In addition to further comparing ON to other areas, I think it of use to contemplate how it
varies within itself by “face block” in upkeep
|FOURTH OF SIX|
By “face block” I mean the area along a street between two intersecting streets. For example, the 600 numbered residences on C Street between Sixth and Seventh streets form a “face block.”
ON has eleven face blocks, six in the 600s tier and five in the 500s tier.
Having coded 163 street visible residences by viewing one residence after another block-by-block, I had developed the data making face block calculations possible.
In Table 5, we see the percent positive upkeep for each of the 11 face blocks arrayed from lowest to highest. (As explained in the first post in this series, I am not indicating the identities of specific face blocks. This is done by reporting percentages and not numbers of residences and assigning an alphabet letter to each block in place of its letter/hundreds name.)
The average level of positive upkeep for ON overall is 76%. The spread from a low of 60%, shown on the left in the table, to 100% on the right is of some interest. It represents, that is, a significant swing of 40%.
Table 6 provides a more refined depiction of this face block variation. It reveals, indeed, some quite striking inconsistencies and anomalies from face block to face block. For example, one of the most slum-like face blocks--face block B--also has a concentration of the highest-level upkeep residences combined with a concentration of blight! Similar although less dramatic contrasts are seen in face blocks C and D.
Looking at Tables 5 and 6 overall, they suggest to me a marked degree of visible inequality in ON. Some face blocks are near slums but yet others have quite handsome appearances, overall. A couple of face blocks are almost Dickensesque in their juxtaposition of upkeep levels.