Mitchell Field

Location of Mitchell Field in red

Figure 1: Location of Mitchell Field in red

Comparison to other neighborhoods

Most of this page compares trends within Mitchell Field across time, but this table compares it to the rest of Milwaukee’s neighborhoods. It shows the percentile rank of Mitchell Field 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 11th 18th
74th 47th
2001 9th 10th 18th
74th 47th
2002 9th 10th 19th
78th 54th
5th
2003 9th 10th 19th
75th 52nd
16th
2004 9th 10th 18th
76th 59th
51st
2005 9th 10th 18th
75th 55th
94th
2006 8th 10th 18th
78th 48th
10th
2007 8th 10th 18th
78th 41st
7th
2008 8th 10th 18th
73rd 34th
23rd
2009 7th 10th 18th
78th 47th
34th
2010 7th 10th 18th
75th 45th
79th
2011 8th 9th 18th
75th 45th
67th
2012 8th 10th 18th
78th 50th
98th
2013 8th 10th 18th
80th 54th
8th
2014 8th 10th 18th
82nd 51st
77th
2015 8th 9th 18th
80th 55th
30th
2016 8th 9th 18th
78th
26th
2017 6th 9th 18th
77th 55th
92nd
2018 6th 9th 18th
78th 52nd
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 Mitchell Field 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 $148,255 $193,692 $NA
2001 $143,768 $190,652 $NA
2002 $163,260 $213,032 $NA
2003 $167,633 $222,012 $NA
2004 $178,012 $238,943 $NA
2005 $179,157 $232,905 $NA
2006 $202,547 $248,954 $NA
2007 $193,388 $234,221 $NA
2008 $187,932 $229,130 $NA
2009 $186,179 $228,019 $NA
2010 $173,982 $213,194 $NA
2011 $168,686 $206,704 $NA
2012 $146,617 $176,112 $NA
2013 $144,291 $173,319 $NA
2014 $146,092 $166,221 $NA
2015 $146,591 $171,563 $NA
2016 $146,591 $171,563 $NA
2017 $145,670 $169,096 $NA
2018 $152,400 $175,100 $NA

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

Duplexes

Condos

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
2003 2 100% 0% 0% 0%
2004 3 100% 0% 0% 0%
2005 5 80% 0% 0% 20%
2006 2 100% 0% 0% 0%
2007 1 100% 0% 0% 0%
2008 1 100% 0% 0% 0%
2009 1 100% 0% 0% 0%
2010 1 100% 0% 0% 0%
2011 1 100% 0% 0% 0%
2012 3 67% 0% 0% 33%
2014 2 50% 50% 0% 0%
2015 1 100% 0% 0% 0%
2016 1 100% 0% 0% 0%
2017 4 75% 0% 25% 0%

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.”