118
rehabilitation are quite similar for both indices
(value ratio index  =  34% and housing quality
index  =  32%). Four age groups presented less
than five units.
Of the types of housing units present in the
area, multifamily units were the fewest, only
61 units for the value ratio index and 50 for the
housing quality index. This number represents
only 17% of all units assessed by the indices.
As a summary, in some instances, the composite indicators detected the same proportion of
units considered inadequate. This was the case
Table 9.3 Age group and quality: owner-occupied units
Age building groups
Value ratio index
Housing quality index
Needs rehab Percent Adequate Percent Needs rehab Percent Adequate Percent
17
0
0
2
100
0
0
2
100
18
0
0
3
100
0
0
3
100
19
0
0
1
100
0
0
1
100
20
0
0
14
100
1
7
13
93
21
11
46
13
54
4
17
20
83
22
5
56
4
44
3
33
6
67
23
8
67
4
33
4
33
8
67
24
1
20
4
80
1
20
4
80
Total
25
36
45
64
13
19
57
81
Table 9.4 Age group and quality: rental units
Age building groups
Value ratio index
Housing quality index
Needs rehab Percent Adequate Percent Needs rehab Percent Adequate Percent
15
1
33
2
67
0
0
1
100
17
0
0
3
100
0
0
3
100
18
0
0
8
100
2
25
6
75
19
0
0
9
100
1
11
8
89
20
4
21
15
79
5
26
14
74
21
14
16
71
83
34
40
50
59
22
17
47
19
53
14
41
20
59
23
18
45
22
55
13
33
26
67
24
12
48
13
52
4
16
21
84
25
1
33
2
67
0
0
3
100
Total
67
29
164
71
73
32
152
68
Table 9.5 Age group and quality: single-family residential units
Age building groups
Value ratio index
Housing quality index
Needs rehab Percent Adequate Percent Needs rehab Percent Adequate Percent
17
0
0
4
100
0
0
4
100
18
0
0
7
100
1
14
6
86
19
0
0
5
100
1
20
4
80
20
1
4
21
95
2
9
20
91
21
15
25
46
75
19
32
41
68
22
10
53
9
47
10
53
9
47
23
9
56
7
44
3
20
12
80
24
5
38
8
61
3
23
10
77
25
0
0
2
100
0
0
2
100
Total
40
26
109
73
39
26
108
74
L. Estevez