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.
If suburb = anywhere not in the city limits, which is what I think they're using, Boston will rank high for old suburban housing stock, as much of its pre-1940 neighborhoods (such as Cambridge, Somerville, Everett and Brookline) were never annexed into Boston proper. Philadelphia has less of that, since its city limits are much larger, there's no equivalent of Northeast Philadelphia in Boston and the equivalents of University City and maybe Northwest Philadelphia wouldn't be in Boston. But overall, the Boston metro still has older housing stock than Philadelphia. Perhaps because Philadelphia has more inner city decay it needed more new housing to make up for it.
Very true so then if Boston's city limits were like Philadelphia's and vice versa, they'd be very similar. Philadelphia would rise % and Boston would dip.
Very true so then if Boston's city limits were like Philadelphia's and vice versa, they'd be very similar. Philadelphia would rise % and Boston would dip.
Boston's would not change much. 54.7% of Boston's housing stock was built before 1940. If you add the rest of Suffolk County, Brookline and Cambridge (135.2 sq. miles total), that figure plummets to a lowly 53.6%.
The Boston area simply feels older than the Philadelphia area.
Boston's would not change much. 54.7% of Boston's housing stock was built before 1940. If you add the rest of Suffolk County, Brookline and Cambridge (135.2 sq. miles total), that figure plummets to a lowly 53.6%.
The Boston area simply feels older than the Philadelphia area.
Is there somewhere to look up the average Massachusetts housing age by municipality? I'd be interested to see it. I'm guessing it will have somewhat of a "reverse donut" look, with a very old core, newer ring of outer suburbs/exurbs, and then older "rural" hinterlands.
Boston's would not change much. 54.7% of Boston's housing stock was built before 1940. If you add the rest of Suffolk County, Brookline and Cambridge (135.2 sq. miles total), that figure plummets to a lowly 53.6%.
Interesting I wouldn't have guessed that there would be that much of a Philadelphia - Boston difference. Philadelphia is 39.9%, so that's a 13.7% difference. My guess is the difference is from
1) Philadelphia lost some of its old housing stock to decay, while Boston had very little abandonment though it did lose a bit to urban renewal and highway construction.
2) There's no mainly postwar neighborhood in the inner Boston area you defined while Philadelphia has Northeast Philadelphia
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
Is there somewhere to look up the average Massachusetts housing age by municipality? I'd be interested to see it. I'm guessing it will have somewhat of a "reverse donut" look, with a very old core, newer ring of outer suburbs/exurbs, and then older "rural" hinterlands.
To check, citydata.com's map can show % of housing pre 1939 by census tract. Or by municipality, go to census quickfacts, choose a state, then a municipality from the pop-up menu, click browse more data sets, then housing characteristics from under the American Community Survey
San Francisco County is 48.6% pre-1940, though you appear to be skipping central cities. San Francisco has grown by 26.9% since 1940, so the extra must be from accommodating smaller household sizes or tearing down old housing for new.
Interesting I wouldn't have guessed that there would be that much of a Philadelphia - Boston difference. Philadelphia is 39.9%, so that's a 13.7% difference. My guess is the difference is from
1) Philadelphia lost some of its old housing stock to decay, while Boston had very little abandonment though it did lose a bit to urban renewal and highway construction.
2) There's no mainly postwar neighborhood in the inner Boston area you defined while Philadelphia has Northeast Philadelphia
That's the biggest difference, imo. The Far Northeast was basically nothing until the middle of the 20th Century.
One might assume that housing age would roughly track population growth. But New England still comes out as older than just population growth would suggest. For example, Missouri and Massachusetts have had a roughly similar population since 1860. In 1940, Missouri had 3.78 million people or 63% of its current population. Massachusetts had 4.31 million people or 66% of its current population. But Massachusetts has much older housing: 33.6% of its housing is pre-1940, while only 13.8% of Missouri is pre-1940. One difference is that Massachusetts was much less rural than Missouri in 1940. In 1940, 11.6% of Massachusetts population was rural, while 48.2% of Missouri was rural. Today, Missouri is down to 29.6% while Massachusetts doesn't have much lower to go, it's now 8.0%. To accommodate the rural to urban transition, Missouri had to build more housing. The census definition counts small towns and suburbs as "urban". Since Massachusetts is so small, many of these small towns became part of the Boston metro as it expanded. So they became part of the suburban housing stock rather so less new suburban development was required. New Englanders tend to like old homes, so these old house usually got renovated rather than demolished. Another difference was that the two largest cities, St. Louis and Kansas City saw severe inner city decline. Newer housing in the suburbs were built to replace the city housing lost. A third factor mentioned a briefly earlier is regional differences in development and wealth meant that more old housing in Missouri was considered substandard while in Massachusetts it was considered "good enough". The South was a lot poorer than New England, Missouri probably in between.
The rural-urban difference probably explains part of why Rhode Island has much older housing stock than Delaware: Rhode Island was 8.4% rural in 1940 while Delaware was 47.7% rural in 1940. Today, Delaware is 16.7% rural, Rhode Island 9.3%. And again, Wilmington probably has had more decay than Providence.
The rural-urban difference probably explains part of why Rhode Island has much older housing stock than Delaware: Rhode Island was 8.4% rural in 1940 while Delaware was 47.7% rural in 1940. Today, Delaware is 16.7% rural, Rhode Island 9.3%. And again, Wilmington probably has had more decay than Providence.
In 1940, there were only a handful of counties (in which a core city wasn't located) that had a population density greater than 200 ppsm. New Castle didn't even have a density of 500 ppsm then. Of the 1,079,997 people who lived in urbanized Maryland, 859,100 of them, or 79.5%, lived in Baltimore City. Baltimore County and Allegany County in Western Maryland were the only counties in the state with a density greater than 200 ppsm. The only states with a density greater than 200 ppsm were Pennsylvania (218 ppsm), New Jersey (549 ppsm), New York (277 ppsm), Connecticut (343 ppsm), Rhode Island (653 ppsm), and Massachusetts (533 ppsm).
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.
