Which cities downtown has the most old/historic buildings?

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by jsimms3

That is probably true of a lot of those cities, however, Dallas County as a whole was still just below 400,000 people (a lot smaller than some of the cities on that list at that time). The point wasn't about Dallas or about how small it was then, it was actually to point out how small SA was then (by pointing out that Dallas and everyone else up there besides SD were larger). Dallas and Houston were both significantly larger, and even today probably still have as many if not more prewar buildings than SA if one cares to walk each downtown and count. I know Houston razed so much (we've all seen the parking lot photo from the 70s or 80s), however, Houston itself still has a fair amount of prewar skyscrapers, some of which are actually tall (400'+).

None of the TX cities can possibly compare to LA or Seattle, and possibly not Denver/Portland either. LA has more prewar buildings in and around DT than San Antonio has buildings downtown. Seattle is also filled with old buildings, everywhere. Portland, too, and Denver did a fantastic job with preservation and has a large warehouse district still intact and lively and used. In fact, Denver had one of the highest prewar populations of the cities on this list with 133,859 people in 1900 (Dallas had 42K, Houston had 44K, SA had 53K).

In fact - 1900 populations:

Denver: 133,859
Los Angeles: 102,749
Portland: 90,426
Seattle: 80,671
San Antonio: 53,321
Houston: 44,633
Dallas: 42,639
San Diego: 17,700

In general, the western cities were considerably larger by the turn of the century than the TX cities. By 1940, they were still in general considerably larger. San Antonio has been the small guy of the pack undoubtedly since the mid 1800s. Now if we're talking Antebellum buildings, then yes, SA certainly has the most (though SD and LA also have historic missions). But if we're just talking historical in general (usually means prewar), then SA likely has one of the smallest numbers built and/or remaining.

Maybe Denver's the answer then? Did Denver destroy a lot of its old buildings are they generally still around? LA did a fair bit of that in order to build that business district in Bunker Hill.

Otherwise, it's LA.

Also, since the cutoff is at 1940, let's look at the population stats (and this is in a period when most populations were still concentrated in and around downtown).

Los Angeles: 1,504,277
Houston: 384,514
Seattle: 368,302
Denver: 322,412
Portland: 305,394
Dallas: 294,734
San Antonio: 253,854
San Diego: 203,341

I think another city that makes sense in this competition is Oakland.
Oakland: 302,163

[nslander]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Maybe Denver's the answer then? Did Denver destroy a lot of its old buildings are they generally still around? LA did a fair bit of that in order to build that business district in Bunker Hill.

I believe what was lost on Bunker Hill was mostly residential, including some spectacular Victorians.

The Lost Victorian Mansions of Downtown LA | Messy Nessy Chic

[pwright1]

[OyCrumbler]

Yea, answer's pretty much LA.