The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
UNITED STATES DEPARTM ENT OF LABOR Frances P erk in s, Secretary B U R E A U O F L A B O R S T A T IS T IC S Isador L u b in , Commissioner (o n le a v e ) A . F. H in rich s, Acting Commissioner in co o p e ra tio n w i t h W O R K P R O JE C T S A D M I N I S T R A T I O N + Building Permit Survey 1939 VOLUME VIII Mountain Division Cities ♦ Prepared by the DIVISION OF CONSTRUCTION A N D PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT H E R M A N B. B Y E R , C h ie f B u lletin I'lo. 689 U N IT E D S T A T E S G O V E R N M E N T P R I N T I N G OFFIC E W A S H IN G T O N : 1942 F or sale b y th e S u p erin ten d en t o f D ocu m en ts, W ash in gton , D . C. P rice 10 cen ts UNITED STATES D EPARTM EN T OF LABOR F ran c es P e r k in s , Secretary + BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS I L sa d o r A. F. H u b in , in r ic h s C om m issio n er , (o n le a v e ) A c tin g C o m m issio n er Aryness Joy, Chief, Prices and Cost of Living Branch Donald Davenport, Chief, Employ ment and Occupational Outlook Branch Henry J. Fitzgerald, Chief, Business Management Branch N. Arnold Tolies, Chief, Working Con ditions and Industrial Relations Branch Hugh S. Hanna, Chief, Editorial and Research Sidney W. Wilcox, Chief Statistician CHIEFS OF DIVISIONS Herman B. Byer, Construction and Public Employment Florence Peterson, Industrial Rela tions J. M. Cutts, Wholesale Prices Charles F. Sharkey, Labor Law Infor mation W. Duane Evans, Productivity and Technological Developments Boris Stern, Labor Information Service Stella Stewart, Retail Prices Swen Kjaer, Industrial Accidents Lewis E. Talbert, Employment Statis tics John J. Mahaney, Machine Tabula tion Emmett H. Welch, Occupational Out look Robert J. Myers, Wage and Hour Statistics Faith M. Williams, Cost of Living + BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY A n b b e e W. T a l a m o , D irector CONTENTS Page S u m m a r y ________________________________________________________________________ R e s i d e n t i a l c o n s t r u c t io n : 1 U n its a d d ed , c o n v e rte d , a n d d e m o lis h e d __________________________________ 2 P r iv a te ly fin a n c e d r e s id e n tia l c o n s tru c tio n : T y p e o f s tru c tu re ___________________________________________________ E x te r io r c o n s tru c tio n m a te r ia l_____________________________________ 3 5 P e r m it v a lu a tio n s __________________________________________________ R o o m s p e r d w e llin g u n it ___________________________________________ 6 9 D e m o litio n s ___________________________________________________________ H o u s in g p ro je c ts fin an ced fr o m F e d e ra l fu n d s _________________________ N o n h o u s e k e e p in g r e s id e n tia l co n s tru c tio n : T y p e o f s tru c tu re a n d p e rm it v a lu a tio n s _____________________________ 11 12 12 D e m o litio n s _________________________________________________________ N o n r e s i d e n t i a l c o n s t r u c t io n : T y p e o f s tru c tu re a n d p e r m it v a lu a tio n s _______________________________ 14 D e m o litio n s __________________________ -___________________________________ 18 14 A p p e n d ix : T a b l e A .— N u m b e r a n d p e r m it v a lu a tio n of no nh o u s eke ep in g resi d e n tia l a n d n o n re s id e n tia l s tru c tu re s fo r w h ic h b u ild in g p e rm its w ere issued in M o u n ta in D iv is io n cities, b y ty p e o f s tru c tu re a n d specified m a te ria ls , 1 9 3 9 ____________ 19 L is t o f T a b le s T able 1.— N u m b e r o f n e w fa m ily -d w e llin g u n its p ro v id e d , u n its a d d e d a n d e lim in a te d b y a d d itio n s a n d a lte ra tio n s , a n d u n its d e m o lish ed , in M o u n ta in D iv is io n cities, 19 39 a n d 1 9 3 8 ___ 2. — N u m b e r o f fa m ily -d w e llin g u n its in p r iv a te ly fin an ced s tru c tu re s fo r w h ic h b u ild in g p e rm its w ere issued in M o u n ta in D iv is io n cities, b y ty p e of s tru c tu re , 1 9 3 9 __________________ 3 . — N u m b e r of fa m ily -d w e llin g u n its in p r iv a te ly fin an ced s tru c tu re s fo r w h ic h b u ild in g p e rm its w ere issued in M o u n ta in 3 4 D iv is io n cities, b y ty p e o f s tru c tu re a n d specified m a te ria ls , 1 9 3 9 ____________________________________________________ 4. 5 — N u m b e r o f fa m ily -d w e llin g u n its in p r iv a te ly fin an ced s tru c tu re s fo r w h ic h b u ild in g p e rm its w ere issued in 10 M o u n ta in D iv is io n cities, b y p e r m it v a lu a tio n p e r u n it a n d ty p e o f s tru c tu re , 1 9 3 9 ____________________________________________ 5. b u ild in g p e rm its w ere issued in M o u n ta in D iv is io n cities, b y p e r m it v a lu a tio n , 1 9 3 9 ___________________________________ 6. 8 — N u m b e r o f p r iv a te ly fin an ced 1 -fa m ily d w e llin g s fo r w h ic h 9 — N u m b e r o f u n its w it h specified n u m b e r o f room s in p r iv a te ly fin a n c e d s tru c tu re s fo r w h ic h b u ild in g p e rm its w ere issued in 10 M o u n ta in D iv is io n cities, b y ty p e o f s tru c tu re , 19 39 _ m 10 IV CONTENTS Page T able 7. — Number of 8. 9. 10. 11. privately financed 1-family dwellings without commercial space, with specified number of rooms, for which building permits were issued in 10 Mountain Divi sion cities, 1939_______________________________________________ — Number of family-dwelling units in structures for which demolition permits were issued in 8 Mountain Division cities, by type of structure, 1939____________________________ — Number and permit valuation of nonhouskeeping residential structures for which building permits were issued in 9 Mountain Division cities, by type of structure, 1939 and 1938____________________________________________________________ — Number and permit valuation of nonresidential structures for which building permits were issued in Mountain Divi sion cities, by type of structure, 1939 and 1938____________ — Number of nonresidential structures for which demolition permits were issued in 8 Mountain Division cities, 1939___ 11 12 13 16 18 Letter of Transmittal U n ited S tates D epar tm ent of L ab o r , Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D . C., April 8, 194-1. The S e c r e ta r y of L a b o r : I have the honor to transmit herewith the eighth of a series of nine reports on residential and nonresidential construction and demoli tion. This report covers cities in the Mountain Division States. An explanation of the purposes of the survey was given in the preface to the first report, which covered the New England cities. A . F. H in r ic h s , Acting Commissioner. Hon. F rances P e r k in s , Secretary of Labor. v Bulletin J\lo. 689 ( V o l. VIII) o f the U nited States Bureau o f Labor Statistics B uilding Perm it S u rvey, 1939 R e s id e n t ia l a n d N o n r e s id e n t ia l C o n s t r u c t i o n a n d D em ^ o li t i o n , M o u n t a i n D i v is io n C it ie s , 1 9 3 9 1 S u m m a ry The Bureau of Labor Statistics has secured summary figures on building construction in the principal cities of the country annually since 1921 and monthly since September 1929. These figures are published in the monthly report entitled Building Construction and in annual summaries. In response to the demand for more detailed information on building construction than that available from the monthly summary figures, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in coopera tion with the Work Projects Administration, made an intensive survey of building-permit data for the period since 1929 in cities with a population of 10,000 and over. This bulletin covering Mountain Division cities for the year 1939 is one of a series for each of the nine geographic divisions of the United States. The years 1929 to 1935 and 1936 to 1938 are covered in earlier bulletins.2 The Mountain States constitute one of the most rapidly growing regions in the United States. Each of the 10 cities 3 in this division with a population of 25,000 or more, excepting Butte, Mont., showed a substantial increase in population during the 1930-40 decade. Phoenix, Ariz., increased 36 percent and Albuquerque, N. Mex., 33 percent. An increasing demand for housing and nonresidential facilities accompanied this growth in population. Both types of construction in the 10 cities showed considerable gains in 1939 compared with 1938. The total of 4,103 new privately financed 1 Analysis and presentation by Lynn K. Finnegan. Planning and supervision of tabulation of data by Henry F. Haase, assistant director of the Survey. 3Such discrepancies as appear between the figures in this bulletin and those presented in monthly reports previously released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics arise from varying causes. In some cases early records were incomplete at the time the present survey was made. In other cases differences result from the fact that more accurate interpretation was possible on the basis of the detailed information collected by the agents of the Building Permit Survey. In some instances buildings are not erected or demolished after the permit is issued. The Bureau makes no attempt to collect such information in order to adjust the figures. 3 The U. S. Census of Population for 1930 was used to determine the size of the cities. In 1930, the Moun tain Division had 10 cities with a population of 25,000 or more. 1 2 BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY, 19 3 9 family-dwelling units authorized in these cities in 1939 was nearly three-fifths higher than in 1938. Moreover, in Great Falls, M ont., a Federal housing project was authorized which provided single family attached homes for 156 families, and in Denver 10 homes were provided to house officers and their families at Lowry Air Field. On the basis of permit valuations, an increase of more than twothirds was shown for nonresidential construction. Permits issued in 1939 for new privately financed residential buildings indicated that the single-family house was the predominant type of structure in the 10 cities. About one-half of the new units were authorized in brick buildings, although frame and stucco were used extensively in several of the cities. A large part of the residential construction— nine-tenths of the units provided— reported Valuations of less than $5,000 per unit. The 5-room unit was the most popular size dwelling in the Mountain Division cities. M ore than 7 out of every 10 of the dwelling units in the 8 cities for which demolition data were available in 1939 were single-family houses. Permit valuations reported were higher for public buildings than for any other type of nonresidential structure and accounted for three-tenths of the total. Schools and stores and other mercantile buildings each represented about one-fifth of the dollar volume of nonresidential construction. In addition to permits issued for private construction, the tables include the value of contracts awarded for Federal, State, and muni cipal buildings in the cities covered by the report. The data concern ing Federal and State buildings are collected by the Bureau from the various Federal and State agencies which have the power to award contracts for building construction. R e s id e n t ia l C o n s t r u c t i o n Units Added, Converted, and Demolished Building permits issued in the 10 cities in the Mountain Division indicate that substantially more family-dwelling units were provided in new buildings in 1939 than in 1938. In table 1, data for 1939 regarding the number of family-dwelling units provided in new build ings, units resulting from additions and alterations to existing struc tures, and units demolished in these cities are compared with similar data for 1938. Permits were issued for 4,103 new units in privately financed resi dential buildings in 1939 as compared with 2,630 in 1938, a 56-percent increase. M uch of this increase was accounted for by the Colorado cities, where 1,780 new units were authorized in 1939 and 1,019 in 1938. All of the cities, however, showed increases. RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION 3 Denver, the largest city covered by this report, had the highest number of new* units in 1939 (1,561); Salt Lake City, Utah, second in size among these communities, reported 829 new units; Phoenix, A riz.,an d Albuquerque, N. M ex., were next from standpoint of new dwelling units with 511 and 434, respectively, but their populations were considerably smaller. Thus, on the basis of number of persons, a relatively larger number of accommodations were provided in these 2 cities in 1939 than in the larger communities. T a b l e 1 .— N um ber of new fam ily-dwelling units provided, units added and elimi nated by additions and alterations, and units demolished , in M ountain Division cities , 1939 and 1938 Family-dwelling units Additions and alterations New dwellings Population, United States census Demo litions State and city Private Federal Increase Decrease 1939 1938 1939 Phoenix ____________ Tucson ________________ Colorado _________ ______ 166 20 0) 0) 0) 0) 727,281 +11.3 751 514 51 12 6 1 25 11 80, 624 +26.8 511 240 362 152 31 6 1 20 3 9 9 16 3 8 48,118 32, 506 +35.9 +13.3 20 255 217 135 0) 371,194 +10.8 20 12 229 14 27 185 5 7 104 24 (2) 166 17 33,237 287, 861 50,096 +10.7 +12.0 +4.1 1, 780 1,019 Colorado Springs________ 94 D e n v e r .._____________ 1, 561 125 Pueblo _______________ 10 0) 10 156 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 68, 354 -2 .0 (2) 5 (2) (2) (3) 45 (3) 156 (2) 5 39, 532 28, 822 —6.2 +3.8 94 60 Butte.. .. _____________ Great Falls ____________ 16 78 11 49 New Mexico: Albuquerque___ 434 263 11 19 U ta h .............................. ........ 1,044 774 193 251 139 635 24 169 5 246 215 829 (0 83 855 81 Montana.............. .................._ Ogden. _______________ Salt Lake City___ ______ Per ccntage change 1930-40 1938 1939 1938 1939 1938 1939 1938 Total........................................ 4, 103 2, 630 Arizona_________ _______ . . . 1930 9 6 6 2 2 1 26, 570 +33.4 0) 0) 180, 539 +7.2 ( 3) ( 3) 40, 272 140, 267 +8. 5 +6.9 8 16 17 i Information not complete. * Data not available. 3Demolition permits not required. 4The site of the Federal housing project was vacant land; therefore, no demolitions were necessary. Additions and alterations to existing structures in 9 of the cities (such data were not available for Butte, Mont.) resulted in 503 addi tional units in 1939 as compared with 501 in 1938. Colorado com munities accounted for one-half of these converted units. As demolition permits are not required in Butte, M ont., and Ogden, Utah, it is impossible to ascertain the net increase of housing facilities in the M ountain Division cities. Data for the remaining 8 cities, however, indicate the razing of residential structures containing 182 family-dwelling units. 271714°—42------2 4 BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY, 1939 Privately Financed Residential Construction T y p e o f S tru c tu re Of the 4,103 new privately financed family-dwelling units provided in 1939 in the 10 cities, 89 percent were single-family houses— 77 per cent detached, 8 percent semidetached, and 4 percent attached. The only other type of structure of any importance was the 5-or-morefamily apartment house, containing 8 percent of all the new units. This distribution is similar to that for 1938, although more single family attached houses were authorized in 1939 than in the previous year. Table 2 shows the distribution of units for which permits were issued in 1939 in the various types of structures, by city. T a b l e 2 .— Num ber o f fam ily-dwelling units in privately financed structures for which building permits were issued in M ountain Division cities , by type of structure, 19891 Type of structure 1-family 1- and 2fam234iiy, famfam famand ily, Total Semi3ily, 2At com De ily de decker mer decker tached tached tached cial unit State and city Tnt.nl ____ ____ 5-or-morefamily, with out com mercial unit Build Units ings 4,103 3,184 152 322 48 21 751 657 13 54 1 16 2 10 511 240 458 199 4 9 22 32 1 16 2 10 Colorado___________________ 1,780 1, 213 108 166 Colorado Springs . Denver_________________ Pueblo_________________ 94 1,561 125 89 999 125 108 2 164 94 87 6 16 78 14 73 2 4 1 434 328 46 3 9 1,044 899 31 50 12 2 9 215 829 180 719 17 14 4 46 2 10 2 3 6 16 Arizona ... . Phoanix Tnnson _ Montana Butte__________________ Great Falls_____________ New Mexico: Albuquerque. _ TTtah _________________ Ogden___ ______________ Salt Lake City 30 18 18 12 30 325 5 12 8 11 250 5 3 9 8 11 250 8 5 40 16 3 25 1 2 7 18 1 1Data for family-dwelling units with permit valuations less than $500 are not included in the Survey. The single-family detached house was the favorite type of structure' in all of the cities. All of the new units in Pueblo, Colo., were of that type, and at least nine-tenths of the new accommodations in Phoenix, Ariz.; Colorado Springs, C olo.; and Great Falls, M ont. Relatively fewer single-family detached houses were reported in Denver, Colo, (less than two-thirds of the city’s total), and Albuquerque, N. M ex. (three-fourths of the city’s total). In Denver, 16 percent of the units were in apartment houses of the 5-or-more-family type, 11 percent in 5 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION 1-family semidetached structures, and 7 percent in single-family attached buildings. Semidetached structures and 5-or-more-family apartment houses each accounted for about one-tenth of the units in Albuquerque. Exterior Construction Material Table 3 indicates that brick, frame, and stucco were the favored types of exterior construction material for the new buildings for which permits were issued in the M ountain Division cities during 1939. Nearly one-half of the new privately financed dwelling units were in brick buildings, more than one-fourth in structures surfaced with frame, and about one-sixth in stucco dwellings. T a b l e 3 .— N um ber of fam ily-dwelling units in privately financed structures for which building permits were issued in M ountain Division cities, by type of structure and specified materials, 1989 Type of structure and material Phoenix Tneson Clo f o r ado Colorado Springs Denver Pueblo TVfontana Butte Great Falls ___ Ogden __ Salt Lake City_______ 651 224 17 211 84 2 59 242 126 122 89 61 23 2 332 998 127 27 3 18 266 48 2 984 12 69 4 54 2 14 11 3 81 3 1 5 3 1 5 2 1 1 9 1 3 ts O a © 1 368 8 2 1 2 Stucco o Z Brick A 6 | s "5 a © .g o Stucco tn O a © 1 Frame Stucco a tc a © 59 1,057 1, 709 13 68 N e w M e x i c o : A 1b uqnerqne U ta h Brick Frame Arizona Multifamily % State and city T o ta l_________________ 2-family i Frame 1-family M P © A O "o 8 306 52 25 1 4 9 4 9 1 4 9 4 9 31 1 1 22 1 22 2 267 267 1 5 26 309 25 580 314 3 83 8 6 4 30 120 460 50 264 2 1 29 54 2 6 2 4 4 30 12 3 3 42 3 3 13 3 7 6 12 i Includes 1- and 2-family dwellings with stores. Includes multifamily dwellings with stores. The use of brick for structures containing 1,273 of the 1,561 units authorized in Denver, Colo., was largely responsible for the high percentage of units in buildings constructed of this material. Brick was also used for approximately one-half of the new accommodations in the Arizona municipalities. Frame predominated as surface ma terial for new residential construction in M ontana and Utah cities, 6 BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY, 193 9 where 86 percent and 57 percent, respectively, of the new units au thorized were of such construction. Stucco also was utilized exten sively in several communities. For example, in Albuquerque, N. M ex., it was specified for buildings containing 81 percent of the new accommodations. This material was used widely in two of the Colorado cities also; units in stucco buildings comprised 77 percent of the city’s total in Colorado Springs and in Pueblo, 43 percent. Concrete and adobe were the only other materials which accounted for more than 1 percent of the total. P erm it V a lu a tion s Nine-tenths of all the new privately financed dwelling units for which permits were issued in 1939 in the 10 Mountain Division cities had permit valuations of less than $5,000 per unit. Forty-six percent of all the units were concentrated within the relatively narrow limits of $2,500 to $4,000. The accompanying chart indicates, however, that while units reported for the 2 cities (Denver and Salt Lake City) with populations of over 100,000 each were distributed among the various cost groups in a similar manner to those in the smaller cities (25,000 to 100,000 population) their valuations averaged slightly higher. For example, in the smaller cities 36 percent of the units were valued at less than $2,500, while in the larger population group only 26 percent were valued at less than $2,500. The valuation most fre quently stated on permits granted in the smaller cities was between $3,000 and $3,500, while the valuation reported most often in the larger cities was between $3,500 and $4,000. Twelve percent of the units in the larger cities were to cost $5,000 and over as compared with 8 percent in the other group. Less than 1 percent of all the units were to cost $10,000 and more. All of the units in buildings housing 3 or more families had valuations less than $4,000 per unit. Table 4 shows the distribution of the new family-dwelling units by permit valuation per unit and type of structure in cities of 100,000 population and over, and in cities of the 25,000-100,000 population group. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF NEW PRIVATELY FINANCED FAMILY-DWELLING UNITS IN MOUNTAIN DIVISION CITIES PERCENT OF UNITS BY COST GROUP AND SIZE OF CITY, 1939 PERCENT OF U NITS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTOFLABOR BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS COST GROUP IN HUNDREDS OF D OLLARS 8 BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY, 1939 T a b l e 4 .— N u m b e r o f fa m ily -d w ellin g u n its in privately fin a n ced structures f o r which building perm its w ere issu ed in 1 0 M o u n ta in D iv isio n cities , b y perm it valuation per u n it and ty p e o f structure , 1 9 3 9 1 2 CITIES OF 100,000 AND OVER Type of structure 1-family 1- and 5-or-more-family, 2without com 23family, mercial unit family, 4and family, 2Semi3family Detach Attach detach decker com ed mercial decker ed Build ed Units unit ings Permit valuation per family-dwelling unit All types Total____________ 2, 390 1, 718 1 1 $12,500-$14,999_....... $10,000-$! 2,499 $9,500-19,999______ $9,000-$9,499............ $8,500-$8,999............ 1 13 4 9 6 1 13 4 9 6 $8,000-$8 499 . $7,500-$7,999_ $7,000-$7,499 $6,500-$6,999 $6,000-$6,499 16 3 19 23 48 16 3 19 22 47 $5,500-$5,999 $5,000-$5,499 $4,500-$4,999_.......... $4,000-$4,499 ______ $3,500-$3,999 57 92 161 184 441 55 90 159 174 402 2 4 2 6 26 $3,000-$3,499 $2,500-$2,999 .... $2,000-82,499 $1,500-$1,999__......... $1,000-$1,499 .......... 331 367 184 204 119 235 269 75 43 48 14 9 18 52 23 66 58 32 12 8 $500-$999_............ 107 27 1,713 1,466 1 1 $12,500-$14,999____ $10,000-$12,499____ $9,500-$9,999........... $9,000-$9,499 $8,500-$8,999 6 4 2 1 6 4 2 1 $8,000-$8,499______ $7,500-$7,999 $7,000-$7 499 $6,500-$6,999 $6,000-$6,499 . 6 3 7 11 19 6 3 7 11 19 $5,500—$5,999 $5;000-$5,499 $4,500-$4,999__......... $4,000-$4,499______ $3,500-$3,999______ 24 47 69 141 231 23 46 69 139 227 $3,000-$3,499-......... $2,500-$2,999......... . $9.J000-$9J499 $1,500— $1 999 $1,000-$1,499 $500-$999 327 195 185 162 173 99 307 183 125 88 125 74 $25,000 and over___ $22,500-$24,999____ $20,000-$22,499_....... $17,500-$19,999_....... $15,000-$17,499____ 122 210 28 5 15 24 13 268 1 3 5 2 28 45 85 32 2 78 8 57 2 1 5 14 6 37 I 1 2 2 2 6 3 2 4 8 2 1 6 3 3 8 8 8 2 8 CITIES OF 25,000 TO 100,000 Total...................... $25,000 and over___ $22,500-$24,999____ $20,000-$22,499____ $17,500-$19,999_....... $15,000-$17,499........ 30 112 2 7 15 24 3 4 3 3 3 3 8 4 - ..........3 1 1 2 4 11 15 4 8 12 24 46 8 10 2 3 8 i When the structure provided for a built-in or attached garage or a commercial unit, the cost of such unit is included. Data for family-dwelling units with permit valuations less than $500 are not included. 9 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION Table 5 shows the permit valuations reported in 1939 in the 10 M ountain Division cities for single-family dwellings. One-half of the 3,658 new 1-family houses in these communities were to cost from $2,500 to $4,000. M ore than two-thirds of the single-family houses in Albuquerque, N. M ex., appeared within these limits. At the other extreme, none of the 16 dwellings in Butte, M ont., were in this group; 5 of the houses had valuations from $4,500 to $7,500, and the remaining units were valued at less than $2,500. T a b l e 5 . — N u m b er o f privately financed 1 -f a m i ly dw ellings f o r which building p erm its were issu ed in M o u n ta in D iv isio n c ities , b y perm it va luation , 1 9 8 9 Arizona Permit valuation per family-dwelling Total unit Total....................... $25,000 and over___ $22,500-$24,999_____ $20,000-$22,499_____ $17,500-$19,999_____ $15,000-$17,499......... 3, 658 New Mex ico Montana Colorado 1 Utah Colo Den Salt Great Albu Ogden Lake Phoenix Tuc rado son Springs ver Pueblo Butte Falls quer que City 484 2 240 1 1 1 1 12 3 9 3 13 3 15 16 27 1 19 8 11 7 $8,000-$8,499............ $7,500-$7,999............ $7 000-$7 499 $6,500-$6,999............ $6,000-$6,499............ 22 6 26 33 66 2 6 12 1 1 1 2 3 $5,500-$5,999 $5,000-$5,499 $4,500-$4,999............ $4,00ft-$4,499 ___ $3,500-$3,999 78 136 230 321 663 14 15 38 49 96 3 7 3 13 36 $3,000-$3,499............ $2,500-$2,999............ $2,000-$2,499_.......... $1;5nO-$1 f999 ..... $ 1 (nnn-$i ,499 $500-$999.... ............. 630 531 285 256 212 115 115 38 23 18 28 25 21 8 25 47 49 16 1 1,271 1 $12,500-$14,999_____ $10,000-$12,499......... $9,500-$9,999__....... . $9,000-$9,499............ $8,500-$8,999 2 1 1 91 1 125 16 1 77 374 1 2 2 201 779 1 1 1 3 1 3 8 14 15 38 47 104 78 285 2 5 3 17 13 8 7 2 3 182 213 77 76 54 15 8 30 28 33 6 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 2 2 7 6 6 4 2 8 22 64 14 2 30 11 17 43 57 104 147 7 12 10 103 82 30 29 8 10 44 12 32 12 28 13 133 123 48 31 25 12 4 3 4 12 9 3 3 4 6 20 1 Includes units in 1-family detached, attached, and semidetached structures, without commercial space. Data for family-dwelling units with permit valuations less than $500 are not included. Rooms Per Dwelling Unit Information concerning the number of rooms per dwelling unit was available for 3,904 of the 4,103 units in the 10 cities included in this report. Table 6 indicates that the 5-room unit was the favored size dwelling. Forty-five percent of the 3,904 units had 5 rooms; 23 percent contained 4 rooms; and 12 percent were 3-room units. Five rooms were most common in single-family detached and semidetached houses; and 3 rooms in 1-family attached structures, 4-family dwellings, and apartment buildings housing 5 or more families. 10 BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY, 1939 In the 2 larger cities 47 percent of the 2,331 units for which room data were available had 5 rooms, as compared with 43 percent of the 1,573 units in the 8 smaller cities. However, a slightly larger pro portion of the dwelling units authorized in small than in large cities contained 6 or more rooms. T a b l e 6.— N u m b er o f units with specified n u m ber o f room s in privately fin a n ced struc tures f o r which building perm its were issu ed in 1 0 M o u n ta in D iv isio n cities, by typ e o f structure , 1 9 3 9 10 M OUNTAIN DIVISION CITIES All types. .............................. . 4,103 3,904 11 183 487 899 1,763 423 103 24 10 1 1-family, detached____________ 1-family, attached. __ _______ 1-family, semidetached ______ 2-family, 2-decker 1- and 2-family, and commercial unit . ____ 3-family, 3-decker____________ 4-family . __ ___ 5-or-more-family, without com mercial u n i t __ __ 3.184 152 322 30 3,130 152 296 30 5 85 6 15 9 188 80 84 5 691 59 81 4 1,614 7 110 7 415 99 24 8 21 2 3 2 2 12 30 48 9 18 36 2 10 3 8 11 3 9 4 4 6 2 1 325 233 56 108 52 11 6 2 2 CITIES OF 100,000 OR MORE POPULATION 2, 390 2,331 1-family, detached____________ 1,718 122 1-family, attached____________ 210 1- family, semidetached_____ 28 2- family, 2-decker__________ 1- and 2-family, and commercial 5 unit_______________________ 15 3- family, 3-decker__________ 24 4- family___________________ 5- or-more-family, without com 268 mercial unit________________ 1, 710 122 208 28 All types____________________ 6 261 601 1,084 205 63 18 8 55 59 26 5 407 56 71 4 946 7 103 5 198 59 18 6 2 3 2 2 2 2 5 6 3 8 2 4 6 1 1 51 103 52 11 2 9 5 15 20 223 85 21 6 2 8 CITIES OF 25,000 TO 100,000 POPULATION 1, 713 1,573 5 98 226 298 679 218 40 6 2 l-family, detached__________ . 1,466 30 1-family, attached ________ 112 l-family, semidetached______ 2 2-family, 2-decker __ . 1- and 2-family, and commercial 7 unit ... 3-family, 3-decker 15 24 4-family _ _ _ _ _ __ 5-or-more-family, without com 57 mercial unit_____ ________ _ 1,420 30 88 2 5 64 6 13 133 21 58 284 3 10 668 217 40 6 2 4 3 16 10 1 3 5 1 10 5 5 All types................................ . 1 U 7 2 2 1 i Includes units for which number of rooms was not reported. 2 12-room unit. Table 7 shows data on the number of rooms in 3,578 of the 3,658 single-family dwellings in the 10 cities. Approximately one-half of these dwellings had 5 rooms and nearly one-fourth had 4 rooms. The 5-room unit predominated in single-family houses in 6 of the cities. In Tucson, Ariz., units of 3 and 5 rooms, which were equal in number, 11 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION were most common, and in the Montana cities and in Ogden, Utah, 4 rooms were favored. Phoenix had the greatest proportion of the larger single-family homes; three-tenths of these dwellings had six or seven rooms. Seventeen percent of the single-family houses in Pueblo, Colo., and Albuquerque, N. M ex., and 15 percent in Denver, Colo., had six or more rooms. T a b l e 7 . — N u m b er o f privately financed 1-fa m ily dw ellings without com m ercial sp ace , with specified n u m ber o f ro o m s, for which building p erm its were issu ed in 1 0 M o u n ta in D iv isio n cities, 1 9 3 9 Number of family-dwelling units with specified number of rooms Total State and city 10 or more Total 1,731 Total______________ _____ 295 127 Arizona.-............................ 484 240 Phoenix_____________ Tucson______________ 1 220 474 240 75 Colorado________________ 1,487 1, 477 357 760 Colorado Springs_____ Denver______________ Pueblo______________ 91 91 1,271 1, 261 125 125 99 108 i 296 4 39 50 649 61 Q 21 148 15 13 Montana_____ ___________ 98 Butte_________ ______ Great Falls__________ 16 New Mexico: Albuquerque 374 325 30 181 Utah____________ _______ 980 978 67 471 Ogden_______________ Salt Lake City_______ 201 779 199 779 35 [ 75 32 | 238 64 407 13 j i Includes units for which number of rooms was not reported. 212-room unit. Demolitions Demolition data for the 10 cities were not complete for 1939 as such* permits are not required in Butte, M ont., and Ogden, Utah. Information was available, however, concerning demolitions in the other cities, where permits were issued for the razing of 182 family dwelling units. According to the permits issued, the 25 units demolished in the Arizona cities, the 5 in Great Falls, M ont., and the 9 in Albuquerque, N. Mex., were all single-family houses. This type of dwelling unit represented nearly two-thirds of the 135 units demolished in the Colorado cities and 4 of the 8 accommodations to be razed in Salt Lake City, Utah. Information concerning residential demolitions is shown in table 8. 2 7 1 7 1 4 °— 42 3 12 T BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY, 1 9 3 9 8 . — Number of family-dwelling units in structures for which demolition permits were issued in S Mountain Division cities, by type of structure, 1939 1 a b l e Type of structure 1-family Total State and city De tached Semide tached 4 2-family, 2decker 1- and 3- and 5-or2-family, 4-family, m oreand family, and com 4-family com with mer mer out com cial cial mercial unit unit unit 25 21 Phoenix_________________ Tucson_________________ 9 16 9 12 4 Colorado____________________ 135 72 16 6 3 16 4 18 Colorado Springs________ Denver _________ Pueblo.. ..... ..................- 104 24 49 16 16 6 3 8 8 4 18 Arizona- __________________ Montana: Great Palls. ______ 5 5 New Mexico: Albuquerque__ 9 9 Utah: Salt Lake City......... ...... 8 4 4 i Demolition permits were not required in Butte, Mont., and Ogden, Utah. Housing Projects Financed from Federal Funds The United States Housing Authority authorized a low-rent housing project in Great Falls, Mont., in 1939. Plans for the Parkdale development provided housing facilities for 156 families in single family, attached houses. Of these 156 dwelling units, 62 had 4 rooms; 56 contained 5 rooms; 34 had 6 rooms; and 4 were 7-room units. An administration building containing management offices and social space was also included in the project. All of the buildings were of brick. The site of the new development was vacant land, consequently no demolitions were necessary. Ten single-family semidetached houses were authorized at Lowry Air Field in Denver, Colo., to house commissioned officers and their families. These dwellings were of frame construction and each con tained six rooms. Nonhousekeeping Residential Construction Type of Structure and Permit Valuations Unlike the other types of construction included in this report, nonhousekeeping residential construction was less important in 1939 than in 1938. Valuations in 1939 amounted to $252,000 as com pared with $489,000 in 1938 (see table 9). T a b le 9.— Number and permit valuation of nonhousekeeping residential structures for which building permits were issued in 9 Mountain Division cities, by type of structure, 1939 and 1938 1 [For more detailed analysis of data, see appendix table A] Association buildings Total State and city Dormitories Hotels Lodging houses Nurses’ homes Summer camps and cottages Year Num ber Valua tion Num ber Valua tion Num ber Valua tion Num ber Valua tion Num ber Valua tion Num ber $11. 500 44, 000 (2) $100,000 299,000 2 $19,500 1 1 $17,085 91. 295 89 63 $62 960 40 500 2 19, 500 1 17. 085 7 29 5, 700 30,100 2 19, 500 1 17, 085 7 3 5, 700 4, 700 26 25, 400 91.295 31 26 20, 400 6, 500 91, 295 9 20 22 6 3,900 5,700 16, 500 800 Valua tion Total ................................................... 1939 1938 95 67 $252,045 488, 685 2 1 $41,000 13,890 Arizona............................ ............. . . 1939 1938 11 29 67, 285 30,100 1 25,000 Phoenix..................... ................... . ____ 1939 1938 1939 1938 10 3 1 26 42, 285 4,700 25,000 25, 400 1 25,000 .............................. 1939 1938 32 27 36, 400 97, 795 1 16,000 1939 1938 1939 1938 9 20 23 3,900 5, 700 32, 500 92, 095 Montana........... .............. .................... 1939 1938 12 2 1,860 400 12 2 1,860 400 Butte _________ _______. Great Falls. ......................... 1938 1939 1938 1 12 1 200 1.860 200 1 12 1 200 1,860 200 New Mexico: Albuquerque 1939 1938 30 5 123,000 301, 500 30 4 23,000 2,500 Utah................................................... 1939 1938 10 4 23, 500 58,890 9 2 12,000 1,000 1939 1938 1939 1938 6 2 4 2 10,000 1, 000 13, 500 57,890 6 2 3 10,000 1,000 2,000 Tucson Colorado Colorado Springs Denver Ogden ___ .................... ........... ......... _ _ Salt Lake City . ___________ . 1 1 16,000 1 (2) 1 1 13,890 1 1 11,500 44, 000 13. 890 1 1 11, 500 44.000 1No permits for nonhousekeeping residential structures were issued in 1939 or 1938 in Pueblo, Colo. 2 Additional costs to superstructure for which a permit was issued in 1938. 1 1 100,000 299,000 CC RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION 1 1 Num ber Valua tion 14 BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY, 19 3 9 Albuquerque, N. Mex., stood first in 1939 among municipalities in the Mountain Division with respect to dollar volume, with $123,000 reported for nonhousekeeping residential construction. Additional expense incurred in building a hotel for which a permit was issued in 1938 accounted for $100,000 of this valuation. In the other cities covered by this report, valuations for nonhousekeeping residential construction ranged down from $42,000 in Phoenix, Ariz., to $2,000 in Great Falls, Mont. No permits for such construction were issued in Butte, Mont., or Pueblo, Colo., during 1939. Demolitions Demolition of nonhousekeeping residential structures occurred in only one of the eight cities in which such permits are required. Three hotels and one lodging house were to be razed in Denver, Colo. N on resid en tial C o n stru ctio n Type of Structure and Permit Valuations The total dollar volume of nonresidential construction in the 10 Mountain Division cities was considerably higher in 1939 than in 1938. In 1939 permits were issued for 3,603 nonresidential structures to cost $12,814,000, whereas in 1938 they were issued for 2,470 structures, valued at $7,646,000. Increases were noted for each type of structure except institutions, which showed a slight decrease. (See table 10.) Among the individual cities the largest gain in valuation was in Denver, where nonresidential construction in 1939 ($5,438,000) was nearly $3,000,000 higher than in 1938. Denver also ranked first among the 10 cities from point of dollar volume, accounting for more than two-fifths of the total valuation of nonresidential construction in 1939. Phoenix, Ariz., where valuations amounted to $2,000,000, and Salt Lake City, Utah, with $1,789,000, stood in second and third place, respectively; both cities showed large increases over 1938. The only cities where valuations were lower in 1939 than in 1938 were Tucson, Ariz.; Butte, Mont.; and Ogden, Utah. The most important types of structures in 1939, on the basis of valuations, were public buildings, representing nearly three-tenths of the total, and schools and stores and other mercantile buildings, each accounting for nearly one-fifth of the total of nonresidential construc tion. These types also showed the greatest increases in dollar volume over 1938. Seven-tenths of the total valuation of public buildings was reported in Denver, Colo., where such construction amounted to $2,491,000. Included in this construction were four buildings at Lowry Air Field (containing barracks, hangars, and a central heating plant) totaling $2,062,000 and a post office valued at $89,000— all financed from NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION 15 Federal funds. In addition there were three municipal buildings, financed partially by Public Works Administration funds, with a com bined valuation of $291,000. In Great Falls, Mont., a municipal building (a Public Works Administration project) constituted 58 per cent of the city’s total. In Salt Lake City, Utah, three public build ings (of Federal construction), an experimental station, a recreation building at the Veterans’ Administration Facility, and a post office, represented 28 percent of the city’s total. The valuation of stores and other mercantile buildings amounted to $2,447,000 for 204 buildings in the 10 cities. More than one-half ($1,267,000) of this volume was reported in Denver, Colo., but all of the cities reported some construction of this type, with valuations ranging from $424,000 in Phoenix, Ariz., to $21,000 in Ogden, Utah. Stores and other mercantile buildings accounted for one-third of the value of nonresidential construction in Albuquerque, N. Mex. Construction of schools was of primary importance in Phoenix, Ariz., and Colorado Springs, Colo. In Phoenix, contracts were awarded for eight high school and junior college buildings to cost $870,000, or 44 percent of the city’s total Nearly three-fourths of the total valuation for nonresidential construction in Colorado Springs was accounted for by two schools with a combined valuation of $507,000. T a b l e 10.— Number and 'permit valuation of nonrevidential structures for which building permits were issued in Mountain Division cities, by type of structure, 1989 and 1988 05 [For more detailed analysis of data, see appendix table A] Total State and city Year No. Valuation Amusement and recreation places Churches Factories, bak eries, ice plants, Garages, public laundries, and other workshops $283, 288 240, 522 6 7 $391,976 407,301 385 327 93,361 84,406 16 15 68, 550 62,139 2 1 16,100 131,162 298 238 87 89 66, 668 53, 851 26, 693 30, 555 13 8 3 7 57,150 41,200 11,400 20,939 1 2 131,162 16,100 6 10 91, 000 1,471 31, 620 841 358,895 202,029 24 20 63,000 49, 600 4 4 375,876 97, 939 1 6 9 149 3, 200 126 91,000 1,136 28, 420 579 186 136 22,504 18, 375 312, 746 157,822 23, 645 25,832 2 2 19 17 3 1 4,400 10, 500 49,100 37, 700 9, 500 1,400 4 4 375,876 97,939 $309, 240 297, 000 12 21 $188,000 172, 950 20 15 2, 525, 962 1,866, 771 5 5 317,895 100,871 7 4 46, 000 48, 500 1 5 1,500 19, 392 5 1 30, 200 65, 000 378 299 136 122 2,000,478 1, 270, 605 525, 484 596, 166 4 2 1 3 3088895 8,000 9,000 92,871 5 3 2 1 34,000 39, 500 12,000 9,000 1 2 1, 500 2,900 4 1 1 3 22,800 65,000 7, 400 16,492 1939 1, 812 1938 1,088 6, 377,034 2,816, 355 1 1 153, 988 20,000 1 7 62, 900 117,000 7 9 75, 500 65,158 176 Colorado Springs................... 1939 1938 141 1939 1,420 1938 788 Pueblo.................................. 1939 216 1938 159 680, 669 70, 580 5,437,924 2, 623, 638 258, 441 122,137 1 1 62, 900 4, 500 1939 1938 514 421 Phoenix ______________ 1939 1938. 1939 1938 Tucson _______________ Colorado...... ............................... Denver___________________ 1939 1938 125 111 1, 111, 421 539, 434 Butte_______ ______ _______ 1939 1938 Great Falls...........................j 1939 1938 33 19 92 92 179,139 263, 725 932,282 275, 709 Montana_________________ 1 1 2 20,000 153,988 33,291 1 4,700 70,800 58,158 5 92, 500 6 7 1 20, 000 2 7,000 1 1 93,000 30,000 2 44,000 1 1 93,000 30,000 2 44,000 $283, 695 2, 885 128, 620 1, 815 1 1 2,500 9,000 84 75 15,369 10, 969 6 5 19,499 17,150 i l 2,500 9,000 24 10 60 65 3,940 1,634 11,429 9,335 3 1 3 4 12,999 2,000 6, 500 15,150 2 7,795 349 55 67, 207 15, 311 6 7 26,200 27, 700 2 33,291 New Mexico: Albuquerque 1939 1938 421 195 849, 924 609,953 4 2 87,100 35, 317 1 2 11,000 10, 500 3 10,100 Utah.......................................... 1939 1938 731 655 1,949,281 1,813,940 1 2 1,300 7,600 4 2 96, 340 91,000 2 4 67,000 78,300 6 3 152,200 23,000 596 517 128,137 113, 504 32 24 106,039 83, 933 2 178,200 Ogden _________________ 1939 1938 1939 1938 80 71 651 584 160, 740 1,038,454 1, 788, 541 775,486 1 25,000 1 10,000 1 4 57,000 78,300 45 37 551 480 9,767 9,320 118, 370 104,184 7 5 25 19 23,200 16,800 82,839 67,133 145,000 71, 340 91,000 15,000 4,000 137. 200 19, 000 1 3 2 2 1 4 2 1 33. 200 Salt Tiftke City 1 1 1 1,000 1,300 6,600 BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY, 1 9 3 9 84 71 14 16 Arizona_____ ___________ _____ Institutions $662, 969 426, 219 $560,283 197,079 1939 3,603 $12, 813, 622 7, 646, 453 1938 2,470 Gasoline and service stations No. Valuation No. Valuation No. Valuation No. Valuation No. Valuation No. Valuation No. Valuation 11 12 Total....... ..................................... Garages, private, when separate from dwelling i Year State and city buildings, Office build Public city, county, ings, including State, and banks Federal No. Valuation No. Valuation Public works and utilities Schools No. Valuation No. Valuation Sheds, poultry houses, etc. Stables and barns Stores and other All other nonresidential mercantile buildings structures No. Valuation No. Valuation No. 204 $2,446, 547 158 1,125, 948 $10,272 100 510, 790 93,000 4 1,040 32 20 16 8 423,833 73, 750 86,957 19,250 4 1,040 85 57 1,410,250 559,151 55 1 6,154 100 4 2 72 51 9 4 76,500 1,225 1, 267,100 550,026 66,650 7,900 53 5,704 2 1 450 100 200 9 10 55,662 57,050 1 150 1 50 1 2 8 8 25,000 8,000 30,662 49,050 5,000 21 26 277, 695 124,022 21 3,078 2 1,300 41 37 192,150 292, 725 1 300 1 1,000 9 10 32 27 20,800 38, 700 171,350 254, 025 228 308 $60, 581 55,513 10 6 1, 020,302 758,145 24 28 6, 735 8,290 48 28 5 202,489 8 2 2 4 870, 307 353, 236 149,995 404, 909 11 21 13 7 4,325 6,140 2,410 2,150 2,490, 548 1, 376, 598 3 3 261, 899 194,000 5 3 992, 206 83,000 141 121 34, 818 19,160 1 9 7 31,500 2,490, 548 1, 286, 598 2 506,880 3 3 261,899 194,000 3 3 485, 326 83,000 58,500 2,785 1,280 27,825 16,475 4,208 1, 405 1 2 17 8 109 101 15 12 1939 1938 1 2 544,988 53,435 4 1 281, 693 9, 276 1 3 50, 870 317,398 14 11 3, 640 1,865 2 ______ 1939 1938 1939 1938 1 2 544,988 53,435 4 1 281,693 9, 276 2 1 1 221, 691 50,870 95, 707 1 3 13 8 50 400 3, 590 1,465 New Mexico: Albuquerque____ 1939 1938 2 1 196, 500 5,800 1 2 28,000 106,325 2 2 138,004 265, 602 11 95 2,345 9, 276 1 Utah............................................ 1939 1938 2 463, 260 4 2 514, 519 694, 543 3 4 34, 500 73,000 2 3 180, 793 159, 913 38 53 13,043 16, 922 1 1 3 1 10,000 659, 596 504,519 34,947 3 34, 500 1 3 1 4 73, 000 9, 500 159,913 171,293 10 11 28 42 2,973 3,825 10, 070 13,097 1939 1938 Arizona ____________________ 1939 1938 1 1 1939 1938 Tucson...................... ........... . 1939 1938 1 1 1939 1938 9 10 1939 1938 1939 1938 Pueblo................................ . 1939 1938 4 1 $659,760 5,800 Phoenix_____ ___________ Colorado ______ _____________ Colorado Springs _________ Denver___________________ M ontana___________ ____ ____ Butte ............................ . Great F a lls__ Ogden___________________ Salt Lake City___________ 1939 1938 1939 1938 2 463,260 16 8 $960,581 276, 276 31,000 495; 866 6 382,489 31,000 495,866 1 180,000 16 $3,609,055 17 2, 726, 767 1 Permits issued for dwelling units in many instances included the cost of detached garages. In order to show separate data for dwelling units and such garages, these com- 3 3 1 $5,200 2, 300 1,000 1,000 posite figures were broken down by applying the ratios derived from permits giving separate valuations for dwelling units and detached garages. NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION 80 1 20 $2,382,175 17 1, 584, 058 T otal........................................... Valuation No. Valuation 18 BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY, 19 3 9 Demolitions Although demolition permits are not required in two of the cities covered by this report, such data were available for nonresidential structures in the eight remaining cities, as shown in table 11. Approx imately one-third of the units to be demolished in the eight cities were stores and other mercantile buildings. T able 11.— Number of nonresidential structures for which demolition permits were issued in 8 Mountain Division cities, 1989 1 State and city All types Factories, Garages, Gaso Amuse ment bakeries, private, line and Churches ice plants, Garages, when Insti and tutions recrea laundries, public separate service tion from stations and other workshops dwelling places Arizona............................ Phoenix......................... Tucson______ _____ Colorado__________ _____ _ 96 22 Colorado Springs_____ Denver________ _____ _ Pueblo_________ _____ Montana: Great Falls____ New Mexico: Albuquerque Utah: Salt Lake City-------- State and city Public Stores Sheds, Public other Type of Office buildings, city, poul Stables and works buildings, county, mercan struc and Schools try and including State, tile ture not houses, utili barns banks and Fed build reported ties etc. ings eral Arizona____ ______________ Phoenix_________________ Tucson__________________ Colorado__________________ Colorado Springs_________ Denver _ _______ Pueblo_______ _________ 2 2 Utah: Salt Lake C it y _____ _ 17 3 2 4 14 3 1 2 2 15 5 37 2 2 7 6 5 4 30 3 5 4 Montana: Great Falls ________ New Mexico: Albuquerque-__ _ 6 1 1 1 1 1 Demolition permits were not required in Butte, Mont., and Ogden, Utah. 2 1 7 Appendix Table A shows detailed information for nonhousekeeping residential and nonresidential construction in the Mountain Division cities. This table indicates the type of material and permit valuation for individual structures in each of the 10 cities. T a b l e A . — N u m b er and perm it valuation o f n onhou sekeeping residential and n o n residential structures f o r which building p erm its were issu ed in M o u n ta in D iv isio n cities , b y typ e o f structure and specified m aterials , 1 9 3 9 Arizona PHOENIX Type of structure and material Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures Total nonhousekeeping residential structures . . . ___ - _____ 10 $42, 285 Lodging houses: Stucco......... ...... 2 19, 500 1 1 17, 500 2,000 Nurses’ homes: Stucco________ 1 17,085 Summer camps and cottages____ 7 5, 700 3 2,100 1 1 1 700 700 700 Frame ....... Concrete 4 3,600 i2 i2 1,800 1,800 Total nonresidential structures__ 378 2,000,478 Amusement and recreation places. 4 308, 895 3 240,031 Brick 1 1 1 1 68,864 Churches.......... ............................. 5 34,000 Frame...................................... 2 3,000 1 1 2,000 1, 000 2 21,000 1 1 11,000 10,000 1 10,000 Stucco.................................... Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures Factories, bakeries, ice plants, laundries, and other workshops: TVTet.al 1 Garages, public 4 22,800 3 21,800 1 1 1 16,000 3,000 2,800 1 1,000 Brick........ ................ ...... ........ Concrete __ _ _ 298 66,668 Frame_____________________ Brick _ __ ___ ________ Stucco Frame and stucco__________ Adobe.- _ ______ _______ C o n crete-.._______ _______ Metal______ _____________ Mnf ut irpnnrfpd cpui LCU------- ---------- ---- 206 2 60 3 1 1 8 17 45,037 583 13 724 2,150 360 350 1,135 3,329 Gasoline and service stations____ 13 57,150 3 9,600 1 1 1 7,100 1, 500 1,000 Brick- Concrete__________________ M et.al 2 7,800 1 1 4, 800 3,000 8 39, 750 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 4, 500 4,000 4,000 3,250 See footnotes at end of table. $1, 500 Garages, private, when separate from dwelling 2________ - ____ 84, 500 78,133 77, 398 Reinforced concrete, facing not reported______________ Brick....................................... Type of structure and material 19 20 BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY, 1939 T a b l e A , — N u m b er and p erm it valuation o f non h ou sekeepin g residential and n o n residential structures fo r which building p erm its were issu ed in M o u n ta in D iv isio n c ities , by typ e o f structure and specified m aterials , 1 9 3 9 — Continued Arizona— Continued PHOEN IX—Continued Type of structure and material Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures Public buildings—city, county, State, and Federal: Brick_____ Public works and utilities: Reinforced concrete, facing not re- 1 $31,000 1 180,000 8 870, 307 1 1 1 1 1 »2 1 295,000 175, 530 115,130 88, 200 79, 383 86, 564 30, 500 Sheds, poultry houses, etc............. 11 4, 325 Frame...................................... 1 100 Schools: Brick_________________ Brick..................... ...... ........... Stucco..................................... 2 1, 300 1 1 1,000 300 2 800 1 1 500 300 3 1, 525 1 1 1 1,000 300 225 Metal_____________________ 1 300 Not reported......... .............. 2 300 1 1 200 100 Concrete................... .......... . Type of structure and material Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures Stores and other mercantile build ings ____________________ __ 32 Frame_____________________ 1 1, 250 26 360, 783 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 139,000 59, 583 25,000 20, 000 14,000 13, 500 11,000 9, 000 7,000 7,000 6,400 5, 500 5, 000 5,000 4, 500 4, 500 3, 700 3, 500 3,000 2,700 2, 700 2, 500 2, 250 2,200 1,250 1,000 3 5,000 1 1 1 3, 500 1,000 500 Brick__________________ _ ' Concrete................................. $423,833 M pta,l 1 800 Not reported. . . ___________ 1 56,000 Garages, private—Continued. Concrete............ ___ . ___ Metal...................................... Tile__________________ ____ Not reported_______________ 2 19 2 2 $350 1, 798 500 800 Gasoline and service stations____ 3 11,400 Brick________________ ____ _ 1 1,900 Metal................. .................... 2 9,500 1 1 8,000 1, 500 2 16,100 1 1 8,600 7,500 Public works and utilities_______ 5 202,489 Brick______________ _______ Reinforced concrete................ 1 1 1,490 53,999 TUCSON Total nonhousekeeping residen tial structures_________ 1 $25,000 Association buildings: Stucco___ 1 25,000 Total nonresidential structures... 136 525, 484 Amusement and recreation places: Structural steel, facing not re ported____ _______________ 1 9,000 Churches: Stucco.......................... 2 12,000 1 1 9,000 3,000 Garages, public: Brick................. 1 7,400 Garages, private, when separate from dwelling 2____________ .. 87 26, 693 Brick____________________ Stucco---- ------ -------------------Adobe_________ ___________ 28 29 5 10,163 11, 457 1, 625 See footnotes at end o f table. Institutions: Brick_____________ 21 APPENDIX T a b l e A . — N u m b er and p erm it valuation o f n o n h ou sek eep in g residential and n o n residential structures f o r which building perm its were issu ed in M o u n ta in D iv isio n cities , by typ e o f structure and specified m ateria ls , 1 9 8 9 — Continued Arizona— Continued TUSC ON—Continued Type of structure and material Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures Public works and utilities—Con. Metal__ ____ ______________ $142, 575 Stores and other mercantile build ings ______ _______ 16 $86,957 1 1 71, 350 71, 225 Brick............................... ........ 12 77,207 1 1 1 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 19,000 11, 500 11,500 6,557 11, 500 5,000 3,950 3,000 2,200 2,000 1,000 1 1 4,000 1,750 2 4,000 1 1 2,000 2,000 4 1,040 1 Schools: Brick............................... 2 149,995 1 1 106, 000 43, 995 4,425 13 2,410. Stucco........ - ........................... 1 125 AdnhA 3 450 Adobe P.nnpret.e 1 1 1 200 150 100 Metal....................................... _ .... Concrete..............................._. 1 750 Metal...................................... 8 1,085 _ ___ All other nonresidential struc- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 350 Fences: Frame.. . ................... 300 140 Retaining walls____________ 100 60 Brick_________ _________ 50 A d o b e . ______________ 50 Not reported... _______ 35 Colorado COLORADO SPRINGS Total nonhousekeeping residen tial structures 9 $3,900 Summer camps and c o t t a g e s .. 9 3,900 Frame________ ____________ i2 700 4 2,300 fftneen NVvt. reported Total nonresidential structures... Churches: Brick 1 13 800 1,500 3 900 1 1 1 400 400 100 176 680, 669 1 62, 900 Factories, bakeries, ice plants, laundries and other workshops3. 1 4,700 Garages, private, when separate from dwelling 2____________ _ _ 149 22, 504 69 2 69 1 5 3 9, 325 400 10, 601 70 1, 475 633 Frame..................................... Brick........ ............................. Stucco............. ........................ Adobe. . . . _______________ Concrete__________________ Not reported_______ . .. See footnotes at end of table. Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures 2 Not reported.......................... Sheds, poultry houses, etc______ Type of structure and material Gasoline and service stations: Stucco ___________ ___ _____ 1 40 3 1,000 1 1 1 370 130 500 2 $4, 400 1 1 2, 500 1,900 S c h o o ls .____ _________________ 2 506, 880 Brick Stucco_____________________ 1 1 486, 637 20, 243 Sheds, poultry houses, etc.2_____ 17 2,785 Frame Stucco__________ ______ ____ Concrete.................................. Glass.......... ............................. Not reported----------------------- 9 1 1 1 5 1,495 175 175 350 590 Stores and other mercantile build ings______________ ___ _______ 4 76, 500 Frame........ .................... ........ 1 500 Brick__________ ___________ 3 76,000 1 1 1 60,000 15,000 1,000 22 BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY, 1 9 3 9 T a b l e A . — N u m b er and perm it valuation o f non h ou sek eep in g residential and n o n residential structures f o r which building p erm its were issu ed in M o u n ta in D iv isio n cities , b y typ e o f structure and specified m aterials , 1 9 3 9 —Continued Colorado— Continued DENVER Type of structure and material Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures Total nonhousekeeping residential structures _____ _ __ _ _ 23 $32, 500 Association buildings: Brick____ 1 16,000 Summer camps and cottages___ 22 16, 500 Brick............. ...................... 9 4, 500 18 1 4,000 500 1 13 12,000 Total nonresidential structures.._ 1,420 5,437,924 Factories, bakeries, ice plants, laundries, and other workshops. 6 70,800 Brick........ ........................ — . 5 69,800 1 1 1 1 1 28,000 20,000 16,000 4,000 1,800 Metal........................ - ......... . 1 1,000 Garages, public: Brick................. 6 91,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 50,000 30,000 5,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 Garages, private, when separate from dwelling 2__------ ------------- 1,136 312, 746 Stone__________________ _ _ Stucco__ _________________ Brick and stucco___________ Concrete Metal.............. .............. ......... Tile_________ ____ _________ Not reported_________ ____ 219 863 1 7 2 19 22 2 1 36, 630 260, 211 ’ 175 1,225 650 8,195 i 010 1,250 400 Gasoline and service stations____ 19 49,100 Frame ________________ B r in k Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures Type of structure and material Gasoline and service stations—Con. Metal__________________ _ See footnotes at end of table. 13 37,600 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 600 $7,500 3,000 2,000 1,500 1,000 1 1 2 ,000 4 375,876 3 201,037 i2 1 176, 037 25,000 Tile Not reported_______________ Institutions__________________ Brick.................................... Reinforced concrete: Brick feeing Public buildings—city, county, State end Eerieral 2,000 1 174,839 9 2,490,548 Frame. __________________ ^1 189,350 Brick......................... ............. 4 339,843 1 1 1 1 251, 300 49, 225 26,471 12,847 1 88,925 2 1, 706,830 1 «1 1, 216,430 490,400 Reinforced concrete: Stone facing------------------------------ * Structural steel: Brick facing. ..................... ' * Concrete and brick facing. Public works and utilities Brick and stone__________ _ Not reported_______________ Schools....................................... . B r ic k B r in k 4 1 1 1 1 Reinforced concrete: Brick facing____________ _______ ^1 165, 600 3 261,899 1 248,799 2 13,100 1 1 11,000 2,100 3 485, 326 2 213, 092 1 1 200,092 13,000 1 272, 234 Sheds, poultry houses, etc.2_____ 109 27,825 Frame................................... Brick___________ _____ _____ Stone______________________ Frame and stucco......... ......... Concrete____________ ______ Metal...... ........................... Not reported.............. ............ 40 30 1 5 5 23 5 11,310 7,030 200 345 400 5,665 2,875 23 APPENDIX T a b l e A . — N u m b er and perm it valuation o f non h ou sek eep in g residential and n o n residential structures f o r which building p erm its were issu ed in M o u n ta in D iv isio n cities , by typ e o f structure and specified m aterials , 1 9 8 9 — Continued Colorado— Continued D E N VER—Continued Type of structure and material Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures Stores and other mercantile buildin g s __ Frame..................................... Brick......................................- Concrete............................. . See footnotes at end of table. 72 $1, 267,100 Type o 1structure and material Stores, mercantile buildings—Con. Metal________ ___________ 16, 500 3 — 1 1 1 12,000 4, 000 500 51 1,090,100 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 340,000 90, 000 90,000 72,000 60,000 60,000 40,000 35,000 20,000 20,000 20, 000 18,000 15, 000 15, 000 12,000 12,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 io, doo 10,000 10, 000 10, 000 10,000 10,000 8, 000 7, 000 6,000 5, 000 5, 000 5,000 4,500 4, 000 4, 000 4, 000 4,000 3,600 3, 000 3,000 2,000 2,000 2, 000 1. 500 1,500 1,000 1,000 1,000 1, 000 1,000 500 500 5 6,100 1 1 1 1 1 3,000 1,000 800 700 600 Not reported____ __________ Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures 8 $23,900 1 12 1 1 1 1 1 7,000 13,000 1,000 1,000 700 700 500 5 130, 500 1 1 1 1 1 55,000 50,000 20,000 3,500 2,000 All other nonresidential struc tures____ _____ ________ 53 5,704 Fences ........................... ........ 45 3,944 Frame.—........................... 13 679 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100 100 100 100 62 60 35 30 25 25 15 15 12 Brick................................. 1 50 Metal....... ........................ 12 1,030 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 200 160 100 100 100 100 75 75 50 25 25 20 Not reported..................... 2,185 19 — 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 800 450 200 100 80 75 70 50 50 50 50 24 BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY, 1 9 3 9 T a b l e A . — N u m b er and p erm it valuation o f non h ou sek eep in g residential and n o n residential structures f o r which building p erm its were issu ed in M o u n ta in D iv isio n cities , by typ e o f structure and specified m aterials, 1 9 3 9 — Continued Colorado— Continued D E N VE R—Continued Type of structure and material Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures All other nonresidential struc tures—Continued . Fences—C ontinued. Not reported—Con. ■R etaining w a lls B rick............................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 JOU 45 30 25 20 15 15 10 s 1,760 1 Type of structure and material Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures All other nonresidential struc tures—Continued. Retaining walls—Continued. Stone__________________ 1 $80 Concrete......... ................. 4 495 1 1 1 1 200 200 70 25 2 1,050 1 1 1,000 50 9 $66,650 5 62,000 1 1 1 1 1 13,000 13.000 13,000 13,000 10,000 2 2,150 1 1 1,600 550 Not reported.................... 135 PUEBLO Total nonresidential structures... Amusement and recreation places: Brick ______ ___ . . . . Garages, private, when separate from dwelling 2................. ......... Frame...................................... Brick..______ _____________ Stucco________ _______ ____ _ A d o b e _________ ___ ____ Concrete ________________ IVtp.tal 216 $258,441 Stores and build inps 1 153,988 Brick 186 23,645 76 21 62 19 3 5 8,170 4,820 7,675 1,860 500 620 Gasoline and service stations____ 3 9, 500 Brick_________ _________ _ Stucco Adobe.................................... . 1 1 1 2,500 5, 500 1, 500 15 4,208 5 1 3 1 3 2 408 1, 500 5950 200 700 450 Sheds, poultry houses, etc.2_____ Frame.......... .......................... BrinkStucco........ ................... ......... Adobe________ ____________ Metal. ............................ ........ T ile ........................................ other ... mercantile ...... _ _ • Stucco . _ , _,r .......... . Concrete___________________ 2 2,500 1 1 2,000 500 All other nonresidential struc tures: Fences. .. __________ 2 450 Brick....................................... Concrete__________________ 1 1 250 200 Gasoline and service stations____ 3 $12,999 Frame...................................... 2 5,499 1 1 3,000 2,499 1 7,500 M o n ta n a BUTTE 1 Total nonresidential structures... Churches: Reinforced concrete: Brick facing ._ ______________ Factories, bakeries, ice plants, laundries, and other workshops. Stucco_____________________ Structural steel: Concrete fac ing-------------------------- ------ 33 1 2 $179,139 93, 000 44,000 1 5,000 1 39,000 Garages, private, when separate from dwelling 2_______ _______ Sheds, poultry houses, etc.: Frame______________________ 24 3,940 Frame...... ............................... Not reported........................... 14 10 2,490 1,450 Stables and barns: Frame______ Stores and other mercantile build ings: Reinforced concrete, brick facing ______________________ See footnotes at end of table, Stucco.................................... . 1 50 1 150 1 25,000 25 APPENDIX T a b l e A . — N u m b er and p erm it valuation o f non h ou sek eep in g residential and n o n residential structures f o r which building perm its were issu ed in M o u n ta in D iv isio n cities, b y typ e o f structure and specified m aterials, 1 9 8 9 —Continued M o n ta n a— C ontinued. GREAT FALLS Type of structure and material Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures Total nonhousekeeping residential structures________________ 12 Summer camps and cottages: Frame—......................... ............ 12 1,860 12 16 14 450 850 560 Total nonresidential structures... 92 932, 282 Garages, public: Metal_________ Garages, private, when separate from dwelling 2_______________ 1 2,500 60 11,429 Frame...................................... Brick____ _______ ________ Frame and stucco................. Tile____________ __________ Not reported_______________ 55 2 1 1 1 9,866 988 450 75 50 Gasoline and service stations....... 3 6,500 Frame.......................... .......... *1 1,000 Brick and stucco___________ 2 5, 500 1 1 3, 500 2,000 1 544,988 Public buildings—city, county, State, and Federal: Reinforced concrete, brick facing................. $1,860 Type of structure and material Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures Public works and utilities......... . 4 $281,693 Frame_____ ______________ Stucco________________ Structural steel, cement facing. 51 fil 2 1,200 55,461 225,032 Schools: Brick................... .......... fi 1 1 1 124, 500 100, 532 50,870 Sheds, poultry houses, etc.2_____ 13 3, 590 Frame_______ ____ ___ _____ Brick___________________ _ Not reported___ ____ _______ Stables and barns: Frame......... . Stores and other mercantile build ings_______________ .. __ ___ 9 1 3 1 1,912 928 750 50 8 30, 662 Brick........................................ 5 22,862 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 7, 262 6,000 4,000 3, 600 2,000 7,800 6,000 1,200 600 Gasoline and service stations____ 6 $26, 200 Brick______________________ Concrete_____________ _____ Tile_______ _______ _______ _ 1 1 1 2,000 10,000 3,000 Not reported.......................... 3 11,200 1 1 1 4, 800 4,600 1, 800 Office buildings, including banks. 2 196, 500 Structural steel: Brick facing. Not reported_______________ 1 1 171, 500 25,000 Metal....................................... New Mexico ALBUQUERQUE Total nonhousekeeping residen tial structures________________ 30 $123,000 Hotels: Brick and stucco_______ Summer camps and cottages: Stucco______ _____ ______ ____ Total nonresidential structures.._ (6) 100,000 i 30 421 23,000 849,924 Amusement and recreation places. 4 87,100 Stucco_______________ _____ Adobe..................................... Concrete_______________ . . . Not reported--------------------Churches: Concrete____________ Garages, public_________ _____ „ 1 1 1 1 1 2 10,000 13,500 48,000 15,600 11,000 7, 795 Brick....................................... Concrete.___ ____________ . Garages, private, when separate from dwelling 2_____ ________ 1 1 4,000 3,795 349 67, 207 5 12 291 22 19 1,070 4,135 53,857 4,680 3,465 Frame.._____ ______________ Brick.......................... ............. Stucco_____________________ Adobe_____________________ Not reported_____________ _ See footnotes at end of table. Public buildings—city, county, State, and Federal2__________ 1 28,000 Schools______________________ 2 138,004 Reinforced concrete: B r ick facing_______________ ____ Not reported___________ . . . 1 1 55,101 82,903 Sheds, poultry houses, etc............ 11 2,345 Frame_______________ _____ 1 60 26 T a b l e A . — N u m b er and p erm it valuation o f n on h ou sekeepin g residential and n o n residential structures f o r which building p erm its were issu ed in M o u n ta in D iv isio n cities , b y typ e o f structure and specified m aterials , 1 9 3 9 —Continued New Mexico—Continued ALBUQUERQUE—Continued Type of structure and material Sheds, poultry houses, e tc—Con. Brick.................................. . Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures 2 $560 1 1 500 60 Stucco..................................... 1 Not reported........................... 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Stables and barns 3 ......... ......... . Stores and other mercantile build ings . __ _ ________ . Brick..................................... 277,695 2 23,300 1 1 20,800 2,500 1 2,500 Concrete_________________ - 6 74,695 T ile ........................................ 1 1 1 1 Structural steel: Brick facing.. 1 21 3,078 17 2,560 75 2 600 Stucco............................... Tile................................... Not reported............ ........ 8,500 6 ,0 0 0 2 0 ,0 0 0 6 93,300 7,600 5,000 Brick.......................... ...... 9,895 1 1 , 500 3,700 3,100 2,500 400 200 2 450 1 1 400 50 3 325 1 1 1 160 150 15 2 275 1 1 150 125 7 835 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 250 150 100 100 100 75 60 Retaining walls...................... 4 518 Concrete........................... 3 318 1 1 1 2 ,0 0 0 25,000 $105,900 1 1 1 1 Stone............................ . 1 1 ,0 0 0 1 1 ,0 0 0 1 1 ,0 0 0 6 3 1 1 19,000 12,800 2,500 37,800 Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures Frame__________ _____ 75 21 1 1 Fences...... ........... .......... ........ 100 100 100 5,000 2 All other nonresidential structures.. 400 300 150 Stucco..................................... Metal......... ............................ Stores, mercantile buildings—Con. Not reported_______________ 500 1,225 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Type of structure and material Not reported____ _______ 1 150 100 68 200 Utah OGDEN Total nonhousekeeping residential structures____________________ Summer camps and cottages: Brick------------ ------ ---------------Total nonresidential structures___ Churches: Brick................ ........... See footnotes at end of table. $10,000 Factories, bakeries, ice plants, laundries, and other workshops: Brick_______________________ 10,000 160, 740 Garages, public- Brick. 25,000 $10,000 15,000 13,000 2,000 27 APPENDIX T a b l e A . — N u m b er and perm it valuation o f n on h ou sek eep in g residential and n o n residential structures f o r which building p erm its were issu ed in M o u n ta in D iv isio n cities , by typ e o f structure and specified m aterials , 1 9 3 9 — Continued Utah-—Continued OGDEN—Continued Type of structure and material Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures Public works and utilities—Con. Metal_____________________ 1 $2,500 6,467 1, 550 400 1,200 150 23, 200 Schools: Brick_________________ 1 9,500 Sheds, poultry houses, etc. 2 ______ 10 2,973 5 16,200 1 1 1 1 1 2 6,000 4,700 3,000 1,500 1,000 7,000 Stores and other mercantile build ings_________________________ 1 1 4,000 3,000 1 3 2 1 1 10,000 34, 500 32,000 25,000 7,000 Garages, private, when separate from dwelling 2 _______________ 45 $9, 767 Frame___ _______ __________ Brick____ ____ ____________ Stucco.__________ _________ M eta l... --------------- ----------Not reported_______________ Gasoline and service stations____ 34 3 2 4 2 7 Brick....................................... Concrete.................................. Public buildings—city, county, State, and Federal: Brick_____ Public works and utilities_______ Brick.................................... Type of structure and material Frame................... ........... . . . Brick..____________ ________ Metal...................... ................ 4 5 1, 773 300 900 9 20,800 1 Frame.......... .......................... 1 Brick.......... ............................ 4 4,000 1 0 ,0 0 0 4,000 3,000 1 1 1 1 2 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 Brick and stucco..................... 1 4,000 Metal..................................... . 3 2,800 1 1 1 1 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 800 SALT LAKE CITY Total nonhousekeeping residential structures______________ ____ Dormitories: Brick_____ _____ Summer camps and cottages_____ Brick........ ............................. Concrete___________________ Total nonresidential structures... Amusement and recreation places: Frame.................................... Churches.. ___________________ Brick....................................... 4 1 11,500 3 2 ,0 0 0 1 1 2 651 1 3 2 1 1 Metal....................................... Factories, bakeries, ice plants, laundries, and other workshops: Concrete____________________ Garages, public.............................. B rick...................................... Concrete.................................. 1 1 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 1, 788, 541 1,300 71,340 69,840 40,000 29,840 1,500 3 57,000 137,200 5,000 132, 200 1 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 1 4 1 1 1 See footnotes at end of table. $13, 500 29,200 3,000 Garages, private, when separate from dwelling 2 ___ _______ ____ 551 $118,370 Frame_____________________ Brick______________________ Stone______________________ Stucco__ __________________ Brick and frame .................... Adobe.......... ........................... Concrete__________________ Metal............ .......................... Not reported________ ____ 497 95, 378 4,175 10 3 12,662 3,795 800 Gasoline and service stations........ 25 82,839 Brick................................. 15 52,725 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 ,0 0 0 6 ,0 0 0 12 1 1 1 1 25 1 100 260 1 ,0 0 0 200 5,500 5,000 4,000 4,000 3,500 3,500 3,000 2 ,0 0 0 2 ,0 0 0 2 ,0 0 0 1,800 1,425 1 ,0 0 0 28 B U I LDING P E R M I T SURVEY, 1939 T a b l e A . — N u m b er and p erm it valuation o f n on h ou sekeepin g residential and n o n residential structures f o r which building p erm its were issu ed in M o u n ta in D iv isio n cities , by typ e o f structure and specified m aterials , 1 9 3 9 — Continued Utah—Continued. SALT LAKE C ITY —Continued Type of structure and material Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures Gasoline and service stations— Continued. 7 1 1 1 1 1 Metal____ _______ __________ Office buildings, including banks. Brick_____________ _______ Structural steel: Facing not reported-------------------- _ . Public buildings—city, county, State, and Federal3 __________ Schools 3 _____________________ Sheds, poultry houses, etc.*....... . Frame_____________________ Brick....................................... Stucco.................................. . Concrete------------- ------ -------Metal_____________________ 7,200 3 8 ,0 0 0 1 6 ,0 0 0 463, 260 1 79,000 1 384,260 3 504,519 4 1 4 1 4 1 238,636 187,607 78, 276 1 171, 293 28 10,070 16 2,995 2,650 150 3,500 775 5 4 Brick___________ ___________ 32 3 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 1,500 500 2 Num ber Permit of struc valuation tures 1 1 1 6 ,0 0 0 1 1 2 1 Stores and other mercantile build ings............................................. Frame.___________________ _ $22,114 3,000 3,000 1,600 814 500 1 1 Type of structure and material Concrete______ ____________ 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Metal....................................... 5 12 1 1 1 $171,350 1,900 700 700 500 135,900 33,000 27,000 23,000 15,000 1 0 ,0 0 0 6 ,0 0 0 3,500 3,300 3,000 3,000 2 ,0 0 0 2 ,0 0 0 1,800 1,800 1,500 16,800 3,000 3,000 2,500 2,500 2 ,0 0 0 1,800 1 ,0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 16, 750 1 1 ,0 0 0 4,000 1 ,0 0 0 750 1Individual valuations not available. 2 Due to the large number of structures of this type for which permits were issued, data are not shown for individual structures. 3 Type of material not reported. 4 Federal construction. 8 Airport construction sponsored by the city of Great Falls—located outside the corporate limits of the city. 8 Additional costs to superstructure for which a permit was issued in 1938. O
@FedFRASER