Kilbourn Town

Location of Kilbourn Town in red

Figure 1: Location of Kilbourn Town in red

Comparison to other neighborhoods

Most of this page compares trends within Kilbourn Town across time, but this table compares it to the rest of Milwaukee’s neighborhoods. It shows the percentile rank of Kilbourn Town in various categories for each year during 2000 to 2018. For example, in 2000 10% of neighborhoods contained fewer total residential units.
Table 1: Annual neighborhood percentile ranks, where 100 = the largest or highest amount and 1 = smallest or lowest
Percentile Rank
year Total Units1 Total single-family homes2 Total duplexes3 Total condos4 Median property value5 Median Value/ft.6 % Owner-occupied7 Sales rate8*
2000 10th 1st
37th 99th 99th
2001 22nd 1st
49th 99th 99th 94th
2002 22nd 1st
48th 99th 99th
2003 22nd 1st
51st 98th 98th
2004 25th 1st
62nd 98th 98th 92nd 81st
2005 25th
62nd 98th 98th 92nd 97th
2006 25th
62nd 98th 98th 84th 95th
2007 41st
69th 94th 97th 38th 96th
2008 41st
71st 97th 98th 41st 98th
2009 41st
71st 97th 98th 40th 82nd
2010 41st
72nd 96th 97th 42nd 95th
2011 41st
72nd 94th 97th 29th 92nd
2012 53rd
78th 91st 97th 29th 97th
2013 56th
78th 92nd 97th 34th 100th
2014 56th
78th 92nd 97th 36th 98th
2015 57th
77th 94th 97th 37th 98th
2016 70th
72nd 94th
39th 98th
2017 78th
72nd 95th 98th 43rd 95th
2018 78th
72nd 94th 98th 41st
Note: Percentile ranks are only calculated for neighborhoods which include the characteristic being measured. For example, a neighborhood with no condos is marked missing, while the neighborhood in the 1st percentile contains at least 1 condo.
1 Includes all homes, condos, and apartments
2 Total standalone 1-unit homes
3 Total 2-unit homes
4 Total condos
5 Median entire property value as assessed by the City
6 Median of (Improvements value) / (Useable square feet of building)
7 Percent of single-family, duplexes, and condos whose location is also the owner’s mailing address
8 Single-family, duplex, and condo sales as a percent of total single-family, duplex, and condo properties
* No sales data available for 2000-2001

Residential property values, 2000 to 2018

Total property value

This “violin” graph displays the distribution of home values in Kilbourn Town since 2000. The shapes for each year are widest at the property value where the most homes are located. Larger “violins” indicate more homes, while smaller shapes indicate fewer. The thin line through the graph shows the median home value for each year.

The table below contains the median home value for each year from 2000 to 2018. Values are adjusted to 2018 dollars, and properties assessed at $0 are ommitted. This is because those properties are not literally worth nothing. The city assesses them at $0 because they are owned by an entity which does not pay property taxes; therefore they contribute nothing to the city’s tax base directly.
Table 2: Median inflation-adjusted home values
Median property value
year single-family duplex condo
2000 $22,864 $NA $316,752
2001 $22,238 $NA $315,016
2002 $33,182 $NA $367,997
2003 $38,842 $NA $374,585
2004 $39,824 $NA $340,162
2005 $NA $NA $333,743
2006 $NA $NA $342,016
2007 $NA $NA $263,578
2008 $NA $NA $298,845
2009 $NA $NA $298,026
2010 $NA $NA $261,547
2011 $NA $NA $245,614
2012 $NA $NA $189,622
2013 $NA $NA $190,640
2014 $NA $NA $191,064
2015 $NA $NA $212,207
2016 $78,259 $NA $230,283
2017 $77,131 $NA $240,243
2018 $83,700 $NA $243,300

Value per square foot

This graph is similar to the graph above, except it shows property value per square foot, rather than the total. These statistics are calculated by dividing the value of improvements made to the parcel (namely the building) by the total useable floor area of the structure in square feet.

Residential units

The next three graphs show trends in the number of housing units and their occupancy status. “Owner-occupied” means the property owner lists that location as their mailing address. Additional units at each parcel may be rented, so the “owner-occupied” number given here should be understood as an upper bound; the real number is almost certainly lower. Non-owner-occupied units may either be rented or vacant. These three graphs show total units, so (for example) every one duplex counts as 2 units.

Total, 2000 to 2018

Single family homes



Totals by type

Property sales and owner-occupancy

Single-family homes, duplexes, and condos
Table 5: The unit of analysis is the parcel. Some parcels contain multiple units.
year Total sold Remain owner-occupied Owner-occupied to other Remain other occupied Other to owner-occupied
2002 7 100% 0% 0% 0%
2003 10 100% 0% 0% 0%
2004 8 88% 0% 0% 12%
2005 19 84% 11% 0% 5%
2006 14 86% 14% 0% 0%
2007 14 79% 7% 7% 7%
2008 17 59% 0% 12% 29%
2009 7 71% 0% 14% 14%
2010 5 40% 0% 40% 20%
2011 7 29% 0% 14% 57%
2012 10 70% 0% 10% 20%
2013 24 33% 0% 21% 46%
2014 16 69% 0% 19% 12%
2015 20 60% 5% 10% 25%
2016 30 53% 7% 10% 30%
2017 17 47% 0% 12% 41%

This table compares the owner-occupancy status before and after each sale for properties coded as “Residential” or “Condominium” in the previous table. As explained above, “owner-occupancy” means the property owner lists that parcel as their mailing address. Additional units at an owner-occupied address may be vacant or rented. In this table “other occupied” simply means the property owner does not maintain their mailing address at that location. The property could be rented, or it could be vacant.

  • If a property was coded as owner-occupied in the year prior to the sale, and it is still coded that way in the first available property record after the sale date, it is classified as “Remain owner-occupied.”
  • A property coded “owner-occupied” before the sale, but not after is classified as “Owner-occupied to other”
  • A property not coded “owner-occupied” before a sale, and which maintains that status after the sale, is classified “Remain other occupied.”
  • Properties which aren’t “owner-occupied” prior to the sale but become so afterward are classified “Other to owner-occupied.”