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.
AND, there were people living in cold water flats then, too. One does not negate the other.
I think you missed the word majority. I don't think in the US the majority of people ever lived in cold water flats. Or even apartments for that matter.
I think you missed the word majority. I don't think in the US the majority of people ever lived in cold water flats. Or even apartments for that matter.
No, many lived on farms, often w/o electricity or running water.
So he totally ignores the fact sprawl has taken revenue from the urban core in turn decaying cities, increasing crime rates and deteriorating infrastructure?
So he totally ignores the fact sprawl has taken revenue from the urban core in turn decaying cities, increasing crime rates and deteriorating infrastructure?
Note that urban includes many in smaller cities, as well.
Hmm. 86% of Massachusetts was urban in 1900, the biggest outlier on the list. Massachusetts has a few percent less people living in urban areas in 1980-1990 than 1900 but maybe that's from definition changes. In much of the northeast most people's ancestors were living in cities and often came from Europe -> city and never lived in a rural area. At least, true of (I think) most people I went to school with.
My mother's side was an exception. While some lived briefly in the city (NYC) most lived in the then-rural Long Island. No choice to move to the burbs. The burbs came to them.
So he totally ignores the fact sprawl has taken revenue from the urban core in turn decaying cities, increasing crime rates and deteriorating infrastructure?
Uh, yeah, of course he did. As those of us who haven't buried our heads in the hand are aware, we do not live in an Adam Smith's feudal society. Remarkable how that's lost on so many.
It wasn't my intention to just respond to you. That's why I included the same quotes you did. JayCT said: "not that long ago [...] the majority of the population lived in small cold water apartments." And you added: "a lot of city dwellers lived in cold water flats, and worse." I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I think that those who lived in such places were a small minority of all those who lived in cities, especially by 1946.
About 38 percent of Americans lived in "attached" housing in 1950. A majority of residents of most Northeastern states lived in either townhomes or apartments in 1950 (these are statewide statistics, so this would include some of the smaller cities). The tipping point happened in the 1950s as only the District of Columbia showed a majority of residents living in apartments/townhomes in 1960. In 2000, NY and DC were the only two with majorities living in apartments or townhomes. In between, Nevada and Florida showed majority apartments at different points and most of the Northeastern states hovered around 50-60% in single-family homes.
About 38 percent of Americans lived in "attached" housing in 1950. A majority of residents of most Northeastern states lived in either townhomes or apartments in 1950 (these are statewide statistics, so this would include some of the smaller cities). The tipping point happened in the 1950s as only the District of Columbia showed a majority of residents living in apartments/townhomes in 1960. In 2000, NY and DC were the only two with majorities living in apartments or townhomes. In between, Nevada and Florida showed majority apartments at different points and most of the Northeastern states hovered around 50-60% in single-family homes.
Yeah, but by tipping point we're talking about is a 5% change in housing makeup. Aside from DC and NY, both of which remained majority attached, all of those Northeastern states that were majority attached were at cusp. And it was a short lived "tipping" point as the trend reversed itself. By the '70 more people lived in attached housings than they had in the '40s.
Yeah, but by tipping point we're talking about is a 5% change in housing makeup. Aside from DC and NY, both of which remained majority attached, all of those Northeastern states that were majority attached were at cusp. And it was a short lived "tipping" point as the trend reversed itself. By the '70 more people lived in attached housings than they had in the '40s.
The trend didn't reverse itself in the Northeast. Different regions were following different patterns.
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.
