Continuing the analysis of foreclosure rates in Minneapolis from the previous article Foreclosure Rates: Wards 4, 5, and 10 from 2006 to 2015, it is important to compare and contrast the wards with the highest foreclosure numbers and the wards with the lowest foreclosure numbers in the City of Minneapolis.

As Figure 1 illustrates, the 2nd Ward’s foreclosure numbers have been relatively linear since the fourth quarter of 2006. Furthermore, it can been seen that the 2nd Ward peaked at 14 foreclosures during the third quarter of 2010. In contrast, Wards 4 and 5 in North Minneapolis accounted for 172 and 86 foreclosures, respectively in that same quarter and year. That is of course a striking difference.

Indeed, Southeast Minneapolis is a smaller part of Minneapolis in area compared to North Minneapolis. But contrasting the two parts of town directly, North Minneapolis, which accounted for 258 foreclosures while Southeast Minneapolis accounted for just 14 foreclosures in the third quarter of 2010, is paramount. Thus, North Minneapolis accounted for about 18 times the number of foreclosures than Southeast Minneapolis during that time period.

We can see this difference in Figure 2 in another way. The Figure 2 graph also shows the pattern of Minneapolis foreclosures from the fourth quarter of 2006 to the second quarter of 2015. From the graph, it is clear that Ward 2’s foreclosure participation is flat and does not play much of a part in the totality of the foreclosure market in Minneapolis. However, North Minneapolis tells a different story.

It is clear from the data that Minneapolis’ foreclosure numbers have been steadily decreasing since 2008 with one sharp market peak in 2010. But during that time of recovery and increased market competitiveness and productivity, Wards 4 and 5 in North Minneapolis accounted for a large chunk Minneapolis’ total number of foreclosures. In other words, Wards 4 and 5 have accounted for a larger proportion of the foreclosure market in Minneapolis in general since at least the fourth quarter of 2006.

To really see and understand this idea of proportionality, we must view Figure 3. What Figure 3 illustrates is what is called relative frequency in mathematics and statistics. Simply put, relative frequency expresses proportionality.

Figure 2 tells a story that the total number of foreclosures in Minneapolis have been steadily decreasing, and this is certainly a positive economic component of recovery, but Figure 3 expresses North Minneapolis’ foreclosure rates have remained fairly constant compared to the rest of the city and appear to have increased in greater proportion in the past few quarters. Sending this point home, North Minneapolis has the greatest proportion of foreclosures in the City of Minneapolis.

Although it is clear from the data that the total number of foreclosures in the 4th and 5th Wards have been decreasing over the past few years, their recovery has been relative. In other words, there is still a greater proportion and total number of foreclosures in North Minneapolis than any other part of the city; that is, Northeast Minneapolis, Southeast Minneapolis, Southwest Minneapolis, and South Minneapolis.

To delve a bit deeper into these wards and subject matter, I suggest Patterns of the 5th Ward: “Race” and Comparing Zip Codes | Median Household Income for Minneapolis. For something a bit more general and that involves cities and astronomy, see A City on Mars: A Response to Elon Musk.

As always, I invite you to post your thoughts, comments, and questions below.

Categories: Economic Systems, Urban Dynamics