TOP 30 LARGEST CITIES



New York City – 42.57

Los Angeles – 20.34

Chicago – 45.42

Houston – 5.20

Philadelphia – 40.92

Phoenix – 1.67

San Antonio – 6.38

San Diego – 7.39

Dallas – 6.00

San Jose – 5.98

Detroit – 35.08

Indianapolis – 18.26

Jacksonville – 5.09

San Francisco – 54.35

Columbus, OH – 13.36

Austin – 2.47

Memphis – 8.81

Baltimore – 37.30

Fort Worth – 8.40

Charlotte – 3.54

El Paso – 5.27

Milwaukee – 41.26

Seattle – 31.45

Boston – 58.90

Denver – 22.85

Louisville – n/a

D.C. – 37.99

Nashville – 7.05

Las Vegas – 0.52

Portland, OR – 33.86



SELECT CITIES



New Orleans (2004) – 24.87

Kansas City, MO – 24.71

St. Louis – 61.76

Pittsburgh – 57.71

Cleveland – 57.59



-------------

Some warnings:

1) These are from the 2006 American Community Survey, not the decennial census.

2) The ACS is not highly accurate.

3) These numbers refer only to housing, not other types of buildings.

4) Some cities have experienced rapid growth as of late that sort of skews the numbers, even when they do have a large number of older houses. However, these are percentages, so it's only fair. I will try and do another list with post-2000 constructed housing pcts.



Interesting still that St. Louis has the highest percentage of any city on that list despite all of its high profile losses.



EDIT: I guess the thread title is misleading given that I did not put them in rank order. Ah well. You get the picture.

That new orleans number seems real low. I realize that everything in Gentilly and NO East is post war, and broadmoor, and pretty much all of lakeview, but 25%? What's throwing that off?

And if anyone with good working knowledge of St Louis architecture AND rudimentary statistics could reply, this survey makes me wonder the average age of St. louis housing. And also the mode statistic. It's mode, right?...the number that occurs most often in a sample? I 'm pretty sure it's mode.

^Yeah, mode is the value that occurs most frequently in a sample.

Here are the 2004 numbers for New Orleans. I was thrown off by them as well. They don't seem like they are even close. Even Broadmoor is almost all pre-1940.



YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT

Estimate

Lower Bound

Upper Bound



2000 or later

3,603

1,705

5,501



1995 to 1999

5,801

2,750

8,852



1990 to 1994

4,389

2,179

6,599



1980 to 1989

16,281

12,451

20,111



1970 to 1979

24,490

20,412

28,568



1960 to 1969

27,249

22,028

32,470



1950 to 1959

35,350

29,572

41,128



1940 to 1949

42,690

36,934

48,446



1939 or earlier

52,928

47,010

58,846

I would say the portion of NOLA that is most inhabited now is mostly pre-1940 housing. French Quarter, Garden District, Uptown, Marigny and across the river in Algiers Point. All those neighborhoods didn't flood (well some parts of Uptown) and most housing stock there is at least a century old. It seems to me that most of the flooded areas contained homes less than 100yrs. old.

Are your numbers taking into account the Quitno effect?

^ Did you mean the McKee effect?

I was asking if he was getting his percentage of housing by using only "The City of STL" and comparing it to full on metro areas. That would explain our unusually high numbers. A lot of the listed cities have their newer suburban sprawly areas included within their boundaries, thus dropping thier pre-40's housing stock percentage.

Nope. No metros. These are all cities, but there is a Quitno effect, of course. The only difference between crime and older housing is that crime is, theoretically, an infinite variable that could occur anywhere any number of times. Therefore, one extreme pocket of crime could pollute a whole municipality's crime stats. Housing age is set in stone and, depending on density, is not "concentrated" in one area. Median age is a better portrait of general housing age, but I found this interesting.

I like Las Vegas one half of one percent pre 1940 housing stock. Must be one of those old Airstream trailers

As someone that works with large databases of St. Louis neighborhoods on a regular basis, I would put the mode for STL city somewhere between 1890 and 1920. My impression, not scientific (and probably pretty much "duh").

Median guesses?



1935? 1940?

I'm going for 1895-1905 for the median.

I found it.



CLICK



The answer is 1941.

Maybe if someone could go ahead and throw out what they think the oldest house is in the city. I always thought it was that outbuilding on Mackay, "supposedly" from the 1790's, with later improvements.

True, there is a Quitno effect. Since it is quickly used against us, we should quickly use it in our favor whenever possible.

Isn't that data for St. Louis County? The map shows the city, but the text is talking about St. Louis County. Considering that the last time the city limits were extended was in 1876, it doesn't make sense (to me) that it would have a median home age of 1941. I also consider that median age to be questionable because of StL's development history. The city was really booming around the turn of the century and the first decades of the 20th century. While it is true that population peaked in the 1950's, the vast majority of people in the city were not living in new houses at that time. Once again, I would expect to see the largest number of extant houses in the city dating from 1880-1930, with the next major boom in house construction occurring in the county, in the post World War II period. The county trend actually began in the 1920's "prosperity decade;" It slowed during the depression, and took off again as troops came home and affordable tract housing/suburban automobile culture really took off. The population of the city increased by 471,444 people between 1880 and 1930: It decreased for the first time in 120 years between 1930 and 1940 (StL. Rapid Transit Study, Board of Public Service 1925: US Census St. Louis 1880, 1930, 1940). Also, U-city, Maplewood, Clayton, Webster, Kirkwood all really took off between 1920 and 1940 (U City was the state's 6th largest city in 1930 [Primm, Lion of the Valley pg 445]). Needless to say, these towns are in the county, and their primary housing stock should still predate 1941. Also, the 1947 comprehensive city plan (pg 27) records 80,000 occupied dwellings that predate 1900. If we conservatively estimate 3 people per dwelling, that is 246,000 people (somewhere in the neighborhood of 30% of the city's population at the time). Anyway, I could go on, but I find the 1941 median for StL to be highly dubious (even though, as I said, I am pretty sure those stats are for the county).

It's kind of wacky that LA and NOLA are within percentage points of other considering the general perception each city.

Urban Elitist wrote:

I was asking if he was getting his percentage of housing by using only "The City of STL" and comparing it to full on metro areas. That would explain our unusually high numbers. A lot of the listed cities have their newer suburban sprawly areas included within their boundaries, thus dropping thier pre-40's housing stock percentage.

No I think the numbers are correct, its just alot of other cities have done a lot of construction in the central cities after 1940 unlike St. Louis, but of course St. Louis doesn't market itself as an historical city and we let these idiotic politicians tear down our historical architecture.

No, that link was for the City of St. Louis, not the County.



If you consider that the very intact Southwest City neighborhoods were mainly built (just) after 1939, then it's really not that surprising. Then think of all the new houses that have been built in north St. Louis as of late, not to mention the wave of HUD homes in the 1970s. Also recall the 1960s infill in many very urban neighborhoods--those tiny tan houses with pyramid-like roofs.



1941 is only a little more recent than I expected.

Was there a visible housing boom as a result of the baby boom in the mid 40's?