Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for posting that link. Very interesting information.
One thing that is interesting is that a place like Baltimore that is very historic in it's core(or a few outlying towns) overall metro-wide has close to the same percentages of buildings built pre-1940s as a place like Portland. As well, San Francisco and Oakland rank just below Philadelphia. And all of these overall have a higher percentage of pre-war housing stock than a very old city like New Orleans. So while some places on the East Coast have very historic cores that pre-date most urban neighborhoods in the rest of the country, the majority of housing stock is much more recent over the entire expanse of the area.
New England cities seem to have the oldest suburbs though, by far.
True, though the difference between Baltimore and Portland in age would be obvious if you looked at older years, perhaps pre 1920 or pre 1900. The census doesn't have that data anywhere I could find, though.
One other point is a lot of housing stock is replaced. For example, Boston has less people than 1940, but only 57% of its housing stock is pre-1940.
True, though the difference between Baltimore and Portland in age would be obvious if you looked at older years, perhaps pre 1920 or pre 1900. The census doesn't have that data anywhere I could find, though.
One other point is a lot of housing stock is replaced. For example, Boston has less people than 1940, but only 57% of its housing stock is pre-1940.
Yes, of course. Baltimore is obviously going to have much older buildings and feels much older in it's central neighborhoods than anywhere out west. In general from my experience, a lot of inner neighborhoods in West Coast cities were built up around 1900-1930--every place I've lived in Portland was built around 1910, and San Francisco and Oakland have a lot of residential construction from this period as well as they built and re-built following the 1906 earthquake. In Baltimore with the exception of the most historic buildings or scattered Federal-era row houses, much of the row houses were built from 1850 in to the turn-of-the-century. I'm not sure how much urban renewal and replacement of older housing stock with newer housing projects or apartments has played in comparison between these cities.
However, it's still interesting that 60% of Baltimore's housing was built post-World War II and once you get out into the suburbs it's basically the same ratio of post-war construction as any major metro on the West Coast. The suburbs basically started their huge trends in growth starting after World War II and just peaking at different times around the country in the last 60 years. Now there's a big difference between some inner ring suburbs and outer suburbs in parts of the country. And streetcar suburb-era neighborhoods in Western US cities were often inside the neighborhoods of the core city rather than being adjacent suburbs. However as you get farther out in the metros of most big cities in the US you find mostly post-World War II-era construction making up the majority of buildings.
Scroll down. Only 19% of NYC suburban housing stock is 1940 and earlier. Not a perfect of where people live, as you can older village or downtown with newer housing stock, but it's a decent gauge. Though, only Providence and Boston has much older suburbs than NYC, and that's partly because they did less annexation; the metro-wide difference is smaller.
But most western suburbs have much less old parts than eastern ones. From the chart, Denver suburbs are only 2% pre-1940.
Similar to NOLA (3%); Salt Lake City (3.1%); Memphis (2.3%); Sacramento (2.7%); San Diego (2.1%); Jacksonville (2.3%); Atlanta (2.0%); Dallas-Ft. Worth (2.5%); Riverside CA (2.5%); Houston (1.6%); Tampa (1.9%); Austin (2.0%); Miami (1.5%); Orlando (1.3%); Phoenix (0.6%); Las Vegas (0.3%). As you can see, these cities are from various parts of the country east to west, though most eastern cities are in the southern US. But that doesn't mean there is no history in these places. Isn't Atlanta a Civil War city?
More to the point, so what? 1940 was 73 years ago now. What's so special about 1940? The population of the US was ~132,000,000, less than half of what it is now.
Some history about some Denver suburbs:
Similar to NOLA (3%); Salt Lake City (3.1%); Memphis (2.3%); Sacramento (2.7%); San Diego (2.1%); Jacksonville (2.3%); Atlanta (2.0%); Dallas-Ft. Worth (2.5%); Riverside CA (2.5%); Houston (1.6%); Tampa (1.9%); Austin (2.0%); Miami (1.5%); Orlando (1.3%); Phoenix (0.6%); Las Vegas (0.3%). As you can see, these cities are from various parts of the country east to west, though most eastern cities are in the southern US. But that doesn't mean there is no history in these places. Isn't Atlanta a Civil War city?
All of the eastern ones you listed are in the south or I didn't claim there was no history, however, much of less of those areas are old, or historic. From what I've seen of the west, there may be an old part of town, but it was usually small part of town, not half or the majority of town.
Quote:
More to the point, so what? 1940 was 73 years ago now. What's so special about 1940? The population of the US was ~132,000,000, less than half of what it is now.
Some history about some Denver suburbs: [/quote
Yes, it's obviously 73 years ago and the population of the US was less than half. You have to divide between old and new at sometime. Perhaps a bit newer or older would be a better choice, but you need choose some year. And that's what the article chose, however, and older years are not available as I mentioned earlier. The usual reason for the choice is mass automobile ownership become the norm around that time. If you prefer another year you could find data for that year instead.
I never claimed there Denver suburbs, or other western suburbs had no settlement or history. But from my perspective, most of their development is rather new.
All of the eastern ones you listed are in the south or I didn't claim there was no history, however, much of less of those areas are old, or historic. From what I've seen of the west, there may be an old part of town, but it was usually small part of town, not half or the majority of town.
Some history about some Denver suburbs: [/quote
Yes, it's obviously 73 years ago and the population of the US was less than half. You have to divide between old and new at sometime. Perhaps a bit newer or older would be a better choice, but you need choose some year. And that's what the article chose, however, and older years are not available as I mentioned earlier. The usual reason for the choice is mass automobile ownership become the norm around that time. If you prefer another year you could find data for that year instead.
I never claimed there Denver suburbs, or other western suburbs had no settlement or history. But from my perspective, most of their development is rather new.
As I said.
Well, you sort of did by quoting my post about history and then answering it with, "but they're so new". Many of these burbs aren't new, for starts, and regardless of whether they have a lot of new housing, many are quite historical in their own right.
I'm not interested in doing a PhD thesis this afternoon, so I'm not going to look for another date. I will say that 1960 would give you far different data.
Well, you sort of did by quoting my post about history and then answering it with, "but they're so new". Many of these burbs aren't new, for starts, and regardless of whether they have a lot of new housing, many are quite historical in their own right.
But I definitely didn't that. No, I didn't mean that, all I meant is there's a big difference in age. There may be history there, but there's a big difference between a place where it was 1/20 the size in say, 1900 compared to one where it was 1/3. It's not exactly surprising that there's history there, unless a place is completely uninhabited, there'd be something there pre-suburbanization.
Quote:
I'm not interested in doing a PhD thesis this afternoon, so I'm not going to look for another date. I will say that 1960 would give you far different data.
I suspect it would make western suburbs look even newer. At least for some Northeast metros (Boston, NYC and likely Pittsburgh), there was far more growth in the period from 1940 to 1970 than 1970 onwards.
It's not exactly surprising that there's history there, unless a place is completely uninhabited, there'd be something there pre-suburbanization.
I suspect it would make western suburbs look even newer. At least for some Northeast metros (Boston, NYC and likely Pittsburgh), there was far more growth in the period from 1940 to 1970 than 1970 onwards.
That was my point. This is what I was objecting to:
Quote:
In the east many suburbs began as small towns and villages rather than housing developments, sometimes dating back to the17th century. They have had a lot more time to acquire culture. We don't know where "out west" you are but San Francisco and it's suburbs make a very typical example of an eastern city. In the east everything is older and more established, usually with a history behind it.
The Insidious cancer of Sprawlacide has engulfed most of the East Coast. The I-95 corridor I would opine is pretty much ruined by it. If traffic, strip malls, WAL*MARTS and beige McMansion compounds are what you desire, it is in abundance in the East
The Insidious cancer of Sprawlacide has engulfed most of the East Coast. The I-95 corridor I would opine is pretty much ruined by it. If traffic, strip malls, WAL*MARTS and beige McMansion compounds are what you desire, it is in abundance in the East
It would appear that this is what much of America has become comfortable with in recent decades.
However, there has been a trend for a number of years now towards "town center" type developments in the suburbs - which are walkable areas with mixed use retail and residential high-rise complexes.
It would appear that this is what much of America has become comfortable with in recent decades.
However, there has been a trend for a number of years now towards "town center" type developments in the suburbs - which are walkable areas with mixed use retail and residential high-rise complexes.
One can only hope!
I agree that people are finally starting to realize how inconvenient "convenience" becomes after a while.
Every time I go back to the East Coast, from Philly all the way down to SC-GA, I am amazed/frightened(?)
at the traffic and pace of life. I can't believe I did it for as long as I did
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have to divide between old and new at sometime. Perhaps a bit newer or older would be a better choice, but you need choose some year. And that's what the article chose, however, and older years are not available as I mentioned earlier. The usual reason for the choice is mass automobile ownership become the norm around that time. If you prefer another year you could find data for that year instead.
