Comment on this story

It’s a young, growing population

by Barry Henderson

Last month, the Metropolitan Planning Commission published a relatively complete, if somewhat belated, assessment of the population that lived or worked in downtown Knoxville at the time of the 2000 census. Specifically, the .7 square mile that makes up the Central Business District was included in the MPC survey.

There weren’t that many surprises in the document, but broad examinations of an area’s demographic makeup always produce interesting figures.

The most eye-catching numbers were in the per capita ($13,019) and median household ($10,426) annual income levels listed. Those are many thousands of dollars less than the countywide levels, and, given the value of housing units and the rents being charged, the numbers were perplexing until it was explained that the census takers counted university students, jail inmates and the occupants of homeless shelters among the 1,300 total residents. None of the student/inmate/homeless group reported significant incomes.

Another skew to the income averages may have been tabulated as a result of undercounting. Some downtown residents have said the census takers never knocked on their doors.

More predictably, the ages of the counted residents indicated a youthful downtown. While countywide, less than 39 percent of residents were in the 20-44 age group, the downtown number was higher than 60 percent. More than 90 percent of the downtowners were in non-family arrangements, while only 36 percent of the county’s households as a whole are non-family units.

Males constituted more than 58 percent of the downtown population, 10 percent more than the county’s average, and the racial breakdown was 80 percent white, compared with the county’s 88 percent.

The central business district population as a whole dropped 12 percent from 1990 to 2000, when only 12 new housing units were added to the downtown pool, but no one is arguing the estimate that that deficit has been more than made up in the last four years, with the introduction of more than 200 new or rehabilitated units devoted to housing units downtown since the census was completed. In 1980, prior to the wave of rehabilitations, only 11 owner-occupied units were found downtown. That number had grown to 84 by 2000, and has likely doubled since then. Rental properties still dominate the downtown housing stock. They constituted 88 percent of the units in 2000, compared with only 33 percent of the housing units across the county. The majority of downtown units are occupied by renters today.

Downtown workers, 17,000 strong, were also loaded heavily into similar age groups as the residents. By age, downtown income levels were inverted when compared with those countywide, with younger workers making less, on average, and older workers making quite a bit more.

Almost exactly half of the downtown workforce was employed by private, profit-making firms, while the other half worked in non-profits, for government offices or were self-employed. The biggest employment classification was office workers in administration and support services—4,200 of them—followed by management (1,700), business and financial services (1,500), legal services (1,500) and protective services (1,000), and so on down to farmers or farm managers (10). Who were those downtown farmers, and are they still around? Write if you get farm work in the CBD, folks.

In the “something we all knew” department, 87 percent of downtown workers chose to drive to work alone each day, and only 1 percent used public transportation to get to their jobs. Only 10 percent carpooled, compared with a high of 27 percent back in the 1980s, when TVA was encouraging it and was employing many more at its headquarters, and when the 1982 World’s Fair had raised energy consciousness.

Those last few numbers may be depressing, but the total picture reveals more and better downtown living opportunities.

July 29, 2004 • Vol. 14, No. 31 © 2004 Metro Pulse