Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
2,500,000 members. Thank you!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-01-2017, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,076,355 times
Reputation: 35920

Advertisements

^^https://www.google.com/search?q=cham...w=1920&bih=916
Pop. 81,055

https://www.google.com/search?q=love...w=1920&bih=916
Pop. 71,334

https://www.google.com/search?q=chey...w=1920&bih=916
Pop. 59,466

They all look alike, yes!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-01-2017, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
14,360 posts, read 16,841,329 times
Reputation: 12385
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Mid-sized cities are often not particularly distinctive. There's some variation in the older coastal cities (rowhomes as inner city housing stock in eastern PA, triple-deckers in New England)
I tend to feel there were basically three different eras in terms of residential housing. The first phase - up through at least the 19th century in most areas - was when cities tended to have their own local - or at least regional - vernaculars.

Then beginning in the streetcar suburb phase there was the rise of the first nationally popular housing styles (like bungalows and American foursquares), along with the advent of kit housing. Although there was still localization (brick versus frame, differences in setback, whether multi-family would be mixed in, and how much of it) lots of neighborhoods of this vintage could be placed in many different corners of the country.

The final shift was the rise of homebuilders which have national scope, which happened organically from the 1960s to the 1980s as the industry consolidated. This was the point where the last vestiges of local vernacular styles tended to become entirely erased. The only major vernacular variation remaining is the faux-Spanish style which is more popular in California, South Florida, and parts of the Southwest. And of course lot size still varies considerably depending upon what part of the country you are in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2017, 08:23 PM
 
2,639 posts, read 1,975,701 times
Reputation: 1988
How much of its history has a city preserved? Character tends to accumulate over time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2017, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,076,355 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
I tend to feel there were basically three different eras in terms of residential housing. The first phase - up through at least the 19th century in most areas - was when cities tended to have their own local - or at least regional - vernaculars.

Then beginning in the streetcar suburb phase there was the rise of the first nationally popular housing styles (like bungalows and American foursquares), along with the advent of kit housing. Although there was still localization (brick versus frame, differences in setback, whether multi-family would be mixed in, and how much of it) lots of neighborhoods of this vintage could be placed in many different corners of the country.

The final shift was the rise of homebuilders which have national scope, which happened organically from the 1960s to the 1980s as the industry consolidated. This was the point where the last vestiges of local vernacular styles tended to become entirely erased. The only major vernacular variation remaining is the faux-Spanish style which is more popular in California, South Florida, and parts of the Southwest. And of course lot size still varies considerably depending upon what part of the country you are in.
I'm not so sure about all that. Bungalows are way more popular in certain cities. Chicago, for example where: "(w)ith more than 80,000 bungalows, the housing style represents nearly one-third of Chicago’s single-family housing stock." This article about bungalows discusses Chicago-style, Michigan (Detroit)-style and Milwaukee-style. I do not recall any bungalows in Champaign. There are lots in Denver.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungalow

We lived in Albany, NY in the very late 80s (88-89) and the style of housing was either Colonial or Cape Cod, with a few "split levels", ranches, and "raised ranches" mixed in. In the midwest through Colorado at least, splits are called "tri-levels" and raised ranches are called "bi-levels". These styles were very popular here in CO in houses built in the 70s and early 80s. By the later 80s, "contemporary" style homes were very popular here (metro Denver).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2017, 05:23 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,011 posts, read 53,104,517 times
Reputation: 15173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
I'm not so sure about all that. Bungalows are way more popular in certain cities. Chicago, for example where: "(w)ith more than 80,000 bungalows, the housing style represents nearly one-third of Chicago’s single-family housing stock." This article about bungalows discusses Chicago-style, Michigan (Detroit)-style and Milwaukee-style. I do not recall any bungalows in Champaign. There are lots in Denver.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bungalow
Bungalows are nearly absent in New England, and I think New York too. Chicago is only about 1/4 single-family detached homes, though yea they take up a lot of area.

I think eschaton's overall point is true; that housing styles were more localized before 1910/20 while styles like the bungalow and four-square less localized than prior.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2017, 05:51 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,076,355 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Bungalows are nearly absent in New England, and I think New York too. Chicago is only about 1/4 single-family detached homes, though yea they take up a lot of area.

I think eschaton's overall point is true; that housing styles were more localized before 1910/20 while styles like the bungalow and four-square less localized than prior.
The point of that article was that bungalows are about 1/3 of the single family houses in Chicago, not 1/3 of the entire housing stock. I'll add that bungalows are not common in eschaton's city, Pittsburgh, either.

When all is said and done, there are only a few house styles, period. Really, the "colonial" of Albany is a pretty good plan-living room, dining room, kitchen, family room on the first floor; bedrooms on the second. Single story houses have the bedrooms on one side either front to back (bungalows) or on one side of the house. Everything else is a variation on these themes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2017, 06:17 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,011 posts, read 53,104,517 times
Reputation: 15173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
The point of that article was that bungalows are about 1/3 of the single family houses in Chicago, not 1/3 of the entire housing stock.
Yes, I meant as a fraction of total housing stock they're less than it sounds.

Quote:
When all is said and done, there are only a few house styles, period. Really, the "colonial" of Albany is a pretty good plan-living room, dining room, kitchen, family room on the first floor; bedrooms on the second. Single story houses have the bedrooms on one side either front to back (bungalows) or on one side of the house. Everything else is a variation on these themes.
meh. I suppose it depends on how you want to subdivide on smaller details. Whatever these are you don't see homes of this style today

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3276...7i13312!8i6656

also the dimensions: close to the street, narrow in the front, deep to the back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 10:49 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,011 posts, read 53,104,517 times
Reputation: 15173
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
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.
here's some maps on the topic. % of homes around in 1940 that still exist by county. Created by dividing # of pre-1940 existing today (ACS 2015 5-year) / # housing units in 1940 (a certain paywalled site)



strong regional patterns. zooming into Northeast & Midwest

Spoiler


Some numbers for urban counties / independent cities:

Suffolk County, MA [Boston]: 72%
Providence County, RI: 67%
Manhattan: 61%
Brooklyn: 68%
Bronx: 52%
Queens: 65%*

*Queens had less urban renewal / decay than other boroughs, but it grew by a lot so a lot was lost demolishing single-family homes with denser housing

Philadelphia: 50%
Baltimore City: 58%
Washington DC; 59%

Expected Baltimore to be much lower than Philadelphia and DC

Cuyahoga County, Ohio [Cleveland + suburbs]: 54%
Wayne County, Michigan [Detroit]: 31%
St. Louis City, Missouri: 39%

given Wayne County includes suburbs not just the city, Detroit is exceptionally low. St. Louis City has had about 60% population loss but still higher than Wayne County.

Compare it to housing unit growth. Some counties in Iowa barely have more housing units now then in 1940. But they torn down much of their old homes (about only 35% of old homes remains). In contrast, some New England counties have 2-3 times as many housing units now as in 1940. But they kept about 80% of their old homes. The % of homes today that are pre-1940 might be similar in both places, but very different causes.



zoom in to the Northeast and Midwest

Spoiler
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-03-2017, 06:11 PM
 
Location: Baltimore
684 posts, read 996,671 times
Reputation: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Expected Baltimore to be much lower than Philadelphia and DC
Not that surprising. More than 65,000 properties or 1 in 3 Baltimore buildings is on the National Register of Historic Places, more than any other U.S. city.

Baltimore has a distinguished record on preservation and is home to some of the earliest National Register historic districts in the nation, including Fells Point (1969), Federal Hill (1970) and Mount Vernon Place (1971). These historic neighborhoods were saved from highway construction/demolition by being designated a National Historic District.

Last edited by Northernest Southernest C; 03-03-2017 at 06:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2017, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
14,360 posts, read 16,841,329 times
Reputation: 12385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
I'll add that bungalows are not common in eschaton's city, Pittsburgh, either.
Foursquares are a more common interwar housing typology, but there are plenty of bungalows here. Sears apparently had a kit house (which was this design) called the Pittsburgher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top