ZIP code
14604
in Rochester, New YorkPopulation 3,251
59.05/ 100
Ranked #5,562 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 17%)
Ranked #688 of 1,730 New York ZIPs (top 40%)
Ranked #40 of 101 Rochester, NY ZIPs (top 40%)
Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.
What defines this ZIP
Metrics where this ZIP sits in the tails of the national distribution — the ones that most set it apart. Select any tile for its definition and methodology.
Transit access
20 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of public-transit stops inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Recreation access
3.8 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of places for physical recreation — gyms, sports, and fitness venues — inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Mental-health provider access
0.64 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.6% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of mental-health clinics located inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Civic-institution access
2.5 per 1,000 residents
in the top 0.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of civic and social organizations inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Walkability
310 intersections/sq mi
in the top 0.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Homeownership rate
1.4%
in the bottom 1.0% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The share of occupied homes that are owned, rather than rented, by the people living in them.
Full methodology ›Child-care access
1.3 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of child day-care services inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Elder-services access
0.64 per 1,000 residents
in the top 1.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The number of services for older adults and people with disabilities inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›Households without a vehicle
30%
in the top 2.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST90thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with no vehicle available.
Full methodology ›Subsidized affordable housing
758 units
in the top 2.4% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST96thUS98thDefinition & source ›
The number of affordable rental units in this ZIP supported by the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program.
Full methodology ›The read
ZIP 14604, one of several in Rochester, New York ranks in the top 17% healthiest ZIPs nationally (5,562nd) and the top 40% of New York (688th).
Several signals sit on each side of the ledger here: transit is in the top 0.3% nationally, and recreation registers in the top 0.3% nationally. Mental-health providers lies in the top 0.6% nationally, and civic is in the top 0.7% nationally. Walkability registers in the top 0.7% nationally, childcare lies in the top 1.2% nationally, and elder services is in the top 1.7% nationally. Subsidized affordable housing registers in the top 2.4% nationally. Working the other way, homeownership lies in the bottom 1.0% nationally, and households without a vehicle is in the top 2.4% nationally.
Against its neighbors, recreation runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For context, subsidized affordable housing is the main federal tax-credit program (HUD) funding affordable rental housing, counted as local units it supports. The closest ZIP that ranks healthier overall is ZIP 14607, just across the boundary.
What’s driving this score
Nine domains make up the ZipVitals Score — here is how this ZIP does on each, and how much each one counts. Compare it against the US, this state and the Rochester, NY metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 79%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
in the top 0.2%
16%
Mental Health
healthier than 71%
8%
Disability
healthier than 74%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 77%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 89%
5%
About typical
Preventive Care
healthier than 58%
13%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 6%
14%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 38%
11%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 63%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
in the top 0.3%
16%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 87%
5%
About typical
Disability
healthier than 47%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 45%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
in the bottom 0.8%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 20%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 27%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 29%
8%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 73%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
in the top 0.00%
16%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 86%
5%
About typical
Mental Health
healthier than 59%
8%
Disability
healthier than 43%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 41%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 2%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 31%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 33%
11%
“Share” is how much of this ZIP’s score the domain accounts for. Percentages are rounded; higher is healthier in every domain. How the score works, and who it compares you with ›
Findings that name this ZIP
One of our published findings lists this ZIP code. Each finding compares one published measure against a stated benchmark, and names only the ZIP codes whose estimates are reliable enough to rank. See all surprising findings.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 6.6 (bottom 10%); chronic-disease standing 78.8 — 72 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #16,587 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
14605
New Yorkshares a border
Score 27.90
Closest healthier
14607
New Yorkshares a border
Score 62.21
Similar health profile
54476
Wisconsin93% similar profile
Score 55.84
How these were chosen: only ZIPs with a published Score appear — a nearby ZIP with too little data to score won’t. Nearby means closest by distance between ZIP boundaries, which can cross state lines. A similar health profile is a close match across the nine Score domains, not similar demographics. Distances are measured between ZIP boundaries — ZIPs that touch share a border. How distance is measured
Evidence
Every measure this page draws on, by source. Collapsed by default — the full data stays in the page for search engines either way.
Health OutcomesCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Arthritis among adults | 22.7% | 20.5–25.0 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 32.3% | 29.4–35.2 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 6.0% | 5.4–6.6 |
| Current asthma among adults | 10.7% | 9.5–12.0 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.6% | 5.0–6.2 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.7% | 4.9–6.5 |
| Depression among adults | 21.2% | 18.5–24.1 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 12.1% | 10.6–13.7 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 31.1% | 27.9–34.3 |
| Obesity among adults | 33.6% | 29.0–38.3 |
| Stroke among adults | 3.2% | 2.9–3.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 18.5% | 15.6–21.6 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 6.6% | 5.4–7.9 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 74.2% | 71.7–76.6 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 77.6% | 74.5–80.5 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 86.5% | 84.7–88.3 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 67.8% | 63.7–71.6 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 61.3% | 58.3–64.2 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 79.0% | 73.5–83.9 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 18.3% | 15.6–21.2 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 11.9% | 9.9–14.1 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 26.1% | 22.6–30.0 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 38.5% | 34.5–42.6 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 17.8% | 15.5–20.4 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 15.8% | 13.9–17.8 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 12.6% | 11.1–14.3 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 12.6% | 11.0–14.4 |
| Any disability among adults | 26.7% | 23.4–30.3 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 4.6% | 4.1–5.2 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 7.7% | 6.7–8.8 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 12.2% | 10.5–14.0 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 4.1% | 3.6–4.6 |
| Vision disability among adults | 5.4% | 4.8–6.0 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 24.1% | 20.8–27.4 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 17.5% | 14.8–20.6 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 17.3% | 14.7–20.3 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 15.1% | 12.9–17.6 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 9.9% | 8.7–11.4 |
| Loneliness among adults | 33.3% | 29.2–37.5 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 10.3% | 8.9–11.8 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NY median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 33.9% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 9.5% (2.5–22.6%) n=1,734 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 6.4% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 5.0% (0.0–13.1%) n=1,734 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 7.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 7.1% (1.2–17.5%) n=1,743 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 54.3% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 31.8% (13.9–62.1%) n=1,743 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 2.1% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.4% (0.0–9.7%) n=1,730 |
| Households without a vehicle | 30.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 5.7% (0.0–28.9%) n=1,730 |
| Broadband subscription | 66.6% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 91.5% (81.1–98.3%) n=1,730 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 39.2% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 27.2% (14.2–45.5%) n=1,730 |
| Homeownership rate | 1.4% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 80.2% (40.9–94.8%) n=1,730 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 1.3% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 1.0% (0.0–6.6%) n=1,730 |
| Foreign-born population | 14.7% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 4.8% (0.0–28.7%) n=1,746 |
| Single-parent households | 60.4% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 54.0% (36.7–74.5%) n=1,716 |
| Population 65+ | 12.7% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 20.0% (12.0–33.2%) n=1,746 |
| Median age | 30.3 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 43.5 yr (34.6–56.1) n=1,733 |
| Median household income | $52,105 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $81,837 ($55,470–$145,610) n=1,626 |
| Median home value | $784,700 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $247,700 ($121,180–$801,380) n=1,629 |
| Median gross rent | $1,212 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,162 ($782–$2,359) n=1,367 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | NY median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 75.6 yr ± 2.30 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 80.9 yr (78.0–84.5) n=1,692 |
About the ± — it’s this estimate’s give-or-take (statisticians call it the standard error). The true life expectancy for this ZIP most likely falls within 2.30 years of 75.6, and it’s very unlikely to be off by more than twice that.
More ZIPs to explore ▾More ZIPs to explore ▴
How these lists were built: they draw only from ZIPs that have a published Score, so ZIPs with too little data to score are not listed. Distance-based lists use distance between ZIP boundaries with no state filter, so an out-of-state ZIP can appear. Statistically similar means a close match across the nine Score domains, not a demographic match: the measure is the cosine similarity between two ZIPs’ domain scores, taken over the domains both ZIPs have data for and only where that overlap covers at least six of the nine — and where no ZIP clears that minimum-overlap floor, that list is left out rather than filled with a weak match. How distance is measured