ZIP code
60646
in Chicago, IllinoisPopulation 28,780
64.48/ 100
Ranked #2,221 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 7.0%)
Ranked #85 of 1,368 Illinois ZIPs (top 6.3%)
Ranked #79 of 374 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN ZIPs (top 21%)
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.
Walkability
250 intersections/sq mi
in the top 1.3% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of street intersections per square mile — a standard street-connectivity measure; denser networks correlate with more walkable neighborhoods.
Full methodology ›Transportation noise
17.9%
in the top 3.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST93rdUS97thDefinition & source ›
The modeled share of residents exposed to average road, rail, and aviation noise at or above 55 decibels — a noticeable background presence.
Full methodology ›Expected annual disaster loss
$0
in the top 3.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS97thDefinition & source ›
FEMA’s modeled estimate, in dollars per year, of the average harm to people expected from natural hazards — an annualized average, not a forecast for any single year.
Full methodology ›Dental provider access
1.4 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST97thUS97thDefinition & source ›
The number of dental offices 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 ›Transit access
5.9 per 1,000 residents
in the top 3.7% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST94thUS96thDefinition & 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 ›Industrial-pollution burden
in the top 3.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST92ndUS96thDefinition & source ›
The EPA’s modeled screening score for industrial chemical releases, weighting the amounts released by their toxicity and how many people live nearby — a relative comparison score, not a measured exposure.
Full methodology ›Lead in tap water
8.8 ppb
in the top 4.1% nationally
Lower is healthier
US96thDefinition & source ›
The lead level at the 90th percentile of tap-water samples reported by the public water systems serving this ZIP, in parts per billion — the EPA requires action above 15 ppb.
Measured from EPA records for the public water systems that serve this ZIP. Households on private wells — roughly 30% of the US population — are not covered by this measure, and this figure says nothing about their water.
Full methodology ›Obesity
25.6%
in the bottom 6.5% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST3rdUS6thDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›Cognitive disability
9.3%
in the bottom 2.8% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST4thUS3rdDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.
Full methodology ›Park land
27.8%
in the top 5.1% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST98thUS95thDefinition & source ›
The share of this ZIP’s land area that is public parkland.
Full methodology ›The read
Overall, ZIP 60646, one of several in Chicago, Illinois lands in the top 7.0% healthiest ZIPs nationally (2,221st) and the top 6.3% of Illinois (85th).
A number of measures pull each way for this area: walkability stands in the top 1.3% nationally, and dental providers lies in the top 3.1% nationally. Transit lands in the top 3.7% nationally, and modeled obesity sits in the bottom 6.5% nationally. Modeled cognitive disability is in the bottom 2.8% nationally, and park land settles in the top 5.1% nationally. Set against that, modeled transportation noise resides in the top 3.1% nationally, expected annual loss registers in the top 3.1% nationally, and industrial-pollution burden rests in the top 3.8% nationally. Lead in tap water stands in the top 4.1% nationally.
Set beside the nearby areas, park land runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. A note on the terms: expected annual loss is FEMA's modeled estimate, in dollars, of average yearly harm to people from natural hazards. Industrial-pollution burden is the EPA's modeled screening score weighting industrial chemical releases by their toxicity and how many people live nearby. Lead in tap water is the EPA trigger, 15 parts per billion in tap samples, above which a water system must act on lead. For a healthier nearby comparison, ZIP 60712, just across the boundary, ranks better overall.
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 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN 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 89%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 91%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 68%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 87%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 95%
8%
Disability
healthier than 93%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 82%
5%
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 56%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 4%
14%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 90%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 94%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 83%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 94%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 96%
8%
Disability
healthier than 92%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 83%
5%
About typical
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 45%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 8%
14%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 71%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 83%
16%
Preventive Care
healthier than 73%
13%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 85%
11%
Mental Health
healthier than 89%
8%
Disability
healthier than 77%
7%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 60%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 25%
14%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 37%
5%
“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
3 of our published findings list 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.
Above what income predicts
The ZIP codes that outlive their incomes
Estimated life expectancy is 82.7 ± 1.3 years. A median household income of $112,525 predicts 80.5 years — 2.2 years above.
Ranked #838 of the 5,842 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above what income predicts, highest first.
Above its nearby ZIPs
The ZIP codes that outlive their neighbors
Estimated life expectancy is 82.7 ± 1.3 years. The 46 nearest ZIP codes with estimates average 80.1 years — 2.6 years above them.
Ranked #1,088 of the 3,687 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by years above the nearby-ZIP average, highest first.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 1.5 (bottom 10%); chronic-disease standing 88.9 — 87 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #17,717 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
60077
Illinoisshares a border
Score 60.10
Closest healthier
60712
Illinoisshares a border
Score 67.05
Similar health profile
60143
Illinois100% similar profile
Score 63.52
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 | 23.3% | 21.2–25.4 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 29.4% | 27.0–31.8 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 8.8% | 8.1–9.6 |
| Current asthma among adults | 9.0% | 8.1–9.9 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 5.3% | 4.8–5.9 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 5.0% | 4.4–5.6 |
| Depression among adults | 18.5% | 16.4–20.6 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 10.0% | 8.8–11.1 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 36.9% | 34.1–39.6 |
| Obesity among adults | 25.6% | 22.6–28.6 |
| Stroke among adults | 2.8% | 2.6–3.1 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 8.1% | 6.7–9.7 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 6.7% | 5.8–7.8 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 76.7% | 73.8–79.1 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 79.3% | 76.8–81.5 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 91.2% | 90.0–92.2 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 61.6% | 57.7–65.3 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 70.5% | 67.6–73.1 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 75.1% | 69.5–80.2 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 18.8% | 16.6–20.9 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 8.3% | 7.1–9.6 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 17.7% | 15.5–19.9 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 31.3% | 28.0–34.7 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 14.0% | 12.4–15.5 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 12.4% | 11.1–13.7 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 10.1% | 9.0–11.1 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 9.3% | 8.2–10.4 |
| Any disability among adults | 22.5% | 20.1–24.8 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 5.9% | 5.2–6.6 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 5.6% | 5.0–6.2 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 10.3% | 9.1–11.5 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 2.6% | 2.3–2.8 |
| Vision disability among adults | 3.5% | 3.1–3.8 |
Health-Related Social NeedsCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of social and emotional support among adults | 21.9% | 19.6–24.4 |
| Food insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 9.7% | 8.4–11.1 |
| Received food stamps in the past 12 months among adults | 7.2% | 6.0–8.4 |
| Housing insecurity in the past 12 months among adults | 8.3% | 7.3–9.4 |
| Lack of reliable transportation in the past 12 months among adults | 5.1% | 4.5–5.8 |
| Loneliness among adults | 30.1% | 27.3–33.0 |
| Utility services shut-off threat in the past 12 months among adults | 4.6% | 4.0–5.3 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | IL median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 6.8% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 9.4% (3.4–21.4%) n=1,378 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 7.7% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 6.6% (1.7–15.2%) n=1,375 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 4.8% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 6.5% (2.1–16.1%) n=1,377 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 61.1% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 21.6% (9.3–49.2%) n=1,377 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 3.3% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.2% (0.7–10.0%) n=1,375 |
| Households without a vehicle | 7.3% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.9% (0.0–11.8%) n=1,377 |
| Broadband subscription | 91.9% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 89.4% (77.4–96.0%) n=1,377 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 31.9% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 21.2% (10.7–34.7%) n=1,377 |
| Homeownership rate | 79.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 80.9% (61.0–94.1%) n=1,377 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 2.1% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 0.9% (0.0–4.1%) n=1,377 |
| Foreign-born population | 19.4% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 1.4% (0.0–17.6%) n=1,378 |
| Single-parent households | 48.7% | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 53.8% (39.6–70.3%) n=1,372 |
| Population 65+ | 20.4% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 19.4% (12.1–28.7%) n=1,378 |
| Median age | 43.5 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 42.1 yr (34.3–52.1) n=1,373 |
| Median household income | $112,525 | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $75,429 ($50,714–$114,949) n=1,334 |
| Median home value | $503,900 | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $154,250 ($86,310–$346,100) n=1,332 |
| Median gross rent | $1,274 | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $934 ($675–$1,653) n=1,170 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | IL median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy at birth | 82.7 yr ± 0.66 | 78.9 yr (74.7–82.8) n=31,308 | 78.9 yr (75.5–82.2) n=1,348 |
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 0.66 years of 82.7, 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