Why do American cities look so alike? (map, concrete, electric)
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.
I saw what I saw in western Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. The big difference in the Netherlands was the canals. No, they weren't carbon copies of each other, but all were built on the same principals (principles?), brick it up!
Those three countries are all Germanic. Go to a Balkan country like Bulgaria or Albania and say the style is the same............
After going through 1940 and current census housing numbers, I estimated what % of 1940 housing units remain today by state and county. I've been looking for a post that it connects to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
No, because the worst of the housing was torn down. Several posters have focused on the pre-war era as somehow the "golden ages". It wasn't. These "ticky-tack" houses of the 50s, and I've lived in one, were a big step up for some of their owners, many of whom were from families who had not been homeowners before.
The amount of housing from before 1940 that remain today varies a lot by state. The south is much lower than the rest of the country, perhaps because it was poorer. New England is on the high side, with Massachusetts and Rhode Island the highest in the country. I was shocked at the south numbers; did they light their homes on fire?!
79% of old homes [pre-1940] in Massachusetts remain today
55% for California
34% for Missouri
24% for Tennessee
11% for Mississippi
this includes rural areas of course. Boston (Suffolk County, MA) was lower than the state average (71%). But some of the old homes torn down could be from redevelopment that has little to do with them being the worst homes. The Bay Area in California preserved more of its older homes than Southern California, which isn't too surprising. San Francisco was 82%; could be among the highest in the country for a city.
In any case, for Massachusetts it might be safe to say overall, the old homes of 100 years ago are largely intact. Regardless of whether conditions were good in the 20s, the old homes are functional today and the neighborhoods offer a more pedestrian-friendly layout.
The amount of housing from before 1940 that remain today varies a lot by state. The south is much lower than the rest of the country, perhaps because it was poorer. New England is on the high side, with Massachusetts and Rhode Island the highest in the country. I was shocked at the south numbers; did they light their homes on fire?!
Have you seen the remaining old shacks in the south? Most of the ones which are gone probably had dirt floors and lacked both indoor plumbing and electricity.
Have you seen the remaining old shacks in the south? Most of the ones which are gone probably had dirt floors and lacked both indoor plumbing and electricity.
No, haven't been in the south since I was 6. You have any links to images of existing ones? My guess is many of the old shacks that are gone were replaced with mobile homes
After going through 1940 and current census housing numbers, I estimated what % of 1940 housing units remain today by state and county. I've been looking for a post that it connects to.
The amount of housing from before 1940 that remain today varies a lot by state. The south is much lower than the rest of the country, perhaps because it was poorer. New England is on the high side, with Massachusetts and Rhode Island the highest in the country. I was shocked at the south numbers; did they light their homes on fire?!
79% of old homes [pre-1940] in Massachusetts remain today
55% for California
34% for Missouri
24% for Tennessee
11% for Mississippi
this includes rural areas of course. Boston (Suffolk County, MA) was lower than the state average (71%). But some of the old homes torn down could be from redevelopment that has little to do with them being the worst homes. The Bay Area in California preserved more of its older homes than Southern California, which isn't too surprising. San Francisco was 82%; could be among the highest in the country for a city.
In any case, for Massachusetts it might be safe to say overall, the old homes of 100 years ago are largely intact. Regardless of whether conditions were good in the 20s, the old homes are functional today and the neighborhoods offer a more pedestrian-friendly layout.
Yes, you've pointed that out before. I wish you'd done Colorado, I can't seem to come up with anything. But I did find this interesting article (undated) that shows why there is more post 1940s housing in the Denver area. https://extras.denverpost.com/snapshot/part2a.htm "In the decade between 1940 and 1950, Denver's population grew almost 29 percent from 322,412 to 415,786 residents, according to Denver historian Tom Noel. Growth in the suburbs was even more phenomenal - Adams County's population increased nearly 79 percent; Arapahoe County, 62 percent; Boulder County, 29 percent; and Jefferson County, 83 percent. . . . Impressive as the growth of the 1940s was, it pales in comparison with the population gains of the 1950s. Adams County, for example, jumped from 40,000 to 120,000 population during the decade - a 300 percent gain. Arapahoe County's population increased 117 percent; Boulder County, 54 percent; and Jefferson County, 128 percent."
Here's something else interesting: https://www.census.gov/population/ww...14_Housing.pdf
I can't copy from there, I'm going to have to transcribe, so you better appreciate it! (That is a joke!) "In 1900 there were 8.2 million renter-occupied housing units and 7.2 million owner-occupied housing units. by 1950, the number of owner-occupied units had tripled to 23.6 million while the number of renter-occupied housing units had more than doubled to 19.3 million. from 1950 to 2000 the increase in owner-occupied units fare outpaced the growth of renter-occupied units."
Yes, you've pointed that out before. I wish you'd done Colorado, I can't seem to come up with anything. But I did find this interesting article (undated) that shows why there is more post 1940s housing in the Denver area.
I have pointed out? I never went through the stats before; I didn't expect much of the country to have housing loss rates so high outside of certain declining inner city areas. I'm not sure if anyone has posted that exact stats, though I'd like to think I was original.
I can post Colorado numbers tomorrow, I think I glanced at it but didn't write it down at the time. I'm guessing it's close to California in the 50-60% range. Hmm... I should check Allehany County, too.
Yes, I know Colorado has grown much faster than the Northeast. But a place could grow fast and keep nearly all its old housing stock. Or not.
Missouri and Massachusetts has had nearly the same population growth rate since 1940. But Massachusetts kept most of its old homes, and Missouri didn't. Some of Missouri's losses are from large-scale decay in a lot of St. Louis, the rest from rural abandonment?
I have pointed out? I never went through the stats before; I didn't expect much of the country to have housing loss rates so high outside of certain declining inner city areas. I'm not sure if anyone has posted that exact stats, though I'd like to think I was original.
I can post Colorado numbers tomorrow, I think I glanced at it but didn't write it down at the time. I'm guessing it's close to California in the 50-60% range. Hmm... I should check Allehany County, too.
Yes, I know Colorado has grown much faster than the Northeast. But a place could grow fast and keep nearly all its old housing stock. Or not.
Missouri and Massachusetts has had nearly the same population growth rate since 1940. But Massachusetts kept most of its old homes, and Missouri didn't. Some of Missouri's losses are from large-scale decay in a lot of St. Louis, the rest from rural abandonment?
Yes, I believe you (or someone) has posted such stats before. They are interesting.
I don't know what proportion of Colorado's old stock is still around. In Denver, quite a bit. There just wasn't that much "old stock" to begin with, was my point.
I have no idea what happened in MO, but yes, people have been leaving "the farm" for a long time.
As people changed from renters to owners, they may have abandoned apartment buildings.
Last edited by nei; 02-26-2017 at 02:16 PM..
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.
