Planning Studies: GIS and map based narratives

Primary Schools in Manhattan:

A study of the relationship between School Quality and Race

Kirthana Sudhkakar. Geographic Information Systems. MSUP. Fall 2018

METHODOLOGY

“The racial and other socio-economic consequences of ‘physical decisions’ such as location of schools and housing projects have been immense, but city planners, while acknowledging the existence of such consequences, have not sought trained themselves to understand socio-economic problems, their causes or solutions.”

PHASE ONE

OBTAIN DATA SETS AND CLEAN DATA

FILTER OUT ALL DATA FOR MANHATTAN BOROUGH

CALCULATION OF SCHOOL SCORES

DOWLOAD DEMOGRAPHIC DATA BY CENSUS TRACT

DASYMETRIC ESTIMATION AGGREGATE TO SCHOOL ZONES

Data Sources NYC OPEN DATA: AMERICAN FACT FINDER: School point locations Family median income School zones Population aged 5 to 9 census tracts school survey data Subway and library locations

PHASE TWO

DETERMINING SCHOOL QUALITY 1. Teacher’s Experience 2. Student Attendance 3. Academic Expectation 4. Class Size 5. Student Engagement 6. Communication 7. Suspensions 8. Racial Diversity

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS 1. Distance from libraries 2, Distance from subways Stations 3. Distance from Parks 4. Distance from incidences of Crime 5. Family median income 6. Population bw the ages of 5 to 9

Primary School Locations, Manhattan

PHASE THREE

CREATION OF A SCORED RASTER DECISION MAP The map is scored from low scores which indicate: high population densities of racial minorities, Low Quality schools, Unfavourable environmental conditions To high scores indicating the opposite.

STUDY OF AREAS WITH LOW & HIGH SCORES This step of the process confirmed that there exists a relationship between high quality primary schools, favourable environmental conditions and high population densities of White population.

MANHATTAN

RACIAL DISTRIBUTION Population density of: 1. Black population 2, Asian population 3. Hispanic and Latino population 4. White population (Scored inversely as the majority group)

Legend

Research Question This study aims to determine the relationship between the quality of Primary schools & provision of neighbourhood amenities in Manhattan; and the racial distribution, within school zones.

Primary Schools SchoolZones 0

0.45

0.9

1.8 Miles

LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS While determining a geographical map unit for the analysis, it became necessary to aggregate data from the level of the Census tract to the School Zone level.

This process is represented diagrammatically in the figure alongside. Within the study, the data used to create the “ENVIRONMENTAL” map required us to aggregate data. This was because data containing information regarding: Populations between the ages of 5 to 9 years; and Median Family Income was available at the census tract level. This data was downloaded from the American fact finder website, at the census tract level. The method of dasymetric estimation was used in order to aggregate it to the level of the Primary School zone.

School Zones

In the process we faced the challenge of addressing the Modifiable Areal unit Problem, which leads to statistical estimation which aggregating data.

Census tracts

0

0.5

1

2 Miles

QUALITY OF PRIMARY SCHOOLS

Teacher’s level of Experience

Student Attendance

Class size

Student Engagement

Academic Expectation

Communication

Racial Diversity

A raster decision map to determine the quality of Primary Schools was created by combining raster decision maps based on the following data-sets: A. School Zones Scored by: 1. Teacher’s Experience 2. Student Attendance 3. Academic Expectation 4. Class Size 5. Student Engagement 6. Communication 7. Suspensions 8. Racial Diversity

Suspensions

These datasets were selected based on the method of ranking created by Mayor DeBlasio’s revised factors to determine the quality of schools.

1

LOW QUALITY

2 3 4 5

HIGH QUALITY

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS A raster decision map to determine the quality of the school zone was created by combining raster decision maps based on the following data-sets: A. Kernel density maps: 1. Distance from libraries 2, Distance from subways Stations 3. Distance from Parks 4. Distance from incidences of Crime B. Maps scored by School zone: 5. Family median income 6. Population between the ages of 5 to 9 Family Median Income by Census tract

Population density between ages 5 and 9

Distance from libraries.

(Search Radius= 1/2 mile)

Distance from Subway Stations (Search Radius= 1/4 mile)

Distance from incidents of Crime Distance from Parks (Search Radius= 1/4 mile)

1 2

UNFAVOURABLE ENVIRONMENT

3 4

FAVOURABLE 5 ENVIRONMENT

0

0.5

1

2 Miles

low scoring School zones have high population densities of racial minority groups.

As well as fewer amenities.

CLUSTERING OF HIGH AND LOW QUALITY SCHOOLS: LOOKING AT NEIGHBOURHOOD CONDITIONS Racial distribution within the study area indicates that low scoring School zones have high population densities of racial minority groups.

0

0.125

0.25

Racial Density map: Areas with a score of 1: Indicate high population densities of racial minorities Areas with a score of 5: Indicate high population densities of racial majority group.

A final scored map displays the relationship between school quality, environmental factors and Racial distribution

0.5 Miles

Legend Primary Schools Libraries Subway Entrances After School Programmes Parks

These datasets were selected based on the method of ranking created by Mayor DeBlasio’s revised factors to determine the quality of schools.

0

1 Miles

low scoring neighbourhoods have high population densities of racial majority groups.

1 2 3 4

high scoring School zones have high population densities of racial majority groups. and access to more amenities.

5

Low Quality Schools, Unfavourable Environment High concentrations of Racial minorities High Quality Schools, Favourable Environment, High Concentrations of Racial Majority groups

2009 – 2020 ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT The Office of the Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr.

Source: Daniel Donovan

2020 DEVELOPMENT HIGHLIGHTS TOTAL INVESTMENT:

$ 3,811,783,953

TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE: 79,317,256 sft.

ADDRESSES ISSUED:

430

SQUARE FOOTAGE BY LAND USE:

Investment by Land Use:

Residential:

6,085,668 sft.

Mixed-Use:

2,722,878 sft.

Commercial:

60,146,502

Institutional:

10,362,208

Residential:

$2,141,487,879

Mixed-Use:

$1,396,753.600

Commercial:

$86,164,050

Unsubsidized:

5,301 units

Institutional:

$187,250,424

Subsidized:

2,987 units

Residential Units:

2009 – 2020 DEVELOPMENT HIGHLIGHTS TOTAL INVESTMENT:

$ 26,457,516,824

ANNUAL AVERAGE:

$ 2,204,000,000

INVESTMENT BY LAND USE: • Residential:

ANNUAL AVERAGE:

10,485,154 sft.

SQUARE FOOTAGE BY LAND USE: Residential: 82,509,742

• Commercial:

66%

Commercial: 27,309,687 21%

• Institutional: RESIDENTIAL UNITS:

TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE: 125,821,850

63,583 units

• Unsubsidized:

33,463 or 53%

• Subsidized:

30,120 or 47%

Institutional: 16,002,420 13%

* Using estimated figures for years 2009-2012 as square footage was not separated by land use for those years

2009 – 2020 DEVELOPMENT IN THE BRONX

2009 – 2020 TOTAL SQUARE FEET 2009 - 2020 Total Square Feet 1,80,00,000 1,60,00,000

3%

9%

1,40,00,000 17%

23%

13% 6%

1,20,00,000 16%

1,00,00,000

10%

80,00,000

16%

60,00,000

22%

40,00,000 20,00,000 -

62%

16% 16%

22%

17%

14%

62% 52%

62%

78%

30%

26%

62%

33%

22%

22% 16% 22%

21%

21%

76%

74% 66%

51%

74%

49%

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Institutio nal

14,06,126

6,44,353

12,61,434

14,57,385

13,60,600

18,78,206

10,30,386

23,44,813

15,35,124

18,54,640

7,23,736

5,05,617

Comme rcial

19,40,199

8,89,090

17,40,551

20,10,926

15,80,600

27,00,796

13,74,211

46,29,879

20,38,148

19,63,970

26,35,158

38,06,159

Reside ntial

54,60,290

25,02,162

48,98,422

56,59,339

32,00,800

43,18,697

76,61,863

72,29,561

1,26,90,682

75,20,280

93,66,244

1,20,01,402

2009 – 2020 INVESTMENT BY COMMUNITY DISTRICT $7,00,00,00,000 $6,00,00,00,000 $5,00,00,00,000 $4,00,00,00,000 $3,00,00,00,000 $2,00,00,00,000 $1,00,00,00,000 $-

CD 1

CD 2

CD 3

CD 4

CD 5

CD 6

CD 7

CD 8

CD 9

CD 10

CD 11

CD 12

2020

$1,43,00,96,5

$33,52,31,612

$9,47,13,614.

$37,81,65,381

$16,65,15,250

$21,26,11,780

$21,18,40,113

$9,28,62,100.

$55,52,58,323

$5,70,59,000.

$5,71,94,345.

$22,02,35,897

2009 - 2019

$5,02,14,27,7

$96,11,67,318

$2,18,21,62,5

$2,13,08,17,6

$1,32,98,24,9

$2,40,37,62,7

$2,60,52,41,5

$1,08,78,18,9

$1,84,08,48,6

$1,22,18,79,0

$1,65,60,92,1

$92,94,51,209

2009 – 2020 INVESTMENT BY LAND USE $4,00,00,00,000 $3,50,00,00,000 $3,00,00,00,000 $2,50,00,00,000 $2,00,00,00,000 $1,50,00,00,000 $1,00,00,00,000 $50,00,00,000 $-

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Reside ntial

$91,00,72,282

$28,14,29,767

$54,55,10,314

$64,49,04,939

$60,45,09,502

Comme rcial

$11,86,30,000

$2,76,19,660

$13,15,37,510

$61,21,87,739

$12,12,59,567

Institutio nal

$73,86,24,228

$27,58,03,447

$17,65,09,446

$45,55,65,550

$17,16,12,524

Residential

2015

2016

$71,46,07,806

$2,07,91,50,3

$1,70,38,44,6

$2,29,93,45,6

$12,81,24,353

$16,97,04,184

$1,33,86,30,6

$17,12,08,636

$44,97,16,900

$13,66,21,600

$22,85,09,418

$23,79,77,170

$48,89,51,802

Commercial

Institutional

2017

2018

2019

2020

$2,63,12,61,8

$2,98,02,61,3

$3,53,82,41,4

$36,23,46,516

$92,12,31,044

$8,61,64,050

$28,81,52,996

$18,72,50,424

2009 – 2020 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS 12,000

10,000

8,000

40% 36%

48%

6,000

34% 58%

4,000 58%

2,000

53% 42%

Subsidized Unsubsidized

2009 2,337 1,693

73%

32%

51% 49% 2010 635 610

38%

74% 26% 2011 1,710 601

47% 2012 1,448 1,284

62% 2013 1,097 1,791

60% 52%

66% 42%

68% 2014 1,166 2,478

64%

27% 2015 2,371 4,603

2016 3,821 1,413

2017 4,299 3,080

2018 4,225 4,660

2019 4,023 5,950

2020 2,987 5,301

2020 DEVELOPMENT IN THE BRONX LOCATION BASED DATA

Commercial Institutional Residential

residential

Land Use Commercial

LAND USE CATEGORY 2020

Land LANDUse USE

INVESTMENT Investment $5,000,001 - $20,000,000 $20,000,001 - $100,000,000 $100,000,001 - $250,000,000 $250,000,001 - $450,000,000

INVESTMENT RANGE 2020

$0 - $5,000,000

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

NEWResidential UNITS New Units 0 - 25 26 - 75 76 - 150 151 - 300 301 - 550 551 - 950

2020

New Residential Units

Number of Floors NO. OF FLOORS 3-5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 30

NUMBER OF STOREYS 2020

0-2

2020 DEVELOPMENT IN THE BRONX

BY COMMUNITY DISTRICT

INVESTMENT

INVESTMENT RANGE 2020

2009 – 2020 TOTAL INVESTMENT $4,50,00,00,000.00

$4,00,00,00,000.00

$3,50,00,00,000.00

$3,00,00,00,000.00

$2,50,00,00,000.00

$2,00,00,00,000.00

$1,50,00,00,000.00

$1,00,00,00,000.00

$50,00,00,000.00

$2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014 Investment

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2020

NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS

NEW UNITS

2009 – 2020 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS

AREA (SFT.)

SQUARE FOOTAGE 2020

2009 – 2020 SQUARE FOOTAGE DEVELOPED

2020 TOP TEN DEVELOPMENTS IN THE BRONX

RESIDENTIAL 1. 1016 Fox Street

3. 200 East 135th Street 4. 1223 Spofford Avenue 5. 1017 Olmstead Avenue 6. 202 east 135th Street 7. 227 East 134th Street 8. 2520 Jerome Avenue 9. 1323 Boston Road/Clinton Ave 10. 625 Brook Avenue

RESIDENTIAL 2020 TOP TEN

2. 1040 East 180th Street

COMMERCIAL 3651 Bruckner Blvd

2.

776 East Gun Hill Road

3.

1665 Jerome Avenue

4.

1 Bowne Street

5.

581 Austin Place

6.

1332 East Bay Avenue

7.

1330 East Bay Avenue

8.

3113 Westchester Avenue

9.

1366 East Bay Avenue

10. 307 Drake Street

COMMERCIAL 2020 TOP TEN

1.

1. 2336 Walton Avenue 2. 2040 Lafayette Avenue 3. 1479 Macombs Road 4. 1095 Southern Boulevard 5. 1701 Tomlinson Avenue 6. 808 Cauldwell Avenue

INSTITUTIONAL 2020 TOP TEN

INSTITUTIONAL

1. 101 Lincoln Avenue

3. 431 Westchester Avenue 4. 1164 River Avenue 5. 430 Westchester Avenue 6. 1020 East Tremont Avenue 7. 1016 Fox Street 8. 1040 East 180th Street 9. 200 East 135th Street 10. 1223 Spofford Avenue

2020 TOP TEN

2. 2401-2403 Third Avenue

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE BRONX

2020 TOP TEN

2020 TOP 10 BY INVESTMENT VALUES #1: ONE BANKSIDE, 101 LINCOLN AVENUE Developer: Brookfield Properties Architect: Hill West Architects Units: 920 rental apartments Floors: 25 Size: 133,000 square feet Investment: $450,000,000

2020 TOP 10 BY INVESTMENT VALUES #2: THIRD BANKSIDE, 2401 THIRD AVENUE Developer: Brookfield Properties Architect: Hill West Architects Units: 450 rental apartments Floors: 25 Size: 133,000 square feet Investment: $250,000,000

2020 TOP 10 BY INVESTMENT VALUES

Developer: HPD/HDC ELLA Architect: MHG Architects PC Units: 281 Floors: 13 Size: 384,888 square feet Investment: $180,860,000

#3: LA CENTRAL BUILDING A, 556 BERGEN

2020 TOP 10 BY INVESTMENT VALUES

Client: HPF Architect: Aufgang Architects Units: 500 dwelling units Floors: 17 Size: 449,754 square feet Investment: $150,000,000

#4: 1164 RIVER AVENUE

2020 TOP 10 BY INVESTMENT VALUES Developer: HPD/HDC ELLA Architect: MHG Architects PC Units: 215 Floors: 12 Size: 297,604 square feet Investment: $149,140,000

BUILDING B BUILDING A

#5: LA CENTRAL BUILDING B, 600 BERGEN

2020 TOP 10 BY INVESTMENT VALUES #6: SECOND FARMS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 2080 BOSTON ROAD Client: Phipps Houses Architect: Dattner Architects Units: 319 rental apartments Floors: 15 Size: 296,722 square feet Investment: $147,000,000

Source: Dattner Architects

2020 TOP 10 BY INVESTMENT VALUES Partner: HPD-SARA Architect: GF55 Architects Units: 278 Floors: 15 Size: 284,771 square feet Investment: $140,000,000

#7: 1016 Fox Street

2020 TOP 10 BY INVESTMENT VALUES #8: COMPASS 6, 1040 EAST 180TH STREET Architect: Dattner Architects Units: 271 rental apartments Floors: 16 Size: 335,184 square feet Investment: $110,000,000

2020 TOP 10 BY INVESTMENT VALUES #9: 200 EAST 135TH STREET Architect: Woods Bagot Units: 139 Floors: 24 Size: 102,165 square feet Investment: $90,000,000

2020 TOP 10 BY INVESTMENT VALUES

Architect: Claire Weisz Architects LLP Units: 224 dwelling units Floors: 16 Size: 179,200 square feet Investment: $87,109,920

#10: THE PENINSULA, 1223 SPOFFORD AVENUE