GENTRIFICATION:ACLOSERLOOKATCHARLOTTESCENTERCITY

34

Results
John Chesser (2013) wrote that Charlotte ranks ninth nationally in population
growth. In a separate analysis from 2000 to 2012 the figures showed Charlotte ranked
number five. Mecklenburg County continues to outpace all the other suburban counties in
growth rate. Although, poverty is increasing in certain suburbs outside the County, other
findings show the preference of young people entering the workforce about 70 % are
willing to pay extra to live in a vibrant urban community after graduation (Chesser,
2013). The gentrification status of map data definition estimates are shown for owneroccupied housing units in 2013.The share of the population age 25 and older reports
holding a bachelors degrees. According to Chesser (2013), the data shows a continued
decline in rural population (Chesser, 2013).
Median Household Income
In Charlottes center city neighborhoods that gentrified the share of the population
age 25 and older report holding a bachelors degree. The median household income:
Values showed in 1990, the dollars were $33,011. The recent median household income:
Values showed in 1990 dollars, for 2000 census data of those living in gentrified
neighborhoods was $33, 463 dollars; with 40.8% of adults having a bachelors degrees in
2000, and 26.6% with a bachelors degrees in 1990. In 2010, the median household
income for Fourth Ward was reported at $50,810 compared to Charlotte: $51, 419 and the
median rent in 2010 was $819 with Charlottes median rent $691(charmeck.com).
Chesser (2013) compared these median household families income data for each
Census tract or neighborhood to the median income of the neighborhoods region for

GENTRIFICATION:ACLOSERLOOKATCHARLOTTESCENTERCITY

35

each decade since 1970. The study defines neighborhoods by median family income.
Affluent neighborhoods are those where median income is 150 % or more of a metro
areas median. Middle-class is 80 % to 125 % of median income and poor is where
incomes are 67 % or less of the median (Henderson & Off, 2011).
Measuring the Gap- Dissimilarity
Other data from 1980 through 2010 used the dissimilarity index, which measures
whether one particular group is distributed across census tracts in the metropolitan area
the same as other groups. The high value of 60 on the chart indicates that 60% or above
means two groups tend to live in different tracts. A value of 40 or 50 indicates a moderate
level of segregation and values of 30 or below is considered low (charmeck.com).
Ethnic and Racial Composition
Henderson and Off (2011) have noted in the Observer data analysis from 1970 to
2007 that shared families who live in poor or affluent neighborhood in metro Charlotte
more than doubled. The 140% increase in families in poor neighborhoods was larger than
the national average of about 100% according to the study. The percentage of families in
affluent neighborhoods jumped from 7% to 13 % . Nationally, the proportion of families
living in affluent neighborhoods increased from 7% to 14 % (Henderson & Off, 2011).
The trend reflects a widening difference in incomes. High-income families, according
to the study, are less likely to share neighborhoods with low- and middle-income
households. Therefore, creating a more divided society. According to Henderson and Off
(2011) they do not have neighbors or attend school with others from the different socioeconomic backgrounds that they once would have (Henderson & Off, p. 2, 2011).

GENTRIFICATION:ACLOSERLOOKATINCHARLOTTESCENTERCITY 36
Gentrification about Growth
In 1986, the city had begun planning for a mixed-use development in Charlottes
Uptown center city. The findings reveal in order to develop an urban design that thrives,
first, the city had to evaluate the positive aspects of the center city (Uptown) (See
Appendix F). Due to major building, architectural structure quality and recent investment
represents a stable base, which Uptowns growth is built. Noted in the new project are
previously described Cityfair and Fourth Ward historic district to the northwest. The
negative urban design was described as blocks of surface parking lots and major barriers
between the Uptown cores (Charlotte Uptown Development Corporation, 1986).
Shifting the Blame
An article published in the Charlotte Observer (1979) reports the General
Accounting Office (GAO) in Washington DC, blamed the shortage of housing on the
conversion of apartments to condominiums. In 1970, Charlottes vacancy rate was 2
percent. GAO reported that 15 million families with incomes below $10,000 a year
would be hard hit. Price is a problemnearly half of renters pay 25 % of their income for
rent. In 1974, the vacancy rate according to the US Census Bureau, the vacancy rate was
4.8 percent. The accepted rule is rent should not exceed 25 % of income. Although, 1000
apartments had been converted into condominiums, the 1978 findings showed only 1,733
apartments were built in 1979. The building had not kept up with the demand (Charlotte
Housing Strategy 1981).
A Forecast
The findings of 1980 to 2000 forecast over the next twenty years, Charlotte will
change in regional population by 37%, county growth by 33%, household growth 64%;

GENTRIFICATION:ACLOSERLOOKATCHARLOTTESCENTERCITY

37

household size down from 2.8 to 2.3; and household income up 14% per year
While the total population in 1980 for Charlotte, North Carolina was 314, 447, and 731,
424 for 2010; the research shows the character of Charlottes center city can and should
be unique to Charlotte (Charlotte Central Area Planning, 1980).