unemployment rate in these neighborhoods (the dark blue line) and the surrounding area (the light blue line) are relatively high and consistently increasing sharply since 1970. We also see that the relative presence of households with children (the green line) shows a steady increase since 1970, and has gone from slightly below the region average to above average numbers of children. It is particularly notable that the violent crime rate for the cities in which these neighborhoods are located has steadily increased since 1960 (the purple line): whereas these neighborhoods were in cities with below average violent crime rates prior to 1980, they have since become relatively high violence cities. Finally, the average age of housing (the red line) relative to the region has shown a steady decrease, indicating that these neighborhoods have experienced an above average number of new housing developments.
21
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Average home values for Class 5
Class 5: Low home values – Bell Gardens, Florence-Graham, Maywood, Bell, East Los Angeles, Lynwood, Paramount, South Gate, Compton, El Monte The neighborhoods in class 5 tend to be located in Los Angeles County, particularly in the southern and eastern portion of the County. There are 257 of these neighborhoods in Southern California. They have tended to have relatively low average home values, although they have shown some modest improvement since 2007. As seen in Figure 5a, these neighborhoods have tended to have relatively high percentages of Latino residents, and this proportion has only increased somewhat over time (the green line). Although these neighborhoods had a relatively high percentage of African-American residents prior to 1970, since that time they have experienced a steady decline in this group (the red line). By 2013 these neighborhoods only have a slightly higher representation of African-Americans compared to the region average. These neighborhoods have consistently had a very low percentage of white residents (the dark blue line). Given the increase in Latinos in these neighborhoods, the level of racial/ethnic mixing has gone from above average prior to 1970, to a steady decline since then and are now well below the region average in mixing (the light blue line). Figure 5b shows the racial/ethnic composition in the area surrounding these neighborhoods, and we see that it is relatively similar to the neighborhoods themselves.
22
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 5a
Figure 5b 23
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 5c These neighborhoods tend to be in areas with relatively high population density, as seen in Figure 5c. The level of population density in these neighborhoods (the dark blue line) and the surrounding area (the purple line) is well above the region average. And the population within 5 miles (the light blue line) or within 20 miles (the orange line) of these neighborhoods is much higher than the region average. Because of this density, residents in these neighborhoods have below average commute distances (the red line), although their average commute time is somewhat above average (the green line), which may indicate either the higher usage of public transportation or else the relative congestion of the roads.
24
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 5d In Figure 5d, we see that these neighborhoods experience above average unemployment rates. While these neighborhoods had relatively high unemployment rates in them and in the surrounding area in 1960 (the light and dark blue lines), this unemployment increased sharply in the decades up until 1990. Since then, however, the relative unemployment rates in these neighborhoods have improved considerably (although they are still worse than the region average). Whereas these neighborhoods were similar to the region average in the percentage of children prior to 1970 (the green line), they have since increased to levels far above the region average. These neighborhoods tend to have relatively older housing (the red line), although that has been changing since 1980 as relatively more new housing has been developed in these neighborhoods. Finally, these neighborhoods tend to be in cities with above average levels of violent crime (the purple line), which has even shown a slight uptick in recent years.
25
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Average home values for Class 7
Class 7: Low and declining home values – East Hemet, Baldwin Park, Hesperia, La Puente, Rubidoux, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Apple Valley, Fontana, Azusa, Palmdale, Compton, Lancaster, Indio, Ontario, Riverside The class 7 neighborhoods have consistently had relatively low home values. Many of these neighborhoods tend to be located in inland locations. There are 533 of these neighborhoods in Southern California. Figure 7a shows the relative racial/ethnic composition of these neighborhoods, and we see that whereas they were only slightly above the region average for percentage Latinos in 1960, they have shown a steady increase in Latinos since then (the green line). These neighborhoods are also slightly above the region average for percentage African-Americans, and this has increased slightly over the decades (the red line). As a consequence of this influx of Latinos, these neighborhoods have gone from slightly above the region average in racial/ethnic mixing prior to 1970 to below the average since 2000 (the light blue line). The presence of white residents in these neighborhoods has gone from slightly below the region average in 1960 to markedly less than the region in recent years (the dark blue line). In Figure 7b we see that the racial/ethnic composition in the area surrounding these neighborhoods is very similar to that in the neighborhoods themselves.
26
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 7a
Figure 7b 27
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 7c
In Figure 7c, the light blue and orange lines show that these neighborhoods are somewhat below the region average for the size of the population in the surrounding 5 or 20 miles, respectively. These neighborhoods are also slightly below the region average for population density in the neighborhood or the surrounding area (the dark blue and purple lines, respectively). On the other hand, residents in these neighborhoods have commute distances and times that are somewhat longer than the region average (the green and red lines).
28
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 7d
In Figure 7d we observe that unemployment has consistently been relatively high in these neighborhoods, and has only increased since 2000 (the light and dark blue lines). These neighborhoods are somewhat above the region average for the presence of children: however, whereas the presence of children sharply increased in these neighborhoods from 1970 to 1990, it has been slowly declining since then. Finally, although these neighborhoods were in cities with relatively average levels of violent crime in 1960, since then the level of violence for their cities has consistently increased.
29
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Average home values for Class 2
Class 2: Low but improving home values – Huntington Park, Inglewood, Glendale, Costa Mesa, Long Beach, Los Angeles For the class 2 neighborhoods, although their home values are below the region average they have been improving since 1990. There are 248 of these neighborhoods in Southern California. These neighborhoods tend to be located in more urban areas, including the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Huntington Park and Inglewood (as well as Glendale and Costa Mesa). The racial/ethnic composition of these neighborhoods is shown in Figure 2a, and we can see that although these neighborhoods were only slightly above the region average in the percentage of Latinos in 1960, they tended to experience a sharp increase in these group members until peaking in 1990 (the green line). Since that time they have seen a slight decrease in relative presence of Latinos compared to the region as a whole. In contrast, although these neighborhoods had a relatively high presence of AfricanAmericans in 1960, they have experienced a steady decline in representation of this group in the decades since (the red line). They now have just a slightly larger percentage of African-Americans compared to the region. As a consequence, these neighborhoods have experienced a decrease in the level of racial/ethnic mixing from a level well above the region average prior to 1970, to slightly below the region average now (the light blue line). They have consistently had a relatively low percentage of white residents (the dark blue line). Figure 2b shows the racial/ethnic composition of the area surrounding these neighborhoods, and generally shows a similar pattern to the neighborhoods themselves. One difference is that the percentage Black residents in the surrounding area has not declined as much as in these neighborhoods themselves. As a consequence, the racial/ethnic mixing in the surrounding area has declined even more than in the neighborhoods themselves. 30
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 2a
Figure 2b 31
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 2c
Figure 2c makes clear that these neighborhoods tend to be located in more urban areas. The population density in these neighborhoods (the dark blue line) and in the surrounding area (the purple line) have consistently been much higher than in the region overall. Likewise, the population in the surrounding 5 mile area (the light blue line) or 20 mile area (the orange line) is considerably higher than the region average. A consequence of this high density is that residents in these neighborhoods tend to have shorter commute distances compared to the region average (the red line). However, their typical commute time is similar to the region average (the green line), which likely indicates either the greater use of public transportation or else the greater congestion of the roads in these areas.
32
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 2d
Figure 2d shows the trends for some other characteristics of these neighborhoods. The unemployment rates in these neighborhoods and the surrounding area have consistently been well above the regional average (the dark and light blue lines). It is interesting that whereas the unemployment rates showed a steady increase between 1960 and 1990, they have been declining relative to the region since that time. And whereas these neighborhoods had far fewer children compared to the region average prior to 1970, since 1980 they have been well above the region average (the green line). These neighborhoods had relatively old housing in 1960 (the red line), although since then the average age of housing relative to the region has shown a steady decline, indicating that there is a considerable amount of new housing development. Finally, the level of violent crime in the cities of these neighborhoods has consistently been above the region average (the purple line).
33
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Average home values for Class 9
Class 9: Low but recent improvement in home values – Imperial Beach, Alhambra, Gardena, Hawthorne, National City The class 9 neighborhoods have consistently had home values that are moderately below the region average. Nonetheless, there is some evidence of an increase since 2000. These neighborhoods tend to be located in suburban locations with somewhat older housing, such as Alhambra, Gardena, and Hawthorne. There are 287 of these neighborhoods in Southern California. In Figure 9a, which shows the typical racial/ethnic composition of these neighborhoods, a notable pattern is how the level of racial/ ethnic mixing has changed over time (the light blue line). In 1960, these neighborhoods were similar to the region average for racial/ ethnic mixing; however, they experienced a consistent increase from that point until 1990. But then since 1990 they have been experiencing a modest decline in the level of racial/ethnic mixing. Since 1970, these neighborhoods have generally had a somewhat larger presence of Latinos and Asians compared to the region (the green and purple lines). The presence of African-Americans has steadily increased in these neighborhoods over this time period, going from below the region average in 1960 to just above the region average now. In contrast, the percentage white has gone from above the region average in 1960 to below the average since 1980. Figure 9b shows that the racial/ethnic composition of the area surrounding these neighborhoods is relatively similar to the neighborhoods themselves.
34
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 9a
Figure 9b 35
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 9c
In Figure 9c we see that the population density of these neighborhoods is relatively similar to the region overall. Likewise, the population in the surrounding 5 mile area or 20 mile area is only slightly greater than the region average. The residents in these neighborhoods tended to have relatively shorter commute distances compared to the region in 1990, although this advantage has diminished in the years since (the red line). Likewise, whereas residents in these neighborhoods tended to have commute times less than the region average prior to 1990, they have experienced a steady increase in these commute times in the decades since (the green line). Nonetheless, their average commute time remains shorter than the region average.
36
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 9d
In Figure 9d we see that these neighborhoods are relatively similar to the region average on these other measures. The unemployment rate showed a slight increase from 1960 to 2007, but has declined since then. The violent crime rate in their cities is near the region average.
37
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Average home values for Class 1
Class 1: Declining home values – Temecula, Palm Springs, Ventura, Inglewood, Irvine The class 1 neighborhoods have exhibited a steady decline in relative home values since 1960. There are 196 of these neighborhoods in Southern California. Whereas they had above average home values in 1960, they declined to near the average in 1970, and then have been below the average since 1980. Although they saw a bump up in 2007 (at the peak of the housing boom) in 2013 they returned to their decreasing trend. These neighborhoods tend to be located in the more distant suburbs of the region. Figure 1a shows the typical racial/ethnic composition of these neighborhoods. One important trend is that whereas these neighborhoods had less racial/ethnic mixing than average neighborhoods in the region prior to 1970, since then they have experienced a steady increase and now tend to have considerably more racial/ethnic mixing than the typical neighborhood in the region. These neighborhoods have consistently had a higher relative percentage of white residents than typical neighborhoods in the region, although there has been a modest decline since 1980 (the dark blue line). These suburban neighborhoods have gone from having fewer African-Americans than the region average prior to 1970 to a consistent increase in which they are now above the region average (the red line). The relative presence of Asians is similar to the region average (the purple line). They do have relatively few Latinos (the green line). Figure 1b shows that the racial/ethnic composition in the areas surrounding these neighborhoods tends to be quite similar to that in the neighborhoods themselves.
38
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 1a
Figure 1b 39
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 1c
The suburban nature of these neighborhoods can be seen in Figure 1c, in which they tend to have noticeably smaller population in the surrounding 5 miles or 20 miles compared to the average neighborhood in the region (the light blue and orange lines). An interesting feature is that the population density within these neighborhoods themselves is increasing over this period, going from well below the region average prior to 1980 to just a bit below the average now (the dark blue line). The population density in the surrounding neighborhoods has also increased (the purple line), but not as much as the neighborhoods themselves. Residents in these neighborhoods tend to have longer commute distances than the region average (the red line), although their commute time tends to be similar to the region average (the green line), which may attest to less congested roads near them.
40
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 1d
There has been a considerable amount of new development in these neighborhoods, as seen in Figure 1d. Whereas the average age of housing was a bit below the region average in 1960, it fell considerably between then and 1980, which was likely the period in which much development occurred in these neighborhoods (the red line). The unemployment rate in these neighborhoods and the surrounding area has consistently been lower than the region average, although it has shown a noticeable increase since 2000 (the dark and light blue lines). These neighborhoods had a similar proportion of children as the region average in 1960, although this presence actually fell between then and 1980 when much of the housing was built (the green line). Since then, the presence of children has trended back up closer to the region average. Finally, these neighborhoods tend to be in cities with violent crime rates very similar to the region average, although they have experienced a modest decrease in violence since 2000.
41
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Average home values for Class 10
Class 10: Urban gentrifying neighborhoods – Long Beach, Los Angeles, San Diego The class 10 neighborhoods are urban gentrifying neighborhoods. There are 142 of these neighborhoods in Southern California. Their average home values were well above the region average in 1960, then plummeted below the region average in 1970 and stayed there through 2000, and then rose above the region average in 2007 during the housing bubble. They have dropped back to the region average in 2013. These neighborhoods tend to be located in the urban cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Diego. Figure 10a shows the racial/ethnic composition of these neighborhoods, and whereas they were the same as the region average for percent white residents in 1960, this proportion fell dramatically between then and 1980 (the dark blue line). Since 1990 there has been a gradual increase in the representation of white residents in these neighborhoods. In contrast, these neighborhoods were also at the region average in the percentage African-American residents in 1960, but between 1980 and 1990 they experienced a sharp increase (the red line). Since 1990 the percentage of African-American residents has continued to slowly increase. Although there was a sharp increase in the relative presence of Latinos in these neighborhoods between 1960 and 1980, there has been a steady decline since that time and now the percentage of Latinos in these neighborhoods is similar to the region average (the green line). There are also more Asian residents in these neighborhoods compared to the region average, and this was particularly the case in 1980 (the purple line). Likewise, these neighborhoods tend to have more racial/ethnic mixing than the region average, and this was particularly the case in 1970. The racial/ethnic composition of the area surrounding these neighborhoods is shown in Figure 10b. One notable feature is that the percentage of Asians living in the area surrounding these neighborhoods was particularly high in 1980 (the purple line). It has fallen since then and now is more similar to the neighborhoods themselves. It is also the case that the level of racial/ethnic mixing in the area surrounding these neighborhoods has been similar to the region average since 1990. 42
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 10a
Figure 10b 43
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 10c
In Figure 10c we see that these are very high density neighborhoods. The level of population density in the neighborhoods and the surrounding area is among the highest levels in the region (the dark blue and purple lines). It is also the case that there is a very high population in the surrounding 5 miles and 20 miles (the light blue and orange lines). One consequence is that the average commute distance for residents in these neighborhoods was quite short compared to the region in 1990 and 2000, although it rose to the region average by 2007. The average commute time for residents in these neighborhoods has consistently been near the region average (the green line).
44
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 10d
As seen in Figure 10d, the unemployment rate in these neighborhoods and the surrounding area has consistently been higher than the region average (the dark and light blue lines). Nonetheless, since 2000 the relatively high unemployment in these neighborhoods has been falling closer to the region average. These neighborhoods are in cities that consistently have higher violent crime rates compared to the region average (the purple line). Whereas these neighborhoods had much older housing compared to the region average prior to 1970, this average age has been decreasing since then and actually fell below the region average by 2013, implying that there has been quite a bit of new development in these neighborhoods. Finally, although these neighborhoods had relatively very few children prior to 1970, they experienced a sharp increase and by 1990 they were near the region average, and have remained there ever since.
45
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Average home values for Class 12
Class 12: Freeway-close gentrifying neighborhoods – Laguna Woods, San Diego The class 12 neighborhoods experienced a consistent sharp decline in relative home values between 1960 and 1980, but then saw a consistent increase from that point until 2007. By 2007 they were above the region average for home values at the peak of the housing boom, although by 2013 they had fallen back to the region average. These are suburban neighborhoods that tend to cluster near freeways. There are just 22 of these neighborhoods in Southern California. Figure 12a displays the racial/ethnic composition of these neighborhoods. A notable feature of these neighborhoods is that whereas they were near the region average for percentage Asians in 1980-90, since then they have experienced a very sharp influx of Asians (the purple line). These neighborhoods have consistently had a relatively high percentage of white residents (the dark blue line). A consequence of the sharp influx of Asians is that these neighborhoods have gone from a relatively low level of racial/ethnic mixing up until 1990 to a regional average level in 2000 and above average levels since then (the light blue line). Although these neighborhoods have a percentage of African-Americans similar to the region average (the red line), they have relatively few Latinos (the green line). The racial/ethnic composition of the surrounding area is shown in Figure 12b, and we see that it is quite similar to these neighborhoods themselves.
46
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 12a
Figure 12b 47
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 12c In Figure 12c we see that these are mostly suburban neighborhoods. The level of population density in these neighborhoods and the area surrounding them was well below the region average prior to 1970, but has consistently increased since then and is now closer to the region average (the dark blue and purple lines). The size of the population in the surrounding 5 miles and 20 miles is well below the region average (the light blue and orange lines). A notable feature is that whereas these neighborhoods tend to have commuting distances that are similar to the region average (and were even above the average in 2007) (the red line), residents in these neighborhoods experience relatively short commute times (the green line). This is likely a function of their closeness to freeways. An interesting feature is that our clustering was only based on changing home values, which implies that the desirability of being near a freeway tends to change systematically across different decades, since these neighborhoods tend to cluster together.
48
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 12d
Figure 12d plots the changes in these neighborhoods for several other measures. These neighborhoods had fewer children than the region average in 1960, and this increased to near the region average by 1970 (the green line). However, from 1970 to 1980 these neighborhoods experienced an extremely sharp drop in the number of children and in 1980 had far fewer than nearly all other neighborhoods in the region. Since 1980, there has been a steady, slow increase in the presence of children in these neighborhoods, although they are still well below the region average by 2013. These neighborhoods experienced a large new housing boom during the 1960s (with a large drop in the average age of housing), though they have been relatively stable since then (the red line). From 1960 to 1990 these neighborhoods had relatively low unemployment rates (and were surrounded by low unemployment) (the dark and light blue lines). However, they experienced a sharp spike in unemployment during the 1990s and by 2000 had relatively high unemployment (although the surrounding area did not experience a similar spike in unemployment. Since 2000 the unemployment rate has drifted back down to the region average. Finally, these neighborhoods are in cities with consistently below average violent crime rates (the purple line).
49
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Average home values for Class 15
Class 15: Coastal gentrifying neighborhoods – Santa Monica, Glendale, San Diego, Los Angeles The class 15 neighborhoods experienced a fair amount of instability in relative home values between 1960 and 2000, as they fell in the 1960s, rose somewhat in the 1970s, fell again in the 1980s, and the rose again in the 1990s to reach the region average by 2000. From 2000 to 2007 the home values increased sharply (during the housing boom), although some of those relative gains were given back by 2013. These neighborhoods tend to be clustered on the coast. There are 124 of these neighborhoods in Southern California. Figure 15a displays the racial/ethnic composition of these neighborhoods. One feature of these neighborhoods is that whereas they were modestly above the region average in the percent white between 1960 and 1990, since 1990 they have experienced a sharp increase in the relative presence of white residents (the dark blue line). The pattern for the relative presence of Latinos (the green line) is exactly the opposite, as Latinos were somewhat underrepresented in these neighborhoods from 1960 to 1990, and since then have been decreasing notably. Although there was a relatively high presence of Asians (the purple line) in 1980, there was a relative exodus of Asians during the 1980s and since then these neighborhoods have been near the region average for percent Asians. The relative presence of African Americans has been near the region average (the red line). Likewise, the racial /ethnic mixing in these neighborhoods has generally remained near the region average (the light blue line). The racial/ethnic composition of the surrounding area is shown in Figure 15b, and we see that it is quite similar to these neighborhoods themselves. 50
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 15a
Figure 15b 51
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 15c
In Figure 15c we see that these neighborhoods have relatively high levels of population density (the dark blue line), as well as the surrounding area (the purple line). The size of the population in the surrounding 5 miles and 20 miles is also somewhat above the region average (the light blue and orange lines). These neighborhoods have below average commuting distances (the red line). Although residents in these neighborhoods experience relatively short commute times (the green line), this commute time has been creeping up since 1990.
52
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 15d
In Figure 15d, we plot the changes in these neighborhoods for several other measures. The unemployment rate in these neighborhoods and the surrounding area was close to the region average from 1960 to 2000, but since then it has been drifting lower (the dark and light blue lines). Although the average age of housing in these neighborhoods was above the region average in 1960, it has been slowly decreasing over the decades (likely due to new development), and experienced a particularly sharp drop from 2007 to 2013 that implies a relative boom in new development (the red line). In the earlier decades (1960-80) these neighborhoods had far few children than the region average; however, the presence of children has been slowly increasing since then (the green line). These neighborhoods are in cities that have consistently had modestly above average violent crime rates (the purple line).
53
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Average home values for Class 6
Class 6: Mid-level home values, but declining – Norwalk, Pico Rivera, South Whittier, Carson, Rosemead, West Covina The class 6 neighborhoods had home values below the region average in 1960, but increased to slightly above the average by 1970. However, since then they have drifted below the region average, and experienced a particularly sharp drop from 1990 to 2007. They experienced a modest uptick from 2007 to 2013, but are still well below the region average. They tend to be located in more central locations, and near the class 3 neighborhoods. There are 455 of these neighborhoods in Southern California. Figure 6a displays the racial/ethnic composition of these neighborhoods. It is notable that whereas these neighborhoods had a relative presence of white residents that was slightly above the region average in 1960, they have consistently lost white residents since then (the dark blue line). By 1970 they were near the region average, and they have consistently drifted downward since then. The pattern for the relative presence of Latinos (the green line) is exactly the opposite, as Latinos in these neighborhoods were near the region average in 1960, but have consistently increased since then at a rate faster than in the region overall. The relative presence of African Americans was below the region average in 1960, but by 1980 had reached the region average and has remained constant since (the red line). The relative presence of Asians (the purple line) has remained slightly above the region average. The level of racial /ethnic mixing in these neighborhoods was at the region average in 1960, and then consistently increased up until 1990, and then has fallen since then (the light blue line). The racial/ethnic composition of the surrounding area is shown in Figure 6b, and we see that it is quite similar to these neighborhoods themselves. 54
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 6a
Figure 6b 55
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 6c
In Figure 6c we see that these neighborhoods are modestly below the region average for population density (the dark blue line) and in the surrounding area (the purple line). The size of the population in the surrounding 5 miles and 20 miles is very close to the region average (the light blue and orange lines). Residents in these neighborhoods had relatively average commuting distances (the red line) in 1990 and 2000, although they had commute distances below the region average by 2007. At the same time, residents in these neighborhoods experience slightly above average commute times (the green line) since 1990.
56
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 6d
In Figure 6d, we plot the changes in these neighborhoods for several other measures. The unemployment rate in these neighborhoods and the surrounding area has remained close to the region average over this time period (the dark and light blue lines). Although the average age of housing in these neighborhoods was well below the region average in 1960, it has been slowly increasing over the decades, implying that these neighborhoods are not experiencing new development (the red line). In the earlier decades (1960-70) these neighborhoods had more children than the region average, but the presence of children has been slowly decreasing since then and are less than the region average now (the green line). These neighborhoods are in cities with violent crime rates near the region average (the purple line).
57
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Average home values for Class 3
Class 3: Mid-level home values – Temple City, La Mirada, Lakewood, Chino Hills, Westminster, Corona, Simi Valley, Poway, Cypress, Buena Park The class 3 neighborhoods had home values at the region average in 1960, but increased sharply during the 1960s. However, since 1970 relative home values have been drifting downward, and since 2000 these neighborhoods have fallen slightly below the region average. They tend to be located in more central locations, and near the class 6 neighborhoods. There are 432 of these neighborhoods in Southern California. Figure 3a displays the racial/ethnic composition of these neighborhoods. It is notable that whereas these neighborhoods had relatively low racial/ethnic mixing from 1960-80, since then they have experienced a large increase and since 2000 have had racial/ ethnic mixing well above the region average (the light blue line). These neighborhoods had a relative presence of white residents that was slightly above the region average between 1960-80, though that presence has been drifting slowly downward since then (the dark blue line). During the same time period since 1980 the relative presence of Asians (the purple line) has been drifting slowly upward. The relative presence of African Americans (the red line) and Latinos (the green line) has remained modestly below the region average. The racial/ethnic composition of the surrounding area is shown in Figure 3b, and we see that it is quite similar to these neighborhoods themselves.
58
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 3a
Figure 3b 59
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 3c
In Figure 3c we see that these neighborhoods are somewhat below the region average for population density in the neighborhood (the dark blue line) and in the surrounding area (the purple line). The size of the population in the surrounding 5 miles and 20 miles is close to the region average (the light blue and orange lines). Residents in these neighborhoods had relatively average commuting distances (the red line) in 1990 and 2000, although they had commute distances below the region average by 2007. The average commute times for residents in these neighborhoods are slightly above the region average (the green line).
60
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 3d
In Figure 3d, we plot the changes in these neighborhoods for several other measures. The unemployment rate in these neighborhoods and the surrounding area has remained consistently below the region average over this time period (the dark and light blue lines). Although the average age of housing in these neighborhoods was well below the region average in 1960, it has been steadily increasing over the decades, implying that these neighborhoods are not experiencing new development (the red line). In the earlier decades (1960-70) these neighborhoods had more children than the region average, but the presence of children fell to the region average by 1980, and then has drifted modestly below the region average since then (the green line). These neighborhoods are in cities with violent crime rates modestly below the region average (the purple line).
61
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Average home values for Class 16
Class 16: Improving home values – Redondo Beach, Encinitas, Carlsbad, Irvine, Costa Mesa The class 16 neighborhoods have exhibited generally increasing home values over this period, although they exhibit an odd pattern in which large gains are followed by smaller decreases in the following decade. In 1970 home values in these neighborhoods were actually slightly below the region average, although they increased somewhat during the 1970s. After declining in the 1980s, from 1990 to 2007 they showed a very steep increase in home values, but then lost some of their value by 2013. These neighborhoods tend to cluster along the coast, or near the hills. There are 221 of these neighborhoods in Southern California. Figure 16a displays the racial/ethnic composition of these neighborhoods. Whereas these neighborhoods had a modestly above average presence of white residents in 1960-70, there has been a steady increase in the relative presence of white residents in these neighborhoods since then compared to the region average (the dark blue line). In contrast, the relative presence of Latinos has gone from modestly below the region average in 1960-70, to a steady decline since that time and now they are well below the region average (the green line). The relative proportion of Asians in these neighborhoods is near the region average over this time period (the purple line), and the relative presence of African Americans (the red line) has remained modestly below the region average. As a consequence of these shifts, the level of racial/ethnic mixing has gone from modestly below the region average from 1960-90, to slightly above it since then (the light blue line). The racial/ethnic composition of the surrounding area is shown in Figure 16b, and we see that it is quite similar to these neighborhoods themselves. 62
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 16a
Figure 16b 63
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 16c
In Figure 16c we see that while these neighborhoods were just slightly above the region average for population density in the neighborhood, since 1990 they’ve fallen to slightly below the region average (the dark blue line). The population density of the surrounding area has followed a similar trajectory as the neighborhood itself, but has consistently remained slightly denser than the neighborhood itself (the purple line). The size of the population in the surrounding 5 miles and 20 miles is close to the region average (the light blue and orange lines). Residents in these neighborhoods have commuting distances that are moderately below the region average (the red line), and they have commute times that are well below the region average (the green line).
64
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 16d
In Figure 16d, we plot the changes in these neighborhoods for several other measures. The unemployment rate in these neighborhoods and the surrounding area has remained consistently below the region average over this time period (the dark and light blue lines). These neighborhoods have consistently had relatively fewer children than the region average, although this has risen modestly in the last decade (the green line). Although the average age of housing in these neighborhoods was somewhat above the region average up until 2000, it has fallen considerably since that time, suggesting a spate of new housing development (the red line). These neighborhoods are in cities with violent crime rates modestly above the region average prior to 1970, although the violence has dropped since then and now they are just below the region average (the purple line).
65
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Average home values for Class 11
Class 11: Above average home values, but declining – Cerritos, Diamond Bar, Aliso Viejo, Fountain Valley, Red Bluff, Mission Viejo, Hacienda Heights, Placentia, Camarillo, Lake Forest The home values of class 11 neighborhoods have exhibited an inverted u-shaped relationship over this time period. Whereas the home values were just modestly above the region average in 1960, they rose dramatically during the 1960s, and then remained at relatively high levels up until 1990. Since 1990, however, they have drifted downward and now are again modestly above the region average in 2013. These neighborhoods tend to be located in newer suburban areas, in similar areas as the class 8 neighborhoods. There are 382 of these neighborhoods in Southern California. Figure 11a displays the racial/ethnic composition of these neighborhoods. These neighborhoods had a modestly above average presence of white residents in 1960, and since then they have had a quite high relative presence of white residents compared to the region average (the dark blue line). Similarly, the presence of Asian residents was above the region average in 1980, and has steadily increased since then (the purple line). In contrast, the relative presence of Latinos has gone from right at the region average in 1960 to a steady decline since that time and now they are well below the region average (the green line). The relative presence of African Americans (the red line) has remained modestly below the region average. As a consequence of these shifts, the level of racial/ethnic mixing has gone from well below the region average in 1970, to modestly below the region average from 1980-90, to rising notably above the region average since then (the light blue line). The racial/ethnic composition of the surrounding area is shown in Figure 11b, and we see that it is quite similar to these neighborhoods themselves. 66
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 11a
Figure 11b 67
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 11c
In Figure 11c we see that the population density is consistently considerably below the region average in the neighborhood (the dark blue line) and the surrounding area (the purple line). The size of the population in the surrounding 5 miles and 20 miles is also somewhat below the region average over this time period (the light blue and orange lines). Residents in these neighborhoods have commuting distances that are right at the region average over these years (the red line), and commuting times that were modestly above the region average in 1980, but have since dropped to right at the region average (the green line).
68
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 11d
In Figure 11d, we plot the changes in these neighborhoods for several other measures. The unemployment rate in these neighborhoods and the surrounding area has remained consistently below the region average over this time period (the dark and light blue lines). Whereas these neighborhoods had a relatively large number of children from 1960-80, this fell dramatically during the 1980s, and since 1990 they have been below the region average for the presence of children (the green line). The average age of housing in these neighborhoods fell notably during the 1960s, suggesting a spate of new housing development then, and have generally remained below the region average since that time (the red line). These neighborhoods are in cities that consistently had violent crime rates below the region average from 1960-2000, and this violence has dropped dramatically since that time (the purple line).
69
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Average home values for Class 8
Class 8: Above average home values, but declining – Laguna Niguel, Yorba Linda, Arcadia, San Clemente, Thousand Oaks The home values of class 8 neighborhoods have remained consistently well above the region average over this time period. Between 1970 and 1990 they were very high home values, and although they have been slowly declining since 1990 they remain well above the region average in 2013. These neighborhoods tend to be located in newer suburban areas, in similar areas as the class 11 neighborhoods. There are 241 of these neighborhoods in Southern California. Figure 8a displays the racial/ethnic composition of these neighborhoods. These neighborhoods had a modestly above average presence of white residents in 1960, and since then they have experienced a steady increase in the relative presence of white residents compared to the region average (the dark blue line). Similarly, the presence of Asian residents was just above the region average in 1980, and has steadily increased since then (the purple line). In contrast, the relative presence of Latinos has gone from near the region average in 1960 to a steady decline since that time and now they are well below the region average (the green line). The relative presence of African Americans (the red line) has remained modestly below the region average. As a consequence of these shifts, the level of racial/ethnic mixing has gone from near the region average in 1960, to well below the region average in 1970, and since then has shown a steady increase and by 2013 is right at the region average (the light blue line). The racial/ethnic composition of the surrounding area is shown in Figure 8b, and we see that it is quite similar to these neighborhoods themselves. 70
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 8a
Figure 8b 71
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 8c
In Figure 8c we see that population density is consistently considerably below the region average in the neighborhood (the dark blue line) and the surrounding area (the purple line). The size of the population in the surrounding 5 miles is also well below the region average (the light blue line), although the fact that the population within 20 miles is only somewhat below the region average (the orange line) indicates that these are low-density suburban neighborhoods that are located in central areas. Residents in these neighborhoods have commuting distances that are near the region average over these years (the red line), and commuting times that were well above the region average in 1980 but have since fallen closer to the region average (the green line).
72
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 8d
In Figure 8d, we plot the changes in these neighborhoods for several other measures. The unemployment rate in these neighborhoods and the surrounding area has remained consistently well below the region average over this time period (the dark and light blue lines). Whereas these neighborhoods had a relatively large number of children from 1960-80, this fell dramatically during the 1980s, and since 1990 they have been below the region average for the presence of children (the green line). The average age of housing in these neighborhoods fell notably during the 1960s, suggesting a spate of new housing development then, and have generally remained below the region average since that time (the red line). These neighborhoods are in cities that consistently had violent crime rates below the region average from 1960-1980, and this violence has dropped even more since that time (the purple line).
73
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Average home values for Class 13
Class 13: High home values– Manhattan Beach, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Coronado The home values of class 13 neighborhoods have remained consistently well above the region average over this time period. Furthermore, since 1970 they have risen further and have since been very much higher than the region average. These neighborhoods are clustered along the coast. There are 163 of these neighborhoods in Southern California. Figure 13a displays the racial/ethnic composition of these neighborhoods. These neighborhoods had an above average presence of white residents in 1960, and since then they have experienced a steady increase in the relative presence of white residents compared to the region average and have a much higher proportion than the region average (the dark blue line). In contrast, whereas the relative presence of Latinos was notably below the region average in 1960, it has consistently declined in the years since then and is now well below the region average (the green line). The relative presence of Asian residents (the purple line) and African Americans residents (the red line) has remained near the region average. These neighborhoods have consistently had much lower levels of racial/ethnic mixing compared to the region average, although it has modestly increased in recent years (the light blue line). The racial/ethnic composition of the surrounding area is shown in Figure 13b, and we see that it is generally quite similar to these neighborhoods themselves. The one exception is that the racial/ethnic mixing is slightly higher in the surrounding area compared to the neighborhoods themselves, and by 2013 was at the region average (the light blue line).
74
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 13a
Figure 13b 75
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 13c In Figure 13c we see that whereas population density in these neighborhoods was modestly below the region average in 1960, it has consistently declined since then and is well below the region average in 2013 (the dark blue line). On the other hand, the population density in the surrounding area was just above the region average from 1960-80, and has only declined modestly in the years since (the purple line), indicating that these low density neighborhoods are surrounded by neighborhoods with closer to average density levels. As a consequence, the size of the population in the surrounding 5 miles is modestly below the region average (the light blue line), and the fact that the population within 20 miles is only very near the region average (the orange line) indicates that these are low-density suburban neighborhoods that are located in central areas. The commuting patterns have changed over time in these neighborhoods: residents in these neighborhoods had commuting distances modestly below the region average in 1990, these distances fell to well below the region average in 2000, but by 2007 had risen to the region average (the red line). However, the commute times are not as bad as the distances: whereas these neighborhoods had commute times right at the region average in 1980, they decreased precipitously in the 1980s and since 1990 have been well below the region average (the green line).
76
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 13d In Figure 13d, we plot the changes in these neighborhoods for several other measures. The unemployment rate in these neighborhoods and the surrounding area was moderately below the region average in 1960-70, and has since declined considerably to very low unemployment levels (the dark and light blue lines). These neighborhoods have consistently had a relatively small number of children compared to the region average, and this was particularly the case from 1980-2000, although there have been some very modest increases in recent years (the green line). The average age of housing in these neighborhoods has consistently remained near the region average over this time period (the red line). These neighborhoods are in cities that had violent crime rates just under the region average in 1970, but have experienced decreasing violence since that time (the purple line).
77
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Average home values for Class 14
Class 14: Highest home values – Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles The home values of class 14 neighborhoods have consistently remained the highest in the region over this time period. These are very high home values, as they tend to be 3 standard deviations above the average in the region. While they experienced a relative drop from 2000-07, this was likely due simply to the fact that they weren’t as strongly impacted by the housing bubble (and therefore other neighborhoods experienced more inflated home values). The evidence of this is that they have returned to their same very high relative value in 2013. These neighborhoods are clustered along the coast and in the hills. There are 81 of these neighborhoods in Southern California. Figure 14a displays the racial/ethnic composition of these neighborhoods. These neighborhoods had a relatively high presence of white residents in 1960, and since then they have experienced a steady increase in the relative presence of white residents compared to the region average and have a much higher proportion than the region average (the dark blue line). In contrast, the relative presence of Latinos was notably below the region average in 1960 and has consistently declined in the years since then and are now well below the region average (the green line). The relative presence of Asian residents is right at the region average (the purple line) and the presence of African Americans residents has remained modestly below the region average, and has actually slightly declined over time (the red line). These neighborhoods have consistently had much lower levels of racial/ethnic mixing compared to the region average, although it has modestly increased in recent years (the light blue line). The racial/ethnic composition of the surrounding area is shown in Figure 14b, and we see that it is generally quite similar to these neighborhoods themselves. The one exception is that whereas the racial/ethnic mixing in the surrounding area was similar to the neighborhoods themselves for the whole time period up until 2007, by 2013 by racial/ethnic mixing in the surrounding area had increased sharply and was at the region average (the light blue line), implying some interesting changes in the surrounding areas to these neighborhoods. 78
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 14a
Figure 14b 79
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 14c
In Figure 14c we see that the population density in these neighborhoods has remained well below the region average over this time period, and has actually declined over time (the dark blue line). From 1960 to 2007 the population density in the surrounding area paralled that of these neighborhoods themselves, but was just modestly higher; however, between 2007 and 2013 there was a dramatic increase in population density in the surrounding area and is now near the region average (the purple line). This recent change in the racial/ethnic mixing and population density in the surrounding areas is an interesting feature to note. The size of the population in the surrounding 5 miles is modestly below the region average and has drifted down over time (the light blue line). However, the population within 20 miles has consistently remained modestly higher than the region average over the entire time period (the orange line) indicating that these are low-density suburban neighborhoods located in central areas. Residents in these neighborhoods had commuting distances below the region average in 1990-2000, but these had increased to close to the region average by 2007 (the red line). Although residents in these neighborhoods had commute times well above the region average in 1980, they decreased precipitously in the 1980s and were well below the region average in 1990 and 2000; however, since that time they have been creeping up closer to the region average (the green line).
80
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 14d
In Figure 14d, we plot the changes in these neighborhoods for several other measures. The unemployment rate in these neighborhoods and the surrounding area was far below the region average over this time period (the dark and light blue lines). Although the percent with children in these neighborhoods was moderately above the region average in 1960 and 1970, the presence of children fell precipitously during the 1970s and 1980s and by 1990 these neighborhoods had far fewer children than the region average with only a slight increase in children since then (the green line). The average age of housing in these neighborhoods was well below the region average in 1960, but experienced a steady increase up until 1990 indicating that there is very little new development in these neighborhoods (the red line). Although the cities of these neighborhoods had violent crime rates moderately above the region average in 1960 and 1970, they have been experiencing decreasing violence since that time and fell below the region average by 2013 (the purple line).
81
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Chapter 4. Mapping the location of these 16 types of neighborhoods This chapter shows maps of where these various types of neighborhoods are located in each of the counties of the region. There are three maps for each county, one showing the low home value neighborhoods, one showing the changing home value neighborhoods, and one showing the high home value neighborhoods.
Los Angeles County
Figure 4.1. Low home value neighborhoods in Los Angeles County
82
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Los Angeles County
Figure 4.2. Changing home value neighborhoods in Los Angeles County
83
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Los Angeles County
Figure 4.3. High home value neighborhoods in Los Angeles County
84
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Orange County
Figure 4.4. Low home value neighborhoods in Orange County
85
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Orange County
Figure 4.5. Changing home value neighborhoods in Orange County
86
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Orange County
Figure 4.6. High home value neighborhoods in Orange County
87
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Riverside County
Figure 4.7. Low home value neighborhoods in Riverside County
88
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Riverside County
Figure 4.8. Changing home value neighborhoods in Riverside County
89
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Riverside County
Figure 4.9. High home value neighborhoods in Riverside County
90
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
San Bernardino County
Figure 4.10. Low home value neighborhoods in San Bernardino County
91
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
San Bernardino County
Figure 4.11. Changing home value neighborhoods in San Bernardino County
92
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 4.12. High home value neighborhoods in San Bernardino County
93
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
San Diego County
Figure 4.13. Low home value neighborhoods in San Diego County
94
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 4.14. Changing home value neighborhoods in San Diego County
95
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
San Diego County
Figure 4.15. High home value neighborhoods in San Deigo County
96
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Ventura County
Figure 4.16. Low home value neighborhoods in Ventura County
97
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Ventura County
Figure 4.17. Changing home value neighborhoods in Ventura County
98
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Figure 4.18. High home value neighborhoods in Ventura County
99
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Chapter 5. Conclusion The analyses in this report have followed the trajectories of home values in Southern California neighborhoods over a 55 year period: from 1960 to 2015. We used a statistical clustering technique to determine “classes” of neighborhoods that tended to experience similar changes in home values over time. By standardizing the home value data, we were able to compare the level of home values in a neighborhood compared to the region in that year (and “parsed out” overall changes in home values by decade).
Our results showed 16 different classes of neighborhoods. One set of classes contained neighborhoods that generally had relatively low levels of home values over the entire time period. A second set of classes contained neighborhoods that tended to have relatively high levels of home values over the entire time period. Nonetheless, some of the classes of neighborhoods among these “low” or “high” home values exhibited fluctuations in certain decades during this period. Finally, a third set of classes showed quite sharp changes in home values over this time period: some of these neighborhoods had home values that were actually higher than the region average in 1960, but then fell below the region average for several decades, but then have rebounded in recent years and are now above the region average. These are neighborhoods that we typically think of as gentrifying neighborhoods. Others started above the region average, but have exhibited a steady decline since then. Our approach was able to detect these neighborhoods that exhibit relative change in home values over time.
Future research we will conduct will attempt to understand why some neighborhoods exhibit relative stability in home values over time—whether at relatively high, or relatively low, levels—whereas others experience relative declines, or yet others experience fluctuating changes.
100
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Technical Appendix We estimated the latent class analysis models in Mplus 5.21. We used 100 randomized starting values to minimize the possibility of obtaining a local rather than a global solution (Hipp and Bauer 2006).1 We estimated models for varying numbers of classes, and selected the optimal solution based on the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) statistic. The optimal solution for our models contained the 16 classes we discuss in the Report.
1
Hipp, John R. and Daniel J. Bauer. 2006. “Local Solutions in the Estimation of Growth Mixture Models.” Psychological Methods 11:36-53.interest. 101
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 1. City profiles of home value typology In this Appendix, we display the profiles of these typologies by city in the Southern California region. Most cities contain several neighborhoods. Thus, this table shows the proportion of the neighborhoods within a particular city that were categorized as a particular class of neighborhood. For example, in Agoura, 100% of the neighborhoods were classified as class 4, and in Agoura Hills 100% of the neighborhoods were classified as class 8. Alhambra is more mixed: whereas 61% of the neighborhoods are classified as class 9, 22% are class 3, 11% are class 6, and 6% are class 5. The percentages for some cities will not add up to 100% due to rounding error.
102
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 1. City profiles of home value typology Class City
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
Adelanto
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Agoura Hills City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Alhambra
0 0.06 0 0 0.61 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.22 0 0 0 0 0
Aliso Viejo City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.78 0.11 0.11 0 Alondra Park
0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
Alpine
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Altadena
0 0
Anaheim
0
0
0
0
0
0.05 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.14 0.02 0
0
0 0.25 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.25 0
0
0 0.02 0.21 0.25 0 0.07 0.14 0
0
Apple Valley
0 0 0.64 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0.27 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arcadia
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0.08 0 0.08 0 0.08 0.5 0 0.08
Artesia
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0.33 0 0 0 0 0
Avalon
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0
Avocado Heights 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 Azusa Baldwin Park
0 0 0.6 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Banning
0.75 0 0.13 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Barstow
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beaumont
0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bell
0 0.83 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bellflower
0
Bell Gardens
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beverly Hills
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0.33
Big Bear City Cdp
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
Big Bear Lake City
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
0
Big River Cdp
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bloomington
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Blythe
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bonita
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Bonsall Cdp
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0.08
0.08
0.15
0.31
0
0
0
0
0.23
0.15
0
0
0
0
0
Borrego Springs 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bostonia Cdp 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bradbury
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Brea
0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0.43 0 0.43 0 0 0
Buena Park
0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0 0 0 0.29 0.36 0 0.07 0 0 0
Burbank
0 0 0 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0
0
0 0.35 0.1 0.15 0.1 0 0 103
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 1. City profiles of home value typology Class City
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
Calabasas City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.5 Calimesa City
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Camarillo
0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0.31 0 0.54 0.08 0 0
Canyon Lake
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Carlsbad
0 0
Carson
0 0 0.24 0 0 0.06 0 0 0 0.47 0.24 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0.12 0 0.06 0.29 0.18 0.29 0.06 0
Casa Conejo Cdp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Casa De OroMount Helix
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0
Cathedral City 0.18 0 0.36 0 0.18 0.27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cerritos
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.91 0.09 0 0
Charter Oak
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Charter Oak Cdp 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cherry Valley
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chino
0 0 0.14 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0.57 0.14 0 0 0 0 0
Chino Hills City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 0 0 0 Chula Vista
0.1 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02 0
0 0.15 0.2 0 0.2 0
0 0
Citrus
0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Claremont
0 0
Coachella
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Colton Commerce
0
0
0
0
0
0 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.29 0
0
0.5 0 0.1 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compton
0.05 0.36 0.55 0 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Corona
0.07 0.04 0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0.37 0.48 0 0 0 0 0
Coronado
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0
Costa Mesa
0 0
0 0.22 0.04 0
0
0
0
0 0.17 0.26 0.22 0.04 0.04 0
Coto De Caza Cdp
0
0
0
0
0
0
Covina
0 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0.1 0 0
Crest Cdp
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Crestline
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cudahy
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.33
0
0.67
0
0.33 0.17 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Culver City
0 0 0 0 0.11 0.11 0 0.11 0 0 0 0.44 0.11 0.11 0 0
Cypress
0 0 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0.45 0.09 0.36 0 0 0
Dana Point
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0.5 0.17 0
Del Aire Cdp
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
104
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 1. City profiles of home value typology Class City
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
Del Mar
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Desert Hot Springs 0.8 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Diamond Bar
0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0.08 0 0
Downey
0 0 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0
Duarte
0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0
0
0 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0
0
0
East Compton 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East Hemet
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
East La Mirada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 East Los Angeles 0 0.68 0.29 0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East Pasadena Cdp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 East San Gabriel Cdp 0 El Cajon
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.05 0 0.21 0.16 0.05 0.05 0.05 0
0
0
0.75
0
0
0.25
0 0.05 0.26 0 0.11 0
0
0
0
0
El Dorado Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 El Monte
0.05 0.33 0.33 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.19 0 0 0 0 0 0
El Rio
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
El Segundo
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
El Toro Station 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinitas Escondido
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.54 0.15 0.31 0 0 0.07 0 0.17 0.03 0.17 0.03 0
0
0 0.13 0.23 0 0.07 0.1 0
0
Fairbanks Ranch Cdp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Fallbrook
0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.14 0 0.29 0.14 0 0
Fillmore
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Florence-Graham 0 0.91 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fontana Fountain Valley
0.13 0.13 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0.75 0.08 0 0
Fullerton
0.04 0 0.04 0 0.21 0 0 0 0 0.18 0.21 0.04 0.11 0.14 0 0.04
Gardena
0 0 0.08 0 0.54 0 0 0 0 0.23 0.15 0 0 0 0 0
Garden Grove
0.03 0.03 0.16 0 0.06 0.03 0
0
0 0.31 0.31 0 0.06 0
0
0
Glen Avon
0 0.33 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Glendale
0 0 0 0.23 0.2 0 0.03 0 0.14 0 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.14 0 0.06
Glendora
0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0.23 0.31 0 0.23 0.08 0 0.08
Grand Terrace 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Granite Hills Cdp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Hacienda Heights 0 0 0.09 0
0
0
0
0
0 0.18 0.09 0 0.55 0.09 0
0
Harbison Canyon Cdp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 105
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 1. City profiles of home value typology Class City
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
Hawaiian Gardens 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hawthorne Hemet
0 0.29 0.07 0.07 0.36 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0.07 0 0 0 0.65 0 0.35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hermosa Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 Hesperia
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hidden Meadows Cdp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Highgrove Cdp 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Highland City 0.57 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0 0 0 0 Home Gardens 0 0 0.75 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Homeland
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Huntington Beach 0 0
0 0.02 0.1 0.1 0
0 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.14 0.19 0.21 0.07 0
Huntington Park 0.06 0.22 0.11 0.44 0.06 0 0 0 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Idyllwild-Pine Cove 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imperial Beach 0 0.17 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indian Wells Indio
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.5 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Inglewood
0 0.04 0.07 0.26 0.07 0.19 0
0 0.07 0.11 0.15 0.04 0
0
0
0
Irvine
0 0 0 0 0.03 0.16 0 0.06 0 0 0 0.29 0.29 0.06 0.1 0
Irwindale
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Jamul
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Joshua Tree
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Julian
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
La Canada Flintridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 La Crescenta-Montrose 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.5 0.25 0 0 Ladera Heights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Laguna Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.86 0 Laguna Hills
0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.4 0
Laguna Niguel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.71 0.29 0 Laguna Woods City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 La Habra
0 0 0.15 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0.23 0.23 0 0.15 0.15 0 0
La Habra Heights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Lake Arrowhead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lake Elsinore
0 0 0.71 0 0 0.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lake Forest City
0
0
0
0
0
0.08
0
0
0
0
0.17
0.08
0.5
0.17
0
0
Lakeland Village 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 106
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 1. City profiles of home value typology Class City
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
Lake Los Angeles Cdp 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lakeside
0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lakewood
0 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.22 0.67 0 0.06 0 0 0
La Mesa
0 0 0 0 0.1 0.4 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0
La Mirada
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.7 0 0.2 0 0 0
Lancaster
0.13 0 0.54 0.04 0.04 0.04 0
0
0 0.21 0
0
0
0
0
0
La Palma
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
La Presa Cdp
0 0 0.25 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0
La Puente
0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0
La Quinta
0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.25 0 0 0 0
Las Flores Cdp (Orange County) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 La Verne
0 0 0.29 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.14 0 0.14 0.14 0 0
Lawndale
0 0 0.25 0 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lemon Grove
0 0 0 0.17 0.17 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lennox
0 0.8 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lenwood
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Loma Linda
0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lomita
0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
Long Beach Los Alamitos
0.01 0.08 0.1 0.19 0.07 0.01 0.18 0 0.04 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0
Los Angeles
0.01 0.11 0.06 0.14 0.08 0.04 0.1 0 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04
Lynwood
0 0.5 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0
Malibu City
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Manhattan Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 March Afb
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Marina Del Rey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mayflower Village
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
0
0
0
0
0
Maywood
0 0.86 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mecca
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Meiners OaksMira Monte
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Mentone Cdp
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mira Loma
0 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mira Monte Cdp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 107
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 1. City profiles of home value typology Class City
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
Mission Viejo
0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0 0 0 0.05 0.05 0 0.55 0.3 0 0
Monrovia
0 0 0 0 0.5 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0.17 0 0
Montclair
0.33 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Montebello
0 0 0.13 0 0.27 0 0 0 0 0.27 0.13 0 0.2 0 0 0
Monterey Park
0 0 0.07 0.07 0.29 0 0 0 0 0 0.36 0 0.21 0 0 0
Moorpark
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.2 0 0
Moreno Valley City 0.03 0.05 0.68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.24 0 0 0 0 0 0 Murrieta City
0 0 0.33 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0
Murrieta Hot Springs 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Muscoy
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
National City
0.07 0.13 0.2 0.2 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0
Needles
0.67 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Newport Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0 0 0.75 0.19 Norco
0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0.57 0 0.29 0 0 0
North El Monte Cdp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Norwalk
0 0.06 0.22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.72 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nuevo
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Oak View
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Oceanside
0 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.27 0.13 0
Ojai
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0.07 0.23 0.07 0.03 0.07 0
0
0
Ontario
0.13 0.06 0.5 0.06 0.06 0 0 0 0 0.19 0 0 0 0 0 0
Orange
0.04 0
Oxnard
0.07 0.1 0.23 0 0.13 0.03 0.03 0 0 0.2 0.1 0 0.07 0 0.03 0
0 0.04 0.11 0
0
0
0 0.04 0.33 0 0.26 0.15 0 0.04
Palmdale
0 0 0.59 0 0 0.04 0 0 0 0.22 0.07 0.04 0.04 0 0 0
Palm Desert
0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0.22 0 0.44 0 0 0 0
Palm Springs
0 0 0 0 0 0.69 0 0 0 0 0.06 0.25 0 0 0 0
Palos Verdes Estates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Paramount
0.1 0.5 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pasadena
0 0
0 0.14 0.14 0 0.03 0 0.03 0.03 0 0.14 0.07 0.24 0.14 0.03
Pedley Cdp
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Perris
0.4 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pico Rivera
0.08 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pine Valley Cdp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Piru
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Placentia 108
0 0 0 0.09 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0.18 0 0.55 0 0.09 0
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) • Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 1. City profiles of home value typology Class City Pomona
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14 0.17 0.13 0.42 0.04 0.04 0.04 0
0
0 0.04 0.08 0 0.04 0
0
0
Port Hueneme
0 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0
Poway
0 0
Quartz Hill
0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0
Rainbow
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Ramona
0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0.09 0.45 0 0.09 0.36 0
0
Rancho Cucamonga 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0 0 0 Rancho Mirage 0.25 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 Rancho Palos Verdes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.22 0.22 0.56 Rancho San Diego Cdp 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.6
0.4
0
0
Rancho Santa Fe Cdp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Red Bluff Redlands
0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0.22 0 0 0.17 0 0.33 0.08 0.08 0 0 0 0 0.08 0.08 0 0.17 0 0 0
Redondo Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.15 0 0 0.62 0.15 0.08 0 0 Rialto
0.3 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Riverside
0.07 0.02 0.46 0.02 0 0.04 0.02 0 0 0.23 0.02 0 0.11 0.02 0 0
Rolling Hills
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Rolling Hills Estates 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 Romoland
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Rosemead
0 0 0.31 0 0.15 0 0 0 0 0.46 0.08 0 0 0 0 0
Rossmoor
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Rowland Heights 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.3 0.1 0 0 Rubidoux
0.29 0 0.71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Running Springs Cdp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Antonio Heights Cdp
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
San Bernardino 0.5 0 0.32 0.03 0 0 0.06 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Buenaventura %Ventura<
0 0 0.04 0 0.12 0.23 0 0.04 0.04 0 0.19 0.08 0.15 0.04 0.08 0
San Clemente 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 0 0 0.09 0.09 0.45 0.18 0 San Diego
0.01 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.1 0.06 0.07 0.01
San Diego Country Estates Cdp
0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0
San Dimas
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.2 0 0
San Fernando 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Gabriel
0 0 0.13 0 0.38 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 109
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 1. City profiles of home value typology Class City
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
San Jacinto
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
San Juan Capistrano 0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0.4
0.2
0
San Marcos
0 0 0 0 0.08 0.23 0 0 0 0.38 0.23 0 0.08 0 0 0
San Marino
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Santa Ana Santa Clarita City
0.12 0.12 0.19 0.1 0
0
0.05
0
0 0.02 0
0
0 0.27 0.12 0 0.06 0.02 0
0
0
0
0
0
0.09
0
0.16
0.3
0.07
0.27
0.02
0.05
Santa Fe Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santa Monica
0 0 0 0.05 0.05 0 0.16 0 0.42 0 0 0.11 0 0 0.16 0.05
Santa Paula
0 0.4 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0
Santee
0 0 0.08 0 0.08 0.08 0 0 0 0.62 0.15 0 0 0 0 0
Seal Beach
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.43 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0.14 0.29 0
Searles Valley
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sedco Hills
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sierra Madre
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0
Signal Hill
0 0 0 0 0.67 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Simi Valley
0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0 0 0 0.08 0.46 0 0.33 0.08 0 0
Solana Beach
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.75 0
South El Monte 0.2 0.2 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Gate
0 0.42 0.26 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0.26 0 0 0 0 0 0
South Pasadena 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0.4 0 0 South San Gabriel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 South San Jose Hills 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Whittier 0 0 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.64 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 Spring Valley
0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0.57 0 0 0 0 0
Stanton
0 0 0.4 0 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sun City
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sunnyslope Cdp 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Temecula
0 0 0.11 0 0 0.78 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0 0 0 0
Temple City
0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0
Thousand Oaks
0 0
0
0 0.04 0.08 0
0
0
0 0.12 0.04 0.31 0.31 0.08 0.04
Thousand Palms 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Torrance
0 0
0
0 0.04 0.04 0
0 0.07 0 0.11 0.15 0.3 0.22 0.07 0
Tustin
0 0
0 0.14 0.21 0.07 0.14 0
0
0 0.14 0 0.14 0.14 0
0
Tustin Foothills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.4 Twentynine Palms 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 1. City profiles of home value typology Class City
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
Twentynine Palms Base
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Upland
0 0.13 0 0 0.13 0.13 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0.38 0 0 0
Valinda
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Valle Vista
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Valley Center
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Vandenberg Afb 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vernon City Victorville
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.43 0.14 0.43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
View ParkWindsor Hills
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Villa Park
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Vista
0 0 0.17 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0.28 0.33 0.11 0.06 0 0 0
Walnut
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0
Walnut Park
0 0 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0
West Athens Cdp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 West Carson
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 0.25 0 0 0 0 0
West Compton 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 West Covina
0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0.4 0.3 0 0.15 0.05 0 0
West Hollywood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 Westlake Village City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Westminster
0 0.06 0.06 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0.22 0.5 0 0.11 0 0 0
Westmont
0 0.33 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0
West Puente Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 West WhittierLos Nietos
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Whittier
0 0.06 0.06 0 0.11 0.11 0
Wildomar City
0 0 0.67 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Willowbrook Winter Gardens Cdp
0
0 0.11 0.22 0 0.11 0.17 0 0.06
0.29 0.14 0.57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0.33
0
0.33
0
0
0
0
0.33
0
0
0
0
0
0
Woodcrest Cdp 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wrightwood
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yorba Linda
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.44 0.56 0 0
Yucaipa
0.43 0 0.43 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yucca Valley 0.33 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology This Appendix shows the home value profiles for the zip codes in the Southern California region. Most zip codes contain several tracts. Thus, this table shows the proportion of the tracts within a particular zip code that were categorized as a particular class of neighborhood. For example, in zip code 90001, 90% of the neighborhoods were classified as class 5 and 10% were classified as class 2. In zip code 90002, 75% of the neighborhoods were classified as class 5, and the remainder of neighborhoods were classified as either 7, 2, or 10. Note that some the percentages in some zip codes will not add up to 100% due to rounding error.
112
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
90001 Los Angeles 0 0.9 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90002 Los Angeles 0 0.75 0.08 0.08 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90003 Los Angeles 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90004 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0.31 0 0.06 0.19 0 0.19 0 0 0.13 0 0 0.06 0.06 90005 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.69 0 0.23 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 90006 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0.6 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90007 Los Angeles 0 0.09 0 0.82 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90008 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0.29 0.14 0.14 0 0 0.14 0 0 90011 Los Angeles 0.16 0.28 0 0.52 0 0 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90012 Los Angeles 0 0.17 0 0.33 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90013 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90014 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90015 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90016 Los Angeles 0 0.6 0 0 0.1 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 90017 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90018 Los Angeles 0 0.36 0 0.45 0 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 90019 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0.2 0.33 0 0 0 0.27 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 90020 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 90021 Los Angeles 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90022 East Los Angeles 0 0.5 0.43 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90023 Los Angeles 0 0.82 0 0.09 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90024 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 90025 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0.1 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.1 0 90026 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0.57 0.14 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 90027 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0.22 0 0 0.22 0 0.22 0 0 0.11 0 0 0.22 0 90028 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0.67 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90029 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0.44 0 0 0.22 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90031 Los Angeles 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90032 Los Angeles 0 0.17 0.67 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 90033 Los Angeles 0 0.36 0 0.5 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90034 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0.15 0.08 0 0.08 0 0.31 0 0 0.31 0 0 0 0.08 90035 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0 0.2 0 90036 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 90037 Los Angeles 0 0.27 0.13 0.53 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
90038 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.38 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 90039 Los Angeles 0 0.14 0 0 0.29 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0.29 0 0 0.14 0 90040 City Of Commerce 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90041 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 90042 Los Angeles 0 0.21 0.14 0.14 0.43 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 90043 Los Angeles 0 0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.2 0 0 90044 Los Angeles 0 0.25 0.2 0.4 0.05 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 90045 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0.11 0 0.11 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.22 0.44 0 0 90046 Cole
0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0.25 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.25 0
90047 Los Angeles 0 0.13 0.13 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0 90048 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.33 0 90049 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0.7 90056 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 90057 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90058 Vernon 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90059 Los Angeles 0 0.38 0.38 0.13 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90061 Los Angeles 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90062 Los Angeles 0 0.6 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90063 Hazard 0 0.87 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90064 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.57 0 0.14 0.14 0.14 90065 Los Angeles 0 0.3 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 90066 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.23 0 0 0.46 0 0.15 0.15 0 90068 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0.14 0 0 0.57 0.14 90069 West Hollywood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 90077 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 90201 Bell Gardens 0.1 0.71 0.05 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90210 Beverly Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.8 90211 Beverly Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 90212 Beverly Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 90220 Rancho Dominguez 0.08 0.25 0.58 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90221 East Rancho Domi 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90222 Rosewood 0.33 0.33 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 114
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
90230 Culver City 0 0
0
0 0.25 0.13 0 0.13 0
0 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0
0
90232 Culver City 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 90240 Downey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0.67 0 0 0 90241 Downey 0 0 0 0 0.17 0.17 0 0 0 0.17 0.17 0 0.33 0 0 0 90242 Downey 0 0 0.14 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0.43 0.29 0 0 0 0 0 90245 El Segundo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 90247 Gardena 0 0 0.08 0 0.58 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 90248 Gardena 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 90249 Gardena 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 90250 Holly Park 0 0.25 0.06 0.06 0.31 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0.06 0 0 0 90254 Hermosa Beach 90255 Huntington Park
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 0.05 0.18 0.23 0.36 0.05 0
0
0 0.09 0.05 0
0
0
0
0
0
90260 Lawndale 0 0 0.2 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 90262 Lynwood 0 0.5 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 90265 Malibu
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
90266 Manhattan Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 90270 Maywood 0 0.86 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90272 Pacific Palisade 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.8
90274 Palos Verdes Est 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.86 90275 Rancho Palos Verdes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.22 0.22 0.56 90277 Redondo Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0 0.43 0 0.14 0.14 0 90278 Redondo Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.71 0.29 0 0 0 90280 South Gate 0 0.42 0.26 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0.26 0 0 0 0 0 0 90290 Topanga 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 90291 Venice 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.44 0 0 0.44 0 0 0.11 0 90292 Marina Del Rey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 90293 Playa Del Rey 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 90301 Inglewood 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 90302 Inglewood 0 0 0.17 0.33 0.17 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 90303 Inglewood 0 0 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.29 0
0
0 0.14 0.14 0
0
0
0
0
90304 Lennox 0 0.83 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
90305 Inglewood 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 90401 Santa Monica 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90402 Santa Monica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.67 90403 Santa Monica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 90404 Santa Monica 0 0 0 0.17 0.17 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90405 Santa Monica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0.4 0 0 0.2 0 90501 Torrance 0 0 0 0 0.57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.29 0 0 0 90502 Torrance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 90503 Torrance 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0 0 0.22 0 0 0 0.22 0.44 0 0 90504 Torrance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 90505 Torrance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.43 0.14 0.29 0.14 0 90601 Whittier
0 0.13 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.13 0.13 0 0
90602 Whittier
0 0 0.2 0 0.4 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0
90603 Whittier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.5 0 0 0.25 0 0 90604 Whittier 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.43 0.57 0 0 0 0 0 90605 Whittier 0 0 0.22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.56 0 0 0.11 0 0 0.11 90606 Los Nietos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 90620 Buena Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.44 0.56 0 0 0 0 0 90621 Buena Park 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 90623 Cerritos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 90630 Cypress 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0.45 0.09 0.36 0 0 0 90631 La Habra Heights
0 0 0.13 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0.13 0 0.07
90638 La Mirada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.7 0 0.2 0 0 0 90640 Montebello 0 0 0.13 0 0.27 0 0 0 0 0.27 0.13 0 0.2 0 0 0 90650 Norwalk 0 0.06 0.22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.72 0 0 0 0 0 0 90660 Pico Rivera 0.08 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 90670 Santa Fe Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 90680 Stanton
0 0 0.29 0 0.14 0.14 0 0 0 0.43 0 0 0 0 0 0
90701 Cerritos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 90703 Cerritos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.91 0.09 0 0 90704 Avalon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 90706 Bellflower
0
0.08
0.08
0.15
0.31
0
0
0
0
0.23
0.15
0
0
0
0
0
90710 Harbor City 0.14 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0.43 0 0 0 0 0 116
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
90712 Lakewood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.86 0 0.14 0 0 0 90713 Lakewood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 90715 Lakewood 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 90716 Hawaiian Gardens 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90717 Rancho Palos Ver 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 90720 Rossmoor 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.5 0 0 90723 Paramount 0.1 0.5 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90731 San Pedro 0 0 0 0.25 0.5 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0.08 0.08 0 0 0 90732 Rancho Palos Ver 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0.67 0.17 0 0 90740 Seal Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.43 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0.14 0.29 0 90742 Sunset Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 90744 Wilmington 0 0.54 0.23 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 90745 Carson 0 0 0.27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.55 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 90746 Carson 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 90802 Long Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90803 Long Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.25 0.13 0 0.25 0 90804 Signal Hill 0 0 0 0.71 0.14 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90805 Long Beach 0.06 0.29 0.41 0 0.06 0 0.06 0 0 0.06 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 90806 Signal Hill 0 0.18 0 0.18 0.27 0.09 0
0
0 0.27 0
0
0
0
0
0
90807 Signal Hill 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0.14 0.14 0.14 0 0 90808 Long Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.38 0.13 0 0 90810 Carson 0 0.11 0.33 0 0 0 0.22 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 90813 Long Beach 0 0 0 0.77 0 0 0.23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90814 Long Beach 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.25 0 90815 Long Beach 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0 90822 Long Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91001 Altadena
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0.25 0.13 0 0.25 0.38 0
0
91006 Arcadia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0.17 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.17 91007 Arcadia
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0 0.14 0 0.14 0.43 0 0
91010 Bradbury 0 0.17 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0.17 0 0.17 0 91011 Flintridge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 91016 Monrovia 0 0 0 0 0.43 0.14 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0.14 0.14 0 0 91020 Montrose 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 117
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
91024 Sierra Madre 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 91030 South Pasadena 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0.4 0 0 91040 Shadow Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.2 0 0 91042 Tujunga
0 0 0.14 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.29 0 0 0
91101 Pasadena 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91103 Pasadena 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 91104 Pasadena 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.43 0.14 0.14 0 0 91105 Pasadena 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 91106 Pasadena 0 0 0 0.25 0.25 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 91107 Pasadena 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.11 0.56 0 0 91108 San Marino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 91201 Glendale 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 91202 Glendale 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.2 91203 Glendale 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91204 Glendale 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91205 Glendale 0 0 0 0.57 0.29 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91206 Glendale 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0.17 0 0.17 0 0 0 0.17 0.33 0 0 91207 Glendale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 91208 Glendale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 91214 La Crescenta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0.67 0.17 0 0 91301 Oak Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 91302 Calabasas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.67 91303 Canoga Park 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 91304 Canoga Park 0 0 0 0 0 0.55 0 0 0 0 0.09 0 0.27 0.09 0 0 91306 Winnetka 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.63 0 0.13 0 0 0 91307 West Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0.17 0 0 91311 Chatsworth 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0.33 0.11 0.11 0 91316 Encino
0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.2 0.2
91320 Newbury Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.13 0.63 0.13 0 0 91321 Newhall 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0.33 0.17 0.17 0.17 0 0 0 91324 Northridge 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0.17 0.17 0.33 0 0 0.17 91325 Northridge 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0.33 0.17 0 0.17 91326 Porter Ranch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.86 0 0 91331 Arleta 0.05 0.05 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 118
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
91335 Reseda 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.57 0.29 0 0.07 0 0 0 91340 San Fernando 0 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 91342 Sylmar 0 0 0 0 0 0.16 0 0 0 0.58 0.21 0.05 0 0 0 0 91343 North Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0.42 0 0.17 0 0.33 0 0 0 91344 Granada Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0.08 0.31 0 0.15 0.38 0 0 91345 Mission Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 91350 Agua Dulce 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0.08 0.54 0.15 0.15 0 0 0 91351 Canyon Country 0 0 0.11 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0.28 0.28 0 0.06 0 0.11 0 91352 Sun Valley 0 0 0.3 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 91354 Valencia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 91355 Valencia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.83 0.17 0 0 91356 Tarzana 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0.14 0.14 0.29 91360 Thousand Oaks 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.4 0.1 0 0.1 91361 Westlake Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0.4 0 91362 Westlake Village 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0.17 91364 Woodland Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0.33 0.17 0.33 91367 Woodland Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.5 0 0 91377 Thousand Oaks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 91381 Newhall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 91384 Castaic
0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0.25 0 0 0
91401 Van Nuys 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.11 0 0 0.22 0 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.11 0 0 91402 Panorama City 0 0 0 0.17 0.25 0.33 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 91403 Sherman Oaks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.25 91405 Van Nuys 0 0 0 0 0.63 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 91406 Van Nuys 0 0 0.09 0 0.36 0.09 0
0
0
0 0.36 0.09 0
0
0
0
91411 Van Nuys 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.4 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 91423 Sherman Oaks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0.17 0 0.17 91436 Encino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.75 91501 Burbank 0 0 0 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 91502 Burbank 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91504 Burbank 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0 91505 Burbank 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.71 0.14 0.14 0 0 0 91506 Burbank 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0.33 0 0 0 91601 North Hollywood 0 0 0.11 0 0.56 0 0 0 0.11 0 0 0.11 0 0 0.11 0 91602 Toluca Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 119
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
91604 Studio City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0.43 0 0 0.29 0.14 91605 North Hollywood 0 0 0 0.13 0.4 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 91606 North Hollywood 0 0 0 0.25 0.38 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 91607 Valley Village 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0.5 0.17 0.17 0 0 91701 Alta Loma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.33 0 0.33 0 0 0 91702 Azusa
0 0 0.67 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0
91706 Irwindale 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91709 Chino Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 0 0 0 91710 Chino
0 0 0.13 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.13 0 0 0 0 0
91711 Claremont 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.29 0
0
91722 Covina 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.71 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 91723 Covina
0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0
91724 Covina
0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0.33 0 0 0.17 0 0.17
91730 Rancho Cucamonga 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 91731 El Monte 0 0 0.57 0.29 0 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 91732 El Monte 0.1 0.5 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 91733 South El Monte 0.11 0.33 0.56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91737 Alta Loma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 91740 Glendora 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.33 0 0.17 0 0 0 91741 Glendora 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0.29 0.14 0 0.14 91744 Industry 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 91745 Hacienda Heights
0 0 0.09 0
0
0
0
0
0 0.18 0.09 0 0.55 0.09 0
0
91746 Bassett 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 91748 Rowland Heights 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.3 0.1 0 0 91750 La Verne 0 0 0.25 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.13 0.13 0.13 0 0.13 0.13 0 0 91752 Mira Loma 0 0.17 0.5 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 91754 Monterey Park 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.25 0 0 0 91755 Monterey Park 0 0 0.17 0.17 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0.17 0 0 0 91761 Ontario 0.25 0 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91762 Ontario 0.14 0.14 0.29 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 91763 Montclair 0.33 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91764 Ontario 0 0.2 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 120
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
91765 Diamond Bar 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.78 0.11 0 0 91766 Phillips Ranch 0.25 0.17 0.33 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0.08 0 0 0 91767 Pomona 0.13 0 0.5 0 0.13 0.13 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 91768 Pomona 0.2 0.2 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 91770 Rosemead 0 0 0.29 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 91773 San Dimas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0.2 0 0 91775 San Gabriel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 0 91776 San Gabriel 0 0 0.14 0 0.43 0 0 0 0 0.43 0 0 0 0 0 0 91780 Temple City 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.71 0 0 0 0 0 91784 Upland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 0.25 0 0 91786 Upland
0 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0
91789 Diamond Bar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.64 0.36 0 0 91790 West Covina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.86 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 91791 West Covina 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0.38 0 0.38 0.13 0 0 91792 West Covina 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 91801 Alhambra 0 0 0 0 0.82 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 91803 Alhambra 0 0.14 0 0 0.29 0 0 0 0 0.29 0.29 0 0 0 0 0 91901 Alpine
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
91902 Bonita
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
91906 Campo 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91910 Chula Vista 0 0
0 0.24 0.12 0.06 0.06 0
0 0.12 0.12 0 0.29 0
0
0
91911 Chula Vista 0.27 0.07 0.2 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0.27 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 91913 Chula Vista 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 91914 Chula Vista 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 91915 Chula Vista 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 91916 Descanso 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91932 Imperial Beach 0 0.17 0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91935 Jamul
0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0
91941 La Mesa 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.14 0 0 0 0.14 0 0.29 0.14 0.14 0 0 91942 La Mesa 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 91945 Lemon Grove 0 0 0 0.17 0.17 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 91950 National City 0.06 0.13 0.25 0.19 0.31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0 0 0 91962 Pine Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 91977 Spring Valley 0 0 0.14 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0.43 0.29 0 0.07 0 0 0 91978 Spring Valley 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 121
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
92003 Bonsall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 92004 Borrego Springs 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92007 Cardiff By The Sea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 92008 Carlsbad 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.13 0 0 92009 Carlsbad 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.11 0.44 0.11 0 92014 Del Mar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 92019 El Cajon 0 0 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.11 0 0.44 0.22 0 0 92020 El Cajon 0.07 0 0.14 0.21 0.07 0.07 0
0
0
0 0.21 0 0.14 0.07 0
0
92021 El Cajon 0.1 0 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.1 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 92024 Encinitas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.55 0.09 0.36 0 0 92025 Escondido 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 0 92026 Escondido 0 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0.43 0.29 0 0.14 0 0 0 92027 Escondido 0.18 0 0.36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 0.27 0 0.09 0 0 0 92028 Fallbrook 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.25 0 0.25 0.13 0 0 92029 Escondido 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.5 0 0 92036 Julian
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92037 La Jolla 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.3 92040 Lakeside 0 0 0 0 0.38 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 92054 Oceanside 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.23 0
0
0 0.15 0.23 0
0 0.08 0
0
0
92056 Oceanside 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0.44 0.11 0.11 0 0 0 0 92057 Oceanside 0 0 0.11 0 0.56 0.11 0 0 0 0 0.11 0 0.11 0 0 0 92061 Pauma Valley 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92064 Poway
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0.09 0.45 0 0.09 0.36 0
0
92065 Ramona 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.17 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.17 0 0 0 0 92067 Rancho Santa Fe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 92069 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0.1 0 0 0 92071 Santee
0 0 0.08 0 0.08 0.08 0 0 0 0.67 0.08 0 0 0 0 0
92075 Solana Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0.67 0 92078 San Marcos 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92082 Valley Center 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.33 0 0 0 0 92083 Vista
0 0 0.08 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0.46 0.31 0.08 0 0 0 0
92084 Vista
0 0 0.22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.44 0.11 0.11 0 0 0
92086 Warner Springs 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
92101 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92102 San Diego 0 0.3 0 0.5 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92103 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.38 0 0 0.13 0 92104 San Diego 0 0 0 0.44 0.22 0 0 0 0.11 0 0 0.22 0 0 0 0 92105 San Diego 0 0.14 0.36 0.43 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 92106 San Diego 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0.17 0 0.17 0.33 0 92107 San Diego 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0.38 0 0 0.13 0 0.13 0.25 0 92108 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92109 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0.11 0 0 0.11 0.11 92110 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0.38 0.13 0.13 0 0.13 0 0 0.13 0.13 0 0 0 92111 San Diego 0 0.11 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0.11 0.11 0.22 0 0.11 0 0 0 92113 San Diego 0 0.58 0.25 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92114 San Diego 0 0 0.29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.71 0 0 0 0 0 0 92115 San Diego 0 0 0.08 0.17 0.33 0.08 0
0
0 0.08 0.08 0.17 0
0
0
0
92116 San Diego 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0.22 0 0 0.11 0 92117 San Diego 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 92118 Coronado 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 92119 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 92120 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.33 0.17 0 0 92121 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 92122 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.13 0 92123 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 92124 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0.33 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 92126 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0.87 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 0.07 0 0 0 92127 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 92128 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0.71 0 0 0 92129 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.6 0.2 0 0 92130 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 92131 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.57 0.29 0.14 0 92139 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.43 0 0 0 0.43 0 0 0 0 0 0 92154 San Diego 0.08 0 0.46 0 0 0.15 0 0 0 0.31 0 0 0 0 0 0 92173 San Ysidro 0 0 0.83 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92201 Chiriaco Summit 0.4 0 0.5 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92210 Indian Wells 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 123
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
92211 Palm Desert 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 92220 Banning 0.71 0 0.14 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92223 Beaumont 0.33 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92225 Lost Lake 0.75 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92234 Cathedral City 0.18 0 0.36 0 0.18 0.27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92236 Coachella 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92240 Desert Hot Springs 0.8 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92241 Desert Hot Springs 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92242 Big River 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92252 Joshua Tree 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92253 La Quinta 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 92254 Mecca 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92256 Morongo Valley 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92260 Palm City 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0.43 0 0 0 0 92262 Palm Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0.71 0 0 0 0 0.14 0.14 0 0 0 0 92264 Palm Springs 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 92270 Rancho Mirage 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 92274 Salton City 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92276 Thousand Palms
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92277 Twentynine Palms
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92278 Twentynine Palms
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92284 Yucca Valley 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92301 Adelanto 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92307 Apple Valley 0.17 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 92308 Apple Valley 0 0 0.67 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 92310 Fort Irwin 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92311 Barstow 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92313 Grand Terrace 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 92314 Big Bear City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 92315 Big Bear Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 92316 Bloomington 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
92320 Calimesa 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92324 Grand Terrace 0.5 0 0.1 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 92325 Crestline 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 92335 Fontana 0.31 0.15 0.54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92336 Fontana 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 92337 Fontana 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92339 Forest Falls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 92342 Helendale 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92345 Hesperia 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92346 East Highland 0.29 0 0.29 0 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0.29 0 0 0 0 0 92352 Lake Arrowhead 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 92354 Loma Linda 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92359 Mentone 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92363 Needles 0.5 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92368 Oro Grande 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92371 Phelan 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92372 Pinon Hills 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92373 Redlands 0.17 0 0 0.17 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0.33 0 0 0 92374 Redlands 0.17 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 92376 Rialto 0.5 0 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 92377 Rialto
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
92382 Arrowbear Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 92392 Spring Valley La 0.29 0.14 0.43 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92394 George Afb 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92397 Wrightwood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 92399 Yucaipa 0.43 0 0.43 0 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92404 San Bernardino 0.13 0 0.63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 92405 Muscoy 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92407 San Bernardino 0.2 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 92408 San Bernardino 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92410 San Bernardino 0.8 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92411 San Bernardino 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92501 Riverside 0 0 0.33 0.33 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
92503 Riverside 0 0.06 0.65 0 0 0.12 0 0 0 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 92504 Riverside 0.08 0 0.5 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0.17 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 92505 Riverside 0 0 0.56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.44 0 0 0 0 0 0 92506 Riverside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0.56 0.11 0 0 92507 Riverside 0.27 0 0.45 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0.09 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 92508 Riverside 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92509 Rubidoux 0.15 0 0.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.23 0 0 0 0 0 0 92518 March Air Force 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92530 Lake Elsinore 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92532 Lake Elsinore 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92539 Anza
0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92543 Hemet 0.86 0 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92544 Hemet 0.38 0 0.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92545 Hemet 0.67 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92548 Homeland 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92549 Idyllwild 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92551 Moreno Valley City 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92553 Moreno Valley 0.06 0.11 0.83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92555 Moreno Valley 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 92557 Moreno Valley 0 0 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 92562 Murrieta 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 92563 Murrieta 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92567 Lakeview 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92570 Mead Valley 0.63 0 0.25 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92571 Perris
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
92582 San Jacinto 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92583 Gilman Hot Sprin 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92584 Menifee 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92585 Romoland 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92586 Sun City 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92587 Canyon Lake 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92590 Temecula 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 92591 Temecula 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92592 Temecula 0 0 0.2 0 0 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
92595 Wildomar 0 0 0.75 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92604 Irvine
0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.5 0 0 0
92606 Irvine
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0.33 0 0 0
92610 Foothill Ranch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 92612 Irvine
0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0
92614 Irvine
0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0.6 0.2 0 0 0
92618 El Toro Station 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0.33 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 92620 Irvine
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.6 0.2 0 0
92624 Capistrano Beach
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
92625 Corona Del Mar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0.33 92626 Costa Mesa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0 92627 Costa Mesa 0 0
0 0.36 0.07 0
0
0
0
0 0.07 0.36 0.07 0 0.07 0
92629 Monarch Bay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.6 0.2 0 92630 Lake Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0.17 0.08 0.5 0.17 0 0 92646 Huntington Beach
0 0 0 0 0.07 0.14 0 0 0 0.07 0.14 0 0.14 0.43 0 0
92647 Huntington Beach
0 0
92648 Huntington Beach
0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0.63 0 0 0.13 0
92649 Huntington Beach
0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0.25 0.13 0.25 0
0 0.08 0.17 0
0
0
0
0 0.17 0.08 0.33 0.17 0
0
92651 Laguna Niguel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 92653 Laguna Hills 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0 92655 Midway City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 92656 Aliso Viejo 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0.1 0.1 0 92657 Newport Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 92660 Newport Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.86 0.14 92661 Newport Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 92662 Newport Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 92663 Newport Beach 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.5 0.25 92672 San Clemente 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.13 0.13 0.25 0.25 0 92673 San Clemente 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 92675 Mission Viejo 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0.17 0.17 0 0 0.33 0.17 0 92676 Silverado 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 127
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
92677 Laguna Niguel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.71 0.29 0 92679 Coto De Caza 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0.43 0.29 0 92683 Westminster 0 0.06 0.06 0 0.06 0 0 0 0 0.24 0.47 0 0.12 0 0 0 92688 Rancho Santa Margarita 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.88 0 0 0 92691 Mission Viejo 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0 0.09 0 0 0.73 0.09 0 0 92692 Mission Viejo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.38 0.63 0 0 92701 Santa Ana 0 0.25 0.25 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 92703 Santa Ana 0.09 0.27 0.45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 92704 Santa Ana 0.2 0.07 0.13 0.07 0 0.07 0 0 0 0.27 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 92705 Cowan Heights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 0 0.14 0.29 0 0.29 92706 Santa Ana 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.4 0.2 0 0 92707 Santa Ana Heights 0.18 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.64 0 0.09 0 0 0 0 92708 Fountain Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0.75 0.08 0 0 92780 Tustin
0 0 0 0.17 0.25 0.08 0.17 0 0 0 0.17 0 0.17 0 0 0
92782 Tustin
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.67 0 0
92801 Anaheim 0 0 0.25 0 0.38 0.13 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 92802 Anaheim 0.13 0 0.13 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 92804 Anaheim 0 0 0.08 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 92805 Anaheim 0.17 0.17 0 0.08 0.08 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 92806 Anaheim 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.25 0.5 0 0.13 0 0 0 92807 Anaheim 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0.38 0.5 0 0 92808 Anaheim 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 92821 Anaheim 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.33 0 0 0 92831 Fullerton 0 0 0 0 0.44 0 0 0 0 0 0.22 0 0.22 0.11 0 0 92832 Fullerton 0.2 0 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 92833 Fullerton 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0 0 92835 Fullerton 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0.25 0 0.25 92840 Garden Grove 0 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 92841 Garden Grove 0 0 0.17 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 92843 Garden Grove 0.11 0 0.56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 92844 Garden Grove 0 0 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 0 92845 Garden Grove 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 92860 Norco 128
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0.33 0 0 0
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
92861 Villa Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 92865 Orange 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 0 92866 Orange
0 0 0 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0
92867 Orange
0 0 0 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.56 0 0 0.33 0 0
92868 Orange 0.33 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 92869 Orange
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0.63 0.13 0 0.13
92870 Placentia 0 0 0 0.08 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0.58 0 0.08 0 92879 Corona 0 0.13 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 92880 Corona 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 92881 Corona 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.25 0.75 0 0 0 0 0 92882 Corona 0.15 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0.38 0.38 0 0 0 0 0 92883 Corona 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 92886 Yorba Linda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 92887 Yorba Linda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.8 0 0 93001 San Buenaventura 0 0 0.1 0 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0.3 0 0 0.2 0 93003 San Buenaventura 0 0 0 0 0.09 0.27 0 0.09 0 0 0.27 0 0.18 0.09 0 0 93004 San Buenaventura 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0.33 0 0 0 93010 Camarillo 0 0 0 0 0 0.11 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0.44 0.11 0 0 93012 Camarillo 0 0 0 0.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.17 0 0.5 0 0.17 0 93015 Bardsdale 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93021 Moorpark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 93022 Oak View 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 93023 Ojai 93030 Oxnard
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 0.6 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.13 0.07 0 0.33 0.07 0.07 0
0 0.07 0.07 0 0.13 0
0
0
93033 Oxnard 0.08 0.08 0.54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.31 0 0 0 0 0 0 93035 Oxnard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 93040 Piru
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
93041 Port Hueneme 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 93060 Santa Paula 0 0.4 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 93063 Santa Susana 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0.08 0.58 0 0.25 0.08 0
0
93065 Simi Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0.08 0 0 0 0.08 0.31 0 0.38 0.15 0 0 93066 Somis
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
93510 Acton
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 129
Metropolitan Futures Initiative (MFI) â&#x20AC;˘ Quarterly Report Typology of Southern California neighborhood home values from 1960-2015
Appendix 2. Zip code profiles of home value typology Class zipcode
Name
4 5 7 2 9 1 10 12 15 6 3 16 11 8 13 14
93532 Elizabeth Lake 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93534 Lancaster 0 0 0.75 0 0.13 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93535 Hi Vista 0.33 0 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93536 Quartz Hill 0 0 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 93543 Juniper Hills 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 93544 Crystalaire 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93550 Lake Los Angeles
0 0 0.71 0.06 0 0.06 0 0 0 0.18 0 0 0 0 0 0
93551 Leona Valley 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.57 0.29 0.14 0 0 0 0 93552 Palmdale 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93553 Juniper Hills 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 93562 Argus
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
93591 Lake Los Angeles 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
130
School of Social Ecology Discover · Engage · Transform
The School of Social Ecology is dedicated to interdisciplinary, problem-driven scholarship, teaching, and outreach in the public’s interest. Social Ecology’s unique focus and expertise has made it a national leader in applying basic theory and empirical research to address complex societal problems. Since 1970, Social Ecology has grown from a few dozen students to more than 2,500, with over 20,000 graduates working in fields as diverse as health care, human services, planning, education, law and public policy. The School is home to three highly ranked departments - Criminology, Law and Society; Urban Planning and Public Policy; and Psychology and Social Behavior - that share a commitment to research that understands human behavior in larger social and institutional contexts, moves beyond traditional disciplinary boundaries, and reaches a diverse and broad audience.
University of California, Irvine – School of Social Ecology 5300 Social & Behavioral Sciences Gateway, Irvine, CA 92697 www.socialecology.uci.edu · secomm@uci.edu