The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Frances Perkins, Secretary B U R E A U OF L A B O R S T A T IS T IC S Isador Lubin, Commissioner Statistics o f Building Construction, 1920 to 1937 A s Show n by Building Permits Issued PART I General Trend in Construction P A R T II Residential Building Construction, 1929 to 1935 ♦ Prepared by DIVISION OF CONSTRUCTION AND PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT H E R M A N B. B Y E R , Chief Bulletin 650 U N IT E D S T A T E S G O V E R N M E N T P R IN T IN G OFFICE W A S H IN G T O N : 1938 For sale by the Superintendent o f Documents, Washington, D . C. Price 10 cents CONTENTS P art I. G en er al T rend in C onstruction Introduction____________________________________________________________________ Trend in construction, 1921 to 1937: Expenditures and dwelling units_________________________________________ Families provided for, by type of dwelling unit________________________ Construction in five leading cities_______________________________________ Prices of building materials, wages, and rents__________________________ Volume of residential construction______________________________________ Page 1 5 9 12 13 14 T a b le s T able A l .— Estimated expenditures and families provided for in 257 identical cities, 1921 to 1937_________________________________ T a b l e A2.— Average cost per family of new dwellings in 257 identical cities, 1921 to 1937___________________________________________ T ab le A 3.— Number and percentage of families provided for in 257 identical cities, 1921 to 1937_________________________________ T ab le A 4.— Percentage of families provided for by different types of dwellings in 257 identical cities, by size of city, 1921 to 1937. T a b l e A 5.— Five cities leading in total expenditures, 1921 to 1937________ T a b l e A6.— Index numbers of building expenditures, material prices, union wages, and rents, 1921 to 1937_______________________ T a b l e A 7.— Family-dwelling units provided in total urban area, January 1936 to December 1937, by quarters________________________ T a b l e A 8.— Estimated family-dwelling units provided by new construc tion in urban areas during 1936 and 1937, by size of c i t y .. T ab le A 9.— Estimated dwelling units constructed in the urban area of each State, 1936 and 1937____________________________________ 5 8 9 10 12 13 16 16 17 P art II. R esid en tial B uilding C onstruction , 1929 to 1935, b y T ype of S truc tu re , C ost G roups , and S ize of C ity Residential building construction: Purpose and scope of survey_____________________________________________ Family-dwelling units provided, by type of structure and geographic divisions_________________________________________________________________ Family-dwelling units provided, by cost groups and geographic divi sions.. ___________________________________________________________________ Family-dwelling units provided, by cost groups and type of structure. Family-dwelling units provided, by cost groups and by size of city Family-dwelling units demolished_______________________________________ Appendix— Cities covered by report_____________________________________ hi 23 24 26 29 31 33 37 IV CONTENTS Tables Page T able T able T able T able T able T able T able T able B l.— Family-dwelling units, by type of structure, in each geographic division, 1929 to 1935_________________________________________ B 2.— Family-dwelling units, b y estimated cost p e r unit, in each geographic division, 1929 to 1935____________________________ B 3.— Family-dwelling units, by estimated cost per unit and by type of structure, 1929 to 1935______________________________ B4.— Family-dwelling units, by type of structure and size of city, 1929 to 1935___________________________________________________ B5.— Family-dwelling units, by estimated cost per unit and size of city, 1929 to 1935--------------------------------------------------------------------B6.— Buildings and family-dwelling units in structures for which demolition permits were issued in 149 cities, by type of structure, in each geographic division, 1929 to 1935______ B7.— Buildings and family-dwelling units in housekeeping struc tures for which demolition permits were issued in 149 cities, by type of structure and size of city, 1929 to 1935_________ B8.— Dwelling units provided compared with dwelling units demolished in housekeeping structures for which permits were issued in 149 identical cities, by geographic division, 1929 to 1935___________________________________________________ 25 28 30 32 33 35 36 36 Bulletin 7S[o. 650 o f the United States Bureau o f Labor Statistics Statistics of Building Construction, 1920 to 1937 Introduction Since 1920 the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been collecting data on building permits. These data, published annually from 1920 to 1928 and monthly from 1929 to the present, show the trend of con struction as measured by the value of permits issued and are important basic material used in forecasting the probable trend and in estimating total construction. The monthly reports show the number of build ings, permit valuation, and families provided for in new residential buildings, and the number and estimated cost of new nonresidential buildings, additions, alterations, and repairs, and total building con struction. .Part I of this bulletin gives the trend of building construc tion as measured by the value of permits issued. For 1936 and 1937 estimates of the family-dwelling units provided in the total urban area of the United States are shown. In response to the increasing demand for more detailed information on building construction, in 1935 the Bureau of Labor Statistics undertook the collection of data from the building permit records of more than 800 cities with funds made available by the Works Progress Administration. The Federal Housing Administration, the Home Loan Bank Board, and the Works Progress Administration cooperated with the Bureau in making this study. The building-permit survey covered the 7-year period 1929 to 1935. Part II of this bulletin summarizes the data compiled in the survey and presents information concerning the number of family-dwelling units provided, classified by cost groups, type of structure, and size of city. The number of family-dwelling units in housekeeping struc tures for which demolition permits were issued are shown by similar classifications. Part III of this bulletin presents a review of construction for 1936 and 1937 based on building permits issued in cities reporting to the Bureau. Tables are presented showing the number and cost of each type of building, such as one- and two-family dwellings, apartment houses, amusement buildings, churches, factory buildings, etc. 1 PART I General Trend in Construction 3 Trend in Construction, 1921 to 1937 Expenditures and D w elling Units Building permit data are available for 257 identical cities since 1921. Information concerning expenditures for the different types of building operations and for the number of families provided for is shown in table Al for these 257 cities for the years 1921 to 1937, inclusive. T able A l .— Estimated expenditures for building construction, families provided fory and index numbers thereof, in 257 identical cities, 1921 to 1987 [Revised. N ew residential buildings Total building operations Year 1921 = 100] N ew nonresidential buildings Additions, altera tions, and repairs Index num ber Estimated expenditure Index num ber Estimated expenditure Index Estimated Index num expenditure num ber ber 1921___________ $1,837,841, 665 1922___________ 2, 767, 782,634 1923___________ 3, 398,884, 406 1924___________ 3, 508,266, 587 1925___________ 4,028,066,479 100.0 150.6 184.9 190.9 219.2 $933,868, 739 1, 614,891,486 1,998. 393, 400 2,038,427, 392 2,390,390,182 100.0 172.9 214.0 218.3 256.0 $631,167,199 869, 512,807 1,065, 624, 238 1,125,290,699 1,300,494,326 100.0 $272,805,727 137.8 283, 378, 341 168.8 334,866, 768 178.3 344, 548,496 206.0 337,181,971 100.0 103.9 122.7 126.3 123.6 1926___________ 1927___________ 1928___________ 1929___________ 1930____ ______ 3,826,927, 204 3,478,604, 263 3,304,699,712 2, 933, 212,041 1, 697,724,944 208.2 189.3 179.8 159.6 92.4 2, 222,874, 645 1,906,003, 260 1,859,423,751 1,433,715, 542 601, 269,847 238. 0 204.1 199.1 153.5 64.4 1, 262, 738,028 1, 231,785,870 1,135, 569,986 1,147,796,781 849, 386,873 200.1 195.2 179.9 181.9 134.6 341, 314, 531 340,815,133 309,705,975 351,699, 718 247, 068, 224 125.1 124.9 113.5 128.9 90.6 1931___________ 1932___________ 1933___________ 1934___________ 1935___________ 1,237,449,888 481,490, 267 382, 389,451 379, 227, 689 655, 307,025 67.3 26.2 20.8 20.6 35.7 426,270, 111 103,452, 079 91,298, 433 76, 625,105 211,987,850 45.6 11.1 9.8 8.2 22.7 622,830,444 275, 788,958 183,065, 712 166,360,507 260,118, 322 98.7 43.7 29.0 26.4 41.2 188, 349, 333 102, 249, 230 108, 025, 306 136, 242,077 183,200,853 69.0 37.5 39.6 49.9 67.2 1936___________ 1937___________ 1, 042,048,114 1,165, 731, 758 56.7 63.4 472, 655, 095 475, 779, 614 50.6 50.9 331, 608, 310 412, 559, 299 52.5 65.4 237,784, 709 277, 392.845 87.2 101.7 Estimated expenditure Population Families provided for Year Estimated population Index number Number Index number Ratio to each Index number 10,000 of adjusted to population population 1921__________________ 1922__________________ 1923__________________ 1924.............................. . 1925........... ..................__ 37, 409, 471 38,242, 673 39,075,875 39,909,077 40, 742, 279 100.0 102.2 104.5 106.7 108.9 224,545 377, 305 453, 673 442,096 491, 032 100.0 168.0 202.0 196.9 218.7 60.0 98.7 116.1 110.8 120.5 100.0 164.5 193.5 184. 7 200.8 1926_____________ ____ 1927.......... ............. . 1928— ........................... 1929__________________ 1930— ........................ . 41, 575, 481 42,408, 683 43, 241,885 44,075,087 1 44,908,285 111.1 113.4 115.6 117.8 120.0 462, 208 406,095 388,678 244, 394 125, 322 205.8 180.9 173.1 108.8 55.8 111.2 95.8 89.9 55.4 27.9 185.3 159.7 149.8 92.3 46.5 1931......... ....................... 1932— ........................ . 1933................................ 1934................................ 1935................................. (2) (2) (2) 43. 7 12. 2 ll! 5 9. 4 24.7 21.9 6.1 5.8 36. 5 10. 2 9. 7 (2) (2) 98,178 27,381 25,879 20,997 55, 522 1936__________________ 1937....... ........................ (2) (2) 115,365 117,394 51. 4 52! 3 25.7 4’ 7 12.4 7. 8 20.7 42.8 43! 6 26! 1 1 Actual enumeration. 2 N o estimate made; ratios based on census of 1930. 87763°— 38---------2 5 6 STATISTICS OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION VALU E O F BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AS INDICATED BY BUILDING PERMITS h u n d r e d s o f m il l io n s o f Do l l a r s 257 Identical Cities H u n d r e d s o f Mil l io n s o f do llar s 45 451---------------------- A d d itio n s ,A lter a tion s , Q R e p a ir s N e w N o n r e s io e n t ia l B u il d in g s ” 40 N e w R e s id e n t ia l B u il d in g s 35 1921 1922 1923 1924 19251926192719281929 193019311932 1933 f9341935 19361937 U. S. B u r e a u o f L a b o r S t a t is t i c s 7 TREND IN CONSTRUCTION FAMILY DW ELLING U NITS PROVIDED A S INDICATED B Y BUILDING PERMITS Th o u s a n d s o r D w e l l in g s 257 IDENTICAL CITIES 5 0 0 \----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Th o u s a n d s o f D w e l l in g s -------------- 5 0 0 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 U. S. Bu r e a u o f l a b o r S t a t is t j c s 8 STA TISTICS OF B U IL D IN G C O N ST R U C T IO N The value of buildings for which permits were issued during 1937 in these 257 cities was greater than for any year since 1931, but was only 28.9 percent of the indicated expenditures during the peak year, 1925. Indicated expenditures for residential buildings, while greater than for any year since 1930, were less than 20 percent of the 1925 level. However, during 1937 permit valuations for this type of structure were more than six times as high as during the low point of building con struction in 1934. The index number, on a 1921 base, of estimated costs of new nonresidential construction was greater than for any of the past 5 years, but less than a third of the peak year, 1925. Expenditures for additions, alterations, and repairs reached the highest point since the peak year of 1929, being only 21 percent less than in that year. During 1937 in these 257 cities, 26.1 families were provided for to each 10,000 of population. In 1925, 120.5 families were provided for per 10,000 of population, while at the low point, 1934, only 4.7 new family-dwelling units were provided for per 10,000 of population. The average cost of the one-family dwellings for which permits were issued in these 257 cities during 1937 was $4,352. This is $80 less than in 1936, but is higher than for any other year since 1931. (See table A2.) T A 2 .— Average cost per fa m ily o f new dwellings in 2 57 identical cities, 1921 able to 1987 [Revised. This table does not show change in cost of erecting identical buildings, but does show change in cost of such buildings as were erected. Does not include land costs] Average cost per new dwelling unit Year All types of dwellings 1-family dwellings 2-family dwell ings 1 M ulti family dwell ings 2 1921_ _____________ 1922________________ 1923________________ 1924________________ 1925________________ $3,947 4, 016 4,127 4,361 4, 445 $3,972 4,259 4,189 4,342 4, 5.93 $3,762 3,568 4,185 4,350 4,422 $4,019 3,950 4,004 4,395 4,271 1926________________ 1927________________ 1928________________ 1\929________________ 1930_______________ 4, 422 4,449 4,407 4,565 4, 385 4, 763 4,830 4,937 4,919 4,993 4,465 4,368 4,064 4,0U 3,924 1931________________ 1932________________ 1933________________ 1934________________ 1935________________ 4, 225 3, 705 3,494 3, 564 3, 778 4,834 3,943 3,844 4,059 4, 227 1936_ _____________ 1937________________ 4, 073 4,006 4,432 4,352 M ulti family dw ell in g s2 A ll types 1-family of dwellings dwellings 2-family dw ell in g s1 100.0 101.7 104.6 110.5 112.6 100.0 107.2 105.5 109.3 115.6 100.0 94.8 111.2 115.6 117.5 100.0 98.3 99.6 109.4 106.3 4,103 4,170 4,129 4,400 3,857 112.0 112.7 111.7 ljl 5. 7 111.1 119.9 121.6 124.3 123.8 125.7 118.7 116.1 108.0 106.6 104.3 102.1 103.8 102.7 109.5 96.0 3, 607 3, 250 3,110 3,329 2,958 3, 644 3,011 3,040 2,716 3, 245 107.0 93.9 88.5 90.3 95.7 121.7 99.3 96.8 102.2 106.4 95.9 86.4 82.7 88.5 78.6 90.7 74.9 75.6 67.6 80.7 3,056 3,094 3, 752 3,638 103.2 101.5 111.6 109.6 81.2 82.2 93.4 90.5 1 Includes 1- and 2-family dwellings with stores. 2 Includes multifamily dwellings with stores. Index numbers of cost per new dwelling unit (1921 = 100) TREND IN 9 C O N ST R U C T IO N For 8 of the 17 years for which information is available, the average cost of one-family dwellings was lower than during 1937. During the period 1925 to 1931 and in the year 1936 the average cost was higher. The highest average cost for this type of dwelling was shown during 1930. The average cost of two-family dwellings increased slightly in 1937 over 1936, but was lower than during any other year except 1935. The average cost of family-dwelling units provided in apartment houses was slightly less than during 1936. Families Provided for, 1921 to 1937 In these 257 cities more family-dwelling units were provided in 1937 than in any year since 1930. More one-family dwellings were erected than in any year since 1929. (See table A3.) T able A 3 .— Num ber and 'percentage of fam ilies provided fo r in different types o f dwellings in 2 5 7 identical cities , 1921 to 1937 [Revised] Number of families provided for in— Percentage of families provided for in— Year All types of dwell ings M ulti M ulti 1-family 2-family 1-family 2-family family dwellings dwellings1 dwellings2 dwellings dwellings1 family dwellings1 1921___ _______________ 1922___ _______________ 1923___________________ 1924___ _______________ 1925___________________ 224, 545 377, 305 453, 673 442, 096 491, 032 130,873 179,364 207, 632 209, 578 225, 222 38,858 80,252 96, 444 94, 717 86,133 54,814 117, 689 149, 597 137, 801 179, 677 58.3 47.5 45.8 47.4 45.9 17.3 21.3 21.2 21.4 17.5 24.4 31.2 33.0 31.2 36.6 1926___________________ 1927___________________ 1928___________________ 1929___________________ 1930___________________ 462, 208 406,095 388, 678 244, 394 125, 322 188,074 155, 512 136, 907 98,164 57, 318 64,131 54,320 43, 098 27, 512 15,145 210, 003 196, 263 208, 673 118, 718 52, 859 40.7 38.3 35.2 40.2 45.7 13.9 13.4 11.1 11.2 12.1 45.4 48.3 53.7 48.6 42.2 1931___________________ 1932___________________ 1933___________________ 1934___ _______________ 1935___ _______________ 98,178 27, 381 25, 879 20, 997 55, 522 48,330 19, 528 14, 437 12, 605 31, 039 11,310 3,400 2,124 1,456 3, 022 38, 538 4, 453 9,318 6,936 21,461 49.2 71.3 55.8 60.0 55.9 11.5 12.4 8.2 7.0 5.4 39.3 16.3 36.0 33.0 38.7 1936___________________ 1937___________________ 115, 365 117, 394 59,855 66,216 5, 258 7,372 50,252 43,806 51.9 56.4 4.5 6.3 43.6 37.3 1 Includes 1- and 2-family dwellings with stores. 2 Includes multifamily dwellings with stores. During 1937, 117,394 family-dwelling units were provided in these cities. This compares with 491,032 in the peak year 1925 and with 20,997 at the low point in 1934. For the sixth consecutive year more than 50 percent of the new family-dwelling units were provided in single-family dwellings. Except for the years 1935 and 1936, however, the current year saw a larger proportion of new family-dwelling units in apartment houses than any year since 1931. The percentage of dwelling units provided in two-family dwellings increased slightly over the past year, but, even so, the percentage of families provided for in this type of dwelling was lower than for any year in the 17-year period except for 1935 and 1936. 10 STA TISTICS OF B U IL D IN G C O N S T B U C T IO N The percentage of families provided for in the different types of dwellings is given in table A4, by population groups. T able A L — Percentage o f fam ilies provided fo r by different types o f dwellings in 2 57 identical cities , by size o f city , 1921 to 1987 [Revised] Percentage of families p rovided for in— Size of city Year Total number of families provided for 1-family dwellings 2-family dwellings 1 M u lti family dwellings 2 500,000 and over (14 cities) ______ _______ _ 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 112, 373 207,828 257, 565 245, 297 280,124 281,172 236,113 232, 681 139, 007 70,199 61,140 13,487 15, 592 12, 478 32,876 67, 486 69,748 44.2 35.5 34.2 35.6 34.3 28.2 25.8 22.1 25.3 32.0 35.3 58.2 37.4 44.0 42.6 41.0 41.4 21.3 23.6 24.1 25.3 18.3 13.9 13.4 10.7 10.3 12.2 11.3 15.5 8.4 6.6 4.4 3.4 5.2 34.5 40.9 41.7 39.1 47.4 57.9 60.8 67.2 64.4 55.8 53.4 26.3 54.2 49.4 53.0 55.6 53.4 100,000 and under 500,000 (75 cities)____ ____ 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 75, 073 113, 556 129,138 127, 450 140,112 120, 554 110, 688 102,166 70, 664 37,999 25,045 8,990 6,847 5, 598 15,240 33,024 31, 262 72.0 61.5 60.8 63.0 61.1 60.7 55.6 52.9 55.8 59.0 69.0 83.2 80.3 80.9 73.2 63.0 77.3 12.0 18.5 16.5 16.6 16.3 13.0 13.3 11.8 13.1 13.0 13.1 10.2 8.5 8.3 7.1 6.2 8.4 16.0 20.0 22. 7 20.4 22.6 26.3 31.1 35.3 31.1 28.0 17.9 6.6 11.2 10.8 19.7 30.8 14.3 50,000 and under 100,000 (86 cities)__________ 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 26, 060 39,818 47, 916 49, 778 49,812 43,155 42,898 38, 804 23, 365 10, 884 7,703 3,008 2,097 1, 738 5,099 10,036 11,173 74.9 63.7 61.3 60.0 61.6 57.5 52.8 55.4 65.3 69.6 74.5 84.4 89.2 87.3 74.6 73.9 75.7 15.0 18.5 19.1 14.8 15.3 14.7 12.2 10.7 11.0 9.7 9.5 8.0 7.2 7.0 6.7 6.9 8.4 10.1 17.8 19.6 25.2 23.1 27.8 35.0 33.9 23.7 20.7 16.0 7.6 3.6 5.7 18.7 19.2 15.9 1 Includes 1- and 2-family dwellings with stores. 2 Includes multifamily dwellings with stores. TREND IN 11 CONSTRUCTION T ab le A 4 .— Percentage o f fam ilies provided fo r by different types o f dwellings in 257 identical cities , by size o f city, 1921 to 1937 — Continued Percentage of families provided for in— Size of city Year Total number of families provided for 1-family dwellings 2-family dwellings M u lti family dwellings 25,000 and under 50,000 (82 cities).................... 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 11,039 16,103 19,054 19, 571 20,984 17, 327 16, 396 15,027 11, 358 6,240 4, 290 1, 896 1, 343 1,183 2,307 4,819 5, 211 68.7 63.8 61.6 62.2 60.8 62.4 63.7 65.8 72.3 77.7 86.1 87.7 92.2 90.3 90.5 82.0 90.8 18.2 17.1 19.5 20.6 20.8 18.5 15.9 13.8 12.1 9.4 8.8 7.9 5.7 4.6 6.2 3.7 3.8 13.1 19.1 18.9 17.2 18.4 19.1 20.4 20.4 15.6 12.9 5.1 4.4 2.1 5.1 3.3 14.3 5.4 T otal (257 cities)......................... ......................... 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 224, 545 377, 305 453, 673 442, 096 491, 032 462, 208 406, 095 388, 678 244, 394 125, 322 98,178 27, 381 25,879 20,997 55, 522 115, 365 117, 394 58.3 47.5 45.8 47.4 45.9 40.7 38.3 35.2 40.2 45.7 49.2 71.3 55.8 60.0 55.9 51.9 56.4 17.3 21.3 21.2 21.4 17.5 13.9 13.4 11.1 11.2 12.1 11.5 12.4 8.2 7.0 5.4 4.5 6.3 24.4 31.2 33.0 31.2 36.6 45.4 48.3 53.7 48.6 42.2 39.3 16.3 36.0 33.0 38.7 43.6 37.3 In 1937 the population group containing cities having a population of over half a million was the only one where more new family-dwell ing units were provided in apartment houses than in one-family dwellings. In this group 53.4 percent of all new family-dwelling units were provided in apartment houses and 41.4 percent in onefamily dwellings. By contrast, in cities having a population of between 25,000 and 50,000, 90.8 percent of the new family-dwelling units were in one-family dwellings and only 5.4 percent in apartment houses. 12 STA TISTICS OF B U IL D IN G C O N STR U C TIO N Construction in Five Leading Cities, 1921 to 1937 The value of expenditures in the five cities leading in building construction for each year, 1921 to 1937 inclusive, is shown in table A5. T able A 5 .— Five cities leading in total expenditure fo r building construction , each yeart 1921 to 1937 Year and city mi N ew Y o r k .. Chicago____ Cleveland. Los Angeles. Detroit____ Total expendi ture $442, 285,248 133,027,910 86,680,023 82, 761,386 58,086,053 1922 N ew Y ork ________ Chicago___________ Los Angeles_______ Philadelphia______ Detroit___________ 645,176,481 229,853,125 121,206, 787 114,190, 525 93, 614, 593 1928 N ew Y ork ________ Chicago___________ Los Angeles_______ D etroit____________ Philadelphia______ 789,265,335 334,164,404 200,133,181 129, 719, 831 128, 227, 405 1924 N ew Y ork ________ Chicago___________ Detroit____________ Los Angeles_______ Philadelphia........... 836,043, 604 308,911,159 160, 547, 723 150,147, 516 141, 402, 655 1925 N ew Y ork ________ Chicago___________ D etroit____________ Philadelphia______ Los Angeles_______ 1,020, 604, 713 373,803, 571 180,132, 528 171,034, 280 152,646, 436 N ew Y o r k ... Chicago_____ D etroit.......... Philadelphia. Los Angeles.. 1, 039, 670, 572 376,808,480 183, 721,443 140,093,075 123,006, 215 1927 N ew Y ork ________ Chicago___________ D etroit____________ Los Angeles_______ Philadelphia______ 880,333, 455 365, 065, 042 145, 555, 647 123,027,139 117, 590, 650 1928 N ew Y ork ________ Chicago___________ D etroit____________ Philadelphia______ Los Angeles_______ 916,671,855 323, 509, 048 129, 260, 285 112, 225,865 101, 678, 768 1929 New Y ork ________ Chicago___________ Philadelphia______ 942,297,219 210, 797, 640 104, 405, 545 Year and city 1929— Continued D etroit........ Los Angeles. T otal expendi ture $100, 567,497 93,020,160 1930 N ew Y ork ________ Chicago___________ Los Angeles_______ Philadelphia______ Washington_______ 410,165, 789 85, 749,167 75, 356, 715 53,141, 770 48, 823,891 1931 N ew Y ork ________ Chicago___________ W ashington.. ......... Los Angeles_______ Philadelphia______ 362,864, 076 66, 693, 556 52, 588,151 41,421, 685 35, 265, 216 1932 N ew Y ork ________ Washington_______ Philadelphia______ Los Angeles_______ San Francisco_____ 78,851, 588 59,927, 302 17,862, 661 17, 785, 627 16, 465, 092 1988 New Y ork ________ San Francisco_____ Los Angeles_______ St. Louis__________ Philadelphia______ 86, 560, 877 58,198, 282 15,396, 282 13,067, 666 12,098, 917 1934 New Y ork ________ Washington_______ Los Angeles_______ Chicago............... . Boston_____ ______ 96, 661, 717 20,928, 631 14,968,164 10,176, 448 9, 381, 623 1935 New Y ork ________ Washington_______ Los Angeles_______ D etroit____ _______ Chicago........... ......... 153,883,860 47, 216,408 32, 519, 359 22, 218, 027 17, 839, 333 1986 New Y ork _________ Los Angeles________ Washington________ D etroit____________ Chicago............. ........ 224, 066, 924 64,104,825 47, 701, 546 43, 212,100 35, 911,134 1937 New Y ork ________ Los Angeles_______ D etroit!__________ Washington_______ Chicago___________ 314, 604,086 64, 614, 089 53, 412, 244 43, 294, 632 35,957, 220 TREND IN 13 C O N STR U C TIO N Four of the five cities leading in building construction in 1937 showed gains in permit valuations over the preceding year. A de crease was registered in Washington, D. C., however. In Detroit, Mich., the estimated cost of buildings for which permits were issued was higher during 1937 than for any year since 1929; in New York, N. Y., and Chicago, 111., expenditures were higher than for any year since 1931; in Los Angeles, Calif., higher than for any year since 1930. Prices o f Building M aterials, Wages, and R en ts, 1921 to 1937 The data shown in table A6 are compiled from the Bureau’s monthly publications of wholesale prices of building materials, from annual publications of wage rates of union labor in the building trades, and from semiannual reports of rents in 32 cities. T able A 6 . — Index numbers of building expenditures , material prices , union wages, and rents , 1921 to 1987 [1921 = 100] Year Estimated expenditures for building construction in 257 iden tical cities 1 Wholesale Union wage rates per prices of building hour in the building materials trades Rents (32 cities)2 1921________________________________________________ 1922_________________________________________________ 1923_________________________________________________ 1924________________________________________________ 1925_________________________________________________ 100.0 150.6 184.9 190.9 219.2 100.0 99.9 111.6 105.0 104.4 100.0 93.7 103.7 111.9 116.2 100.0 102.9 105.6 109.3 109.8 1926________________________________________________ 1927_________________________________________________ 1928_________________________________________________ 1929_________________________________________________ 1930________________________________________________ 208.2 189.3 179.8 159.6 92.4 102.7 97.2 96.6 97.9 92.3 123.8 128.1 128.9 130.5 136.0 108.8 107.0 104.5 102.0 99.3 1931_________________________________________________ 1932_________________________________________________ 1933_________________________________________________ 1934_________________________________________________ 1935_________________________________________________ 67.3 26.2 20.8 20.6 35.7 81.3 73.3 79.1 88.5 87.6 136.4 116.6 113.3 114.1 115.4 94.1 84.4 72.7 68.1 68.1 1936_________________________________________________ 1937_________________________________________________ 56.7 63.4 89.0 97.7 119.6 127.9 69.5 72.9 1 Revised. 2 Cities covered in the Bureau’s retail price surveys. For the 17-year period under discussion, indicated expenditures for building construction reached a peak of 219.2 in 1925. Each of the following 9 years showed a decrease as compared with the preceding year. The trend turned in 1935, however, and the next 2 years each showed an increase. Wholesale prices of building materials reached a peak 2 years earlier than total construction. The years 1923 to 1928 were years of declining prices. A slight rise occurred in 1929, to again be fol lowed by 3 years of declining prices. Prices moved up again sharply 8 7763°— 38-------3 14 STA TISTICS OF B U IL D IN G C O N ST R U C T IO N in 1933 and 1934, declined slightly in 1935, 1936 showed a slight rise, and 1937 a very marked rise. After declining in 1922 union wage rates in the building trades rose each year until 1931, when a peak of 136.4 was reached. The wages fell sharply during 1932 and 1933, but started upward again in 1934 and reached the highest point since 1931 during 1937. Rents reached a peak of 109.8 during 1925, but during the follow ing years the trend was steadily downward. The low point was reached during 1934 and 1935. The years 1936 and 1937 each showed increases. Volume o f Residential Construction, 1920-37 In addition to the trend of building construction as shown by the value of permits issued in the 257 cities, the Bureau of Labor Sta tistics now estimates the number of dwelling units provided for the entire urban area of the United States. Prior to 1936, reports of the Bureau dealt only with data from reporting cities. Since 1936, how ever, when the coverage of the building-permit inquiry was increased to include cities having a population of 2,500 or more, the Bureau estimates the number of urban family-dwelling units provided. Dwellings Provided in Urban Areas Dwelling units were provided in new housekeeping dwellings for 211,265 families in the urban area of the United States during 1937. This was an increase of approximately 12,000 units or 6 percent com pared with 1936. These estimates are based on building-permit re ports received by the Bureau of Labor Statistics from more than 1,500 cities having a population of approximately 59,000,000 or 85 percent of the entire urban population of the United States. The urban area of the United States, as defined by the Bureau of the Census, consists of 3,165 cities of 2,500 or more population with an aggregate popula tion in 1930 of 68,955,000. Reports on building permits are received by the Bureau from all cities having a population of 50,000 or over. The cities of 25,000 to 50.000 population reporting to the Bureau include nearly 90 percent of the total population of all cities of this size. For cities of 10,000 to 25.000 the corresponding coverage figure is about 75 percent, for cities of 5,000 to 10,000 it is approximately 45 percent, and for cities of 2,500 to 5,000 it is 35 percent. The term “ city,” as used in this report, is synonymous with the census term “ urban places,” which is defined to mean in general “ cities or other incorporated places having a population of 2,500 or more.” 1 i There are, however, certain exceptions to this definition. Population, vol. II, ch. 1. See “ Fifteenth Census of the United States.” TREND IN C O N STR U C TIO N 15 The method employed in estimating the number of family-dwelling units provided in the population groups where the Bureau does not have full coverage was as follows: The relationship was computed be tween the percentage increase in population of the reporting cities between 1920 and 1930, and the number of dwelling units provided in these cities per 10,000 population. The rate of growth in the non reporting cities between 1920 and 1930 was then used to arrive at an estimated rate of building per 10,000 population at which dwelling units in the nonreporting cities were provided. The number of dwell ing units per 10,000 population so derived was then multiplied by the 1930 population of the nonreporting cities. The result shows the esti mated total of dwelling units provided in nonreporting areas. The total number of dwelling units was apportioned by type of dwelling in accordance with the distribution shown in the reporting cities. Satellite 2 and nonsatellite cities were treated as separate groups, in preparing the estimates by the above process. Each population group was also treated separately. Public housing was excluded in estimat ing for the nonreporting cities, but was, of course, included in the totals. Totals for each geographic division, each population group, and for the United States were built up on the estimates of construction for satellite and nonsatellite cities by population group, within each in dividual State. The above-described method, with slight modification, is the same as used by David L. Wickens and Ray R. Foster, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, in estimating nonfarm residential con struction for 1936.3 Table A7, following, shows the number of family-dwelling units provided in the one-family, two-family, and multifamily dwellings in the urban area of the United States, by quarters, in 1936 and 1937. While there was a substantial gain in the number of dwelling units provided during 1937 as a whole, a reversal of the trend during the third and fourth quarters resulted in a drop of 19 percent in the num ber of dwelling units provided in this period, as compared with the last two quarters of 1936. Normally, building-permit figures are higher during the second quar ter than during any other period of the year. In 1936, however, per mits reached a peak in the third quarter, and even in the fourth quar ter there were nearly as many dwelling units provided as in the second quarter. The number of dwelling units provided during the third and fourth quarters of 1937 was not only less than during the second quar ter, but even lower than during January, February, and March. 2 Satellite cities are urban places falling within the metropolitan areas of large cities. 3 See “ Number of Dwelling Units Built in Urban and Nonfarm Areas, 1920-1936,” M onthly Labor Review, January 1938, p. 254. 16 T STA TISTICS able OF B U IL D IN G C O N STR U C TIO N A 7 .— Fam ily-dwelling units provided in total urban area , January 1 936 to December 1 9 3 7 , by quarters Dwelling units provided in— Period 1-family dwellings A ll types 2-family dwellings 1 M ultifamily dwellings 3 1936 First quarter__________________________________ Second quarter___ _____ _______ ______________ T hird quarter___ _ _________________________ Fourth quarter_______________________________ 31,608 53,660 62,398 51,307 21,798 36,360 38, 553 34, 546 1,826 3,038 3,253 3,046 7,984 14, 262 20, 592 13,715 1937 First quarter---------------------------------------------------Second quarter________________________________ Third quarter____ __________________________ Fourth quarter_______________________________ 54,814 64,505 48,098 43,848 34,192 46,015 37,566 27,930 3,399 3,978 3,239 3,239 17, 223 14, 512 7,293 12, 679 1 Includes 1- and 2-family dwellings with stores. 3 Includes multifamily dwellings with stores. A comparison of the dwelling units provided during 1937 with 1936 is shown in table A8 by cities grouped according to size. T able A 8 .— Estimated fam ily-dw elling units provided by new construction in urban areas during 1 93 6 and 1 9 3 7 , by size o f city All types 1-family dwellings 2-family dwellings 1 Multifamily dwellings 3 Population groups 1937 1936 1937 1936 69,748 33,846 15, 604 18, 226 33,124 22,715 18,002 67,486 35,451 13,878 16,008 28,393 21,674 16,083 28,844 25,963 11,784 15,481 28, 596 19,147 15,888 T o t a l--........... .............. 211,265 + 6 .2 Percentage change from 1936. 198,973 145, 703 +11.0 500,000 and over____________ 100.000 and under 500,000— 50.000 and under 100,000...... 25.000 and under 50,000....... . 10.000 and under 25,000_____ 5,000 and under 10,000........... 2,500 and under 5,000......... __ 1937 1936 1937 1936 27, 671 22, 644 10, 547 13,111 24,876 18,010 14,398 3,631 2,979 1,539 1,262 1,846 1,387 1,211 2,326 2,236 1,254 1,142 1,722 1,488 995 37,273 4, 904 2,281 1,483 2,682 2,181 903 37,489 10, 571 2,077 1, 755 1,795 2,176 690 131, 257 13,855 +24.1 11,163 51,707 -8 .6 56, 553 1 Includes 1- and 2-family dwellings with stores. 3 Includes multifamily dwellings with stores. Except for the 14 cities having a population of over half a million, the cities in all population groups provided more family-dwelling units in one-family dwellings than in apartment houses. Even in the cities having a population of over half a million, there was a decline in the percentage of families provided for in apartment houses. During 1936, 56 percent of all new dwelling units were in apartment houses in the 14 largest cities, whereas during the same period of 1937, 53 per cent were in this type of structure. In 28 of the 48 States, more dwelling units were provided during 1937 than during the preceding year. New York State, with 45,118 new family-dwelling units, provided more new family accommoda tions than any other State, followed in order by California with 32,311 and Texas with 14,424. TREND I N 17 C O N STR U C TIO N Table A9 shows the number of dwelling units provided in the entire urban area of the United States during 1936 and 1937, by States. T able A 9 . — Estimated dwelling units constructed in the urban State , 193 6 and 1 93 7 Geographic division and State Total United States_________ . . . New England________________ _ C on n ecticu t______ ______ M a in e ______________________ Massachusetts. ____________ New Hampshire _ ______ Rhode Island . . _ .. ___ _ V erm on t.. _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ Middle Atlantic_____ ______ New Jersey. ___ . . . . . . . _ N ew York ___ . . . . _ Pennsylvania ______ __ East North Central. _ _______ Illinois________ __________ . Indiana___________ _______ M ich ig a n ___________________ Ohio _ __ _______ ____ ____ __ Wisconsin. _ _ . . . West North Central_____ ________ Iow a___________ _____ __ .Kansas._ ____________ __ . . . M innesota.. . _______ . ._ Missouri ______ ______ _____ Nebraska___ . . _ . . . _ __ North Dakota_____ _________ South Dakota___________ . . . South Atlantic___________________ Delaware __________________ District of C olu m bia.. . ._ F lo rid a ____ ____ _______ __ 1937 1936 211, 285 198, 973 10, 408 2,702 544 5, 451 410 1,138 158 59, 301 5,117 45,118 9, 066 30,164 5, 550 3, 278 9, 749 8,125 3, 462 11, 885 1, 754 1, 766 3,189 3, 462 1,082 232 400 26,951 209 5, 352 7, 436 9,859 2, 265 497 5, 624 358 947 168 53, 511 5,910 40, 239 7, 362 30,320 6, 442 1,961 7, 632 9, 270 5,015 11,774 1, 749 1, 648 2, 687 3, 690 1, 217 314 469 27,441 389 6, 379 8,068 Geographic division and State area of 1937 South Atlantic— Continued. Georgia_____________________ 2, 677 M aryland_____ _____________ 2,040 North C arolin a_____ _______ 3,843 South Carolina_____ _______ 1,578 Virginia____________________ 2,112 W est V irginia.. . __________ 1,704 East South Central__________ ... 8,058 1,973 Alabama__________________ K entucky___ _____________ 1, 725 Mississippi____ __ . . . ____ 1, 598 Tennessee __________________ 2, 762 West South Central______________ 21,408 Arkansas_______ ______ _ . 916 Louisiana_____ ___________ 2, 432 Oklahoma___________________ 3, 636 Texas__________ _____ ______ 14,424 Mountain_____________ _________ 6,459 Arizona ________________ . . . 646 Colorado____ ___ _ ________ 1, 700 Idaho ___________ ________ 770 M ontana_______ ____ _______ 686 343 Nevada ___________________ 792 New Mexico _____ _ ... U tah_________________ ____ _ 1,201 W yom ing___________________ 321 Pacific___________________________ 36,636 California_______________ __ . 32, 311 Oregon. _________ _________ 1,897 W ashington_____ ___________ 2, 428 each 1936 2, 372 1, 610 3, 358 1,840 2,029 1, 396 9,446 2,071 2,157 1,713 3,505 19,240 942 2, 310 3, 227 12, 761 5, 657 558 1,343 921 715 301 723 829 267 81,725 28, 487 1,140 2, 098 . The statement below and the preceding chart show the number of dwelling units provided in the entire urban area of the United States for the years 1920 to 1937. The data for the years 1920 to 1935 are estimates made by the National Bureau of Economic Research and those for the years 1936 and 1937 are estimates made by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These estimates are based on reports of building permits received by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the years 1920 to 1937. Dwelling units provided Dwelling units provided 1920__________ ________ 196,000 1921__________ _________ 359,00 0 1922__________ ________ 5 7 4,00 0 1923__________ _________ 6 9 8,00 0 1924__________ _________7 1 6,00 0 1925__________ _________ 75 2,00 0 1926__________ ________ 6 8 1,00 0 1927__________ _________ 64 3 ,0 0 0 1928__________ ________ 59 4,00 0 1929____________ _____ 400, 000 1930____________ _____ 224,00 0 1931____________ _____ 164, 000 1932_____________ _____ 56, 000 40, 000 1933_____________ _____ 4 1 ,0 0 0 1934____________ _____ 1935____________ _____ 106,000 1936_____________ _____ 199,00 0 1937____________ _____ 2 1 1 ,0 0 0 00 DWELLING UNITS PROVIDED IN URBAN AREAS OF TH E UNITED S TA TES THOUSANDS OF DW ELL!** UNITS THOUSANDS O F D W E LLM ^U N tTS BOO % ----- BOO 400 cm rra Ha 1920 m i >1922 1923 1924 1925 Data for 1920“35 National Bureau o f Economic ft**torch Data fo r1936 -37 Bureau o f Labor S ta tistic s 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1939 1933 1934 1935 1936 n rl 200 tra = --= rra too 1 I1 I 1 . na 1937 In Q uarters 0 C O N ST R U C T IO N 300 OF B U IL D IN G 500 STA TISTICS 700 TREND IN C O N S T R U C T IO N 19 In each of the years 1936 and 1937 approximately as many dwelling units were built in the Urban areas of the United States as during 1920. The rate of building in 1936 and 1937 was about five times as great as during 1933 and 1934, the years when building reached its lowest point. The 1937 rate of construction, however, was only slightly more than one-fourth as much as during the peak years of 1924 and 1925. It is the intention of the Bureau of Labor Statistics to issue these estimates of dwelling units provided in the urban area of the United States, each quarter, in the future. The Bureau also hopes, in the very near future, to continue the series inaugurated and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research4 by making dollarvolume estimates of construction in the urban areas. Within another year the Bureau’s expanded coverage in the field of building-permit reporting should permit estimates on both dwelling units and dollar volume for the entire nonfarm area of the United States. 4 See footnote 3, p. 15. PART n Residential Building Construction, 1929 to 1935 T ype o f Structure, Cost Groups, and Siz;e o f City 21 Residential Building Construction Purpose and Scope o f Survey 1 The data on building permits compiled monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and summarized for the period 1921 to 1937 in Part I of this bulletin, give a very satisfactory picture of the general trend of building construction in the larger cities of the United States. However, to meet the needs of those immediately concerned with housing programs, such as chambers of commerce, real estate boards, city planning commissions, local building authorities, and various other governmental and quasi governmental agencies, more extended information has long been desired regarding such residential construc tion characteristics as the type of structure, construction materials, number of rooms, and estimated costs for family-dwelling units. Moreover, until quite recently, the Bureau’s reports covered only the larger cities, and there was question whether the experience of the smaller urban communities was the same as that of the larger cities. In the effort to supply such of this additional information as was available, the Bureau of Labor Statistics in cooperation with the Federal Housing Administration, the Home Loan Bank Board, and the Works Progress Administration made a special study of the build ing-permit records in 813 cities, representing about 83 percent of all cities in the United States with a population of 10,000 or more. For new residential construction, information was obtained on the number of family-dwelling units provided in each building for which a permit was issued, the permit valuation of each structure, the type of struc ture, the type of material used in the construction of the building, the cost per dwelling unit, the number of rooms per family-dwelling unit, and the cost per room. Similar data were obtained for demolished buildings.2 1 General offices for the study were in Washington, D . C., under the immediate direction of Dr. Arthur L . It ay hawk. The regional office in Boston, Mass., was under the supervision of Arno Osterhaus; Trenton, N . J., John L . K elly, Jr.; Washington, D . C ., Walter W . Schneider; Indianapolis, Ind., Herbert A . Bornhoft for collection of data and Herbert F. Krane for editing and tabulation; ^Nashville, Tenn., Leo J. O ’Neill; and Salt Lake C ity, Utah, Daniel Feins. T he personnel of the project with the exception of the admin istrative staff was furnished b y the W orks Progress Administration from its rolls as a part of the program to provide employment. The funds for carrying out the work were also supplied b y the W orks Progress Administration. 2 T o obtain similar data on new residential construction and demolitions for the years 1936-38, the Bureau is conducting another survey. In addition to bringing the present report up to date, this survey will fur nish information on: (1) Building cycles previous to the W orld W ar; (2) dwelling units provided for the years 1936 to 1938 in nonincorporated areas falling within the metropolitan areas of cities having a population of 50,000 or over; and (3) permit valuations compared with contract prices and selling prices of dwellings. 23 24 S T A T IS T IC S OF B U IL D IN G C O N S T R U C T IO N The detailed information thus compiled is being published sepa rately for each of the 365 cities with a population of 25,000 or over covered by the study. This report summarizes the data compiled on type of structure and cost groups, by size of city and geographical regions, for the 286 cities 3 of 25,000 population or more, for which the tabulation was completed at the time this summary report was prepared. The 1930 census shows 377 cities in this population group, but the Bureau was able to obtain data from only 354 cities, as in some cities information was not available, either because permits were not required or records had been destroyed. Data on demolitions by type of structure, geographic divisions, and size of city are shown for 149 cities, the total number of cities of 25,000 and over for which data were available.3 In many places the building code did not require permits for demolition work, and therefore no information on this point was available. Data on new residential construction and on demolitions were collected directly from municipal building-permit records. The cost figures shown in this report are estimates made by prospective builders when applying for permits to build. The figures cover the cost of erecting the building only, and do not include land and other costs. Types of structure are based on the number of family-dwelling units provided. Material classifications refer primarily to the exterior materials used on the building. Local building permits do not cover public residential construction. Family^Dwelling Units Provided, by T ype o f Structure Geographic Divisions and During the 7 years 1929 to 1935, building permits were issued in the 286 cities covered by this report for structures providing 539,104 family-dwelling units (see table Bl ). Nearly one-half of these dwell ing units were provided in one-family detached houses; more than one-fourth were in apartment houses for five or more families without commercial units; and approximately one-twelfth were in two-family, two-decker houses. In all geographic divisions with the exception of the Middle Atlantic States, single-family detached houses provided more than one-half of all new family-dwelling units. In the Middle Atlantic division only 22.2 percent of the new dwellings were in one-family detached houses, and one-half were in apartment buildings providing for five or more families and having no space for commercial purposes. One-fourth of all family-dwelling units provided in the Mountain and Pacific geographic divisions were in apartment houses providing for five or more families without commercial units. 3 For a list of the cities covered b y this summary, see pp. 37-42. R E S ID E N T IA L T able B U IL D IN G 25 C O N S T R U C T IO N B l .— F a m i ly dw elling u n its in structures f o r w hich bu ild in g p erm its w ere issu ed i n 2 8 6 c ities , b y ty p e o f structure , i n each geogra phic d iv isio n All divisions (286 cities) N ew England (53 cities) M iddle Atlantic (54 cities) East North Central (66 cities) West North Central (19 cities) T ype of structure N um ber Per cent age N um ber Per cent age All types______________ 539,104 100.0 36, 226 100.0 174,545 1family, detached_______ 255, 839 47.5 2family, attached _ ___ 3. 7 19, _699 2-family, side b y side. __ 17, 070 3.2 8.3 2-family, 2-decker______ 44,998 1- and 2-family and com mercial un it____ ____ .9 4,744 3-family, 3-decker______ 5, 514 1.0 2.5 4-family_______________ 13, 588 3- and 4-family and com .2 1,230 mercial unit_________ 5 or more family w ith 28.9 out commercial unit__ 155,928 5 or more family and 20,494 3.8 commercial unit __ . . 21,858 60.3 208 7,002 212 1,116 476 South Atlantic (37 cities) N um ber Per cent age N um ber Per cent age 100.0 101, 393 N um ber Per cent age 100.0 32,467 100.0 .6 19.3 38,737 14, 273 3, 060 13, 268 22.2 8. 2 1.7 7.6 54,969 233 1,554 11,922 54.2 .2 1.6 11.8 21,991 7 838 1,852 67.7 0) 2.6 5.7 .6 3.1 1.3 2, 267 1,497 2,364 1.3 .9 1.3 851 1,845 2,276 .8 1.8 2.2 126 57 1,492 .4 .2 4.6 99 .3 404 .2 324 .3 91 .3 4,819 13.3 87,143 50.0 21,122 20.9 5,727 17.6 436 1.2 11,532 6.6 6, 297 6.2 286 .9 East South Central (15 cities) West South Central (17 cities) Mountain (7 cities) Pacific (18 cities) T yp e of structure N um ber Per cent age N um ber Per cent age N um ber Per cent age 41,514 100.0 10, 713 100.0 38,887 100.0 1-family, detached........ 60. 7 25,196 1family, attached_______ 4,528 10.9 2family, side b y 1,740 side____ 4.2 2family, 2-decker_______ 1,116 2.7 1- and 2-family and com mercial u n it__________ 1.0 400 3family, 3-decker_______ .2 81 4family______ 1.6 668 3- and 4-family and com mercial unit__________ .1 45 5 or more fam ily with out commercial unit—_ 7,310 17. 6 5 or more family .and commercial unit______ 1.0 430 8,324 3 632 310 77.7 26,001 38 5,404 2,726 366 162 1,740 A ll types_______________ 55 15 336 50 0) 5.9 2.9 .5 .2 3.1 N um ber 8,< Per cent age N um ber Per cent- 100.0 94,390 100.0 62.0 .5 7.2 .4 53,203 574 2,988 6,766 56.4 13.9 7.0 5, 560 43 646 36 .9 .4 4.5 48 42 120 .5 .5 1.3 419 699 4,116 .4 .7 4.4 .1 .6 3.2 7.2 .2 53 .1 22 .2 172 .2 9.0 2,323 6.0 2,318 25.9 24,198 25.6 .5 74 .2 134 1.5 1,255 1.3 1 Less than Ho of 1 percent. Residential structures were classified by type according to the number of family-dwelling units provided. If for example under the building code of a city “ one-family” covered any or all of the three types designated in this study as “ one-family detached,” “ onefamily attached,” and one side of a “ two-family, side by side struc ture,” the plans filed with the permit were examined so that the particular building covered by the permit would be classified to agree with the definitions set up for this study. A family-dwelling unit is any room or group of rooms designed as the living quarters of one family or household and usually has complete facilities for the comfort and convenience of the family. 26 S T A T IS T IC S OF B U IL D IN G C O N S T R U C T IO N Houses of the one-family detached type are single structures intended for occupancy by one family. These houses are detached from neighboring structures. A single structure providing three or more family-dwelling units in a row without independent side walls is a one-family attached or row house. Two-family, side by side, free-standing structures contain two family-dwelling units, side by side with a party wall separating them. A two-family, two-decker building contains two family-dwelling units, one above the other with space or independent side walls separating the structure from other buildings. When a building contains space for commercial purposes in addition to living quarters designated as one-family detached or attached, two-family, side by side or two-decker, the structure is classified as a one- and two-family and commercial unit structure. Three-family, three-decker structures provide three family-dwelling units, each on separate floors. Space or independent side walls separate the building from other buildings. A four-fam ily house is a single structure with four family-dwelling units, usually arranged with two dwelling units side by side on the first floor and two directly above. When houses of three- or four-family-dwelling units also have space for commercial purposes, they are classified as three- and four-fam ily and commercial unit. Apartment houses for five or more fam ilies without commercial unit provide dwelling units for a definite number of families (five or more) under one roof with only party walls between adjacent family units, each unit having its own set of facilities for the comfort and conven ience of the family. When this type of structure contains commercial units, it is classified as five or more fam ily and commercial unit. This classification includes apartment hotels. F am ily-D w elling U n its Provided, by Cost Groups and Geographic D ivisions One in every eight of the 539,104 family-dwelling units provided in the 286 cities covered by this report had estimated costs ranging from $3,000 to $3,500 and 1 in every 10, from $4,000 to $4,500. Of the total number of dwelling units provided, 309,209, or 57.4 percent, had estimated costs ranging from $2,500 to $5,500; 24.2 percent, less than $2,500; and only 3.7 percent, $10,000 or more. In the New England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, and South Atlantic geographic divisions, approximately one-fourth of the family-dwelling units provided cost $5,500 or more. Estimated costs R E S ID E N T IA L B U IL D IN G C O N S T R U C T IO N 27 per unit were noticeably higher in these 4 divisions than in any of the others where 1 in every 10 units or less cost $5,500 or over. In each of three divisions (New England, Middle Atlantic, and East North Central) dwelling units with estimated costs of less than $2,500 accounted for less than 16 percent of the total, while in the East South Central and West South Central States 60.0 percent and 58.9 percent, respectively, had estimated costs of under $2,500. In the New England States there was a higher proportion (6.5 percent) of dwellings costing $10,000 or more, and a lower propor tion (8.7 percent) of those costing less than $2,500 than in any other division. Approximately two-thirds of the units in this area cost between $2,500 and $5,500. Nearly 7 in every 10 dwelling units provided in the Middle Atlantic States ranged in cost from $2,500 to $5,500, the largest proportion in this cost range for any of the geographic divisions. Except for the New England division, the percentage (10.6) of units costing less than $2,500 in the Middle Atlantic was lower than in all others. Sixty percent of the dwelling units provided in the East North Central division ranged in cost from $2,500 to $5,500. The number of family-dwelling units in this area costing less than $2,500 was 15.3 percent of the total. Three of every ten dwelling units in the West North Central States cost less than $2,500, and 90.1 percent of the total number provided during the 7-year period in this division cost less than $5,500. In the South Atlantic division the largest percentage reported for any of the cost classes was 10.4 percent for dwelling units costing under $1,000. While 77.4 percent of all the dwelling units provided in this geographic division had estimated costs of less than $5,500, the division had the largest proportion (7.1 percent) costing $7,500 to $10,000 and the second largest (4.7 percent) costing $10,000 or more. Over one-fourth of the dwelling units provided in the East South Central States cost less than $1,000. For this division there was a decided concentration of dwelling units in the lowest cost classes, 60 percent having estimated costs of less than $2,500, and 91.8 percent less than $5,500. As in the South Atlantic and East South Central divisions, the West South Central States had a high percentage (25.7) of the total number of dwellings in the group costing under $1,000. Dwelling units in the lower cost groups were as common in the West South Central States as in the East South Central, 58.9 percent costing under $2,500 while 92.4 percent cost less than $5,500. In both the Mountain and Pacific geographic divisions 4 in every 10 units cost less than $2,500, while one-half of the units provided 28 STA TISTICS OF B U IL D IN G C O N STR U C TIO N cost $2,500 to $5,500. Major concentrations of units (from 10.2 to 14.2 percent) were reported in three cost groups between $2,000 and $3,500 in each of these divisions. The fourth major group (12.1 per cent) in the Mountain States was in the $4,000 to $4,500 class, while in the Pacific States it was the $1,500 to $2,000 class (11.6 percent). The number of family-dwelling units for which permits were issued in 286 cities, by estimated cost per unit in each geographic division, for the period 1929 to 1935, is shown in table B2. T B 2 .— Fam ily-dwelling units in structures fo r which building permits were issued in 2 8 6 cities, by estimated cost per unity in each geographic divisiony 1 9 2 9 to 1 985 able A ll divisions (286 cities) N ew England (53 cities) M iddle Atlan tic (54 cities) East North Central (66 cities) West N orth Central (19 cities) Estimated cost per family-dwelling unit N um ber Per cent age N um ber Per cent age T otal__________________ 539,104 100.0 36,226 100.0 174,545 2,581 382 1,283 1,087 2,637 .5 .1 .2 .2 .5 386 37 163 129 277 1.1 .1 .5 .4 .8 1,355 185 496 478 1,081 $12,500-$14,999_________ ..2,934 $10,000-$12,499____ ____ 8,908 1,495 $9,500-$9,999____ ______ 4,044 $9,000-$9,499___________ 3,471 $8,500-$8,999___________ .5 1.7 .3 .8 .6 237 1,063 129 418 289 .7 2.9 .4 1.2 .8 $8,000-$8,499___________ $7,500-$7,999___________ $7,000-$7,499___________ $6,500-$6,999___________ $6,000-$6,499___________ 7,154 6, 581 10, 908 8,504 22,313 1.3 1.2 2.0 1.6 4.1 811 599 1,047 785 2,409 $5,500-$5,999___________ $5,000-$5,499___________ $4,500-$4,999___________ $4,000-$4,499___________ $3,500-$3,999___________ 14,976 45, 617 32,137 55, 546 53,374 2.8 8.5 6.0 10.3 9.9 $3,000-$3,499___________ $2,500-$2,999___________ $2,000-$2,499___________ $1,500-$1,999___________ $1,000-$1,499___________ 70,187 52, 348 44, 687 32, 276 23, 250 Under $1,000__________ 30,424 $25,000 and over_______ $22,500-$24,999_________ $20,000-$22,499____ ____ $17,500-$19,999_________ $15,000-$17,499............. 1 Less than Ho of 1 percent. Per cent age N um ber Per cent age N um ber 100.0 101,393 100.0 32,467 .8 .1 .3 .3 .6 304 61 316 198 483 .3 .1 .3 .2 .5 48 9 25 48 123 1,262 2, 742 595 1,371 1,600 .7 1.6 .3 .8 .9 720 1,984 404 983 913 .7 2.0 .4 1.0 .9 98 336 42 124 77 .5 1.0 .1 .4: .2 2.2 1.7 2.9 2.2 6.6 2,081 2,235 4,627 3,075 9,390 1.2 1.3 2.6 1.8 5.4 1,917 1,845 2,757 2,757 5,560 1.9 1.8 2.7 2.7 5.5 251 258 345 293 712 .8; .8 1.1 .0 2 .2 1,387 4,285 2,988 5,477 3,701 3.8 11.8 8.2 15.1 10.2 5,922 17,803 12,754 20, 767 22,116 3.4 10.2 7.3 11.9 12.7 4,230 11, 524 8,149 11, 727 9,343 4.2 11.4 8.0 11.6 9.2 465 2,042 1,684 3,672 3, 636 1.4 6.5 5 .2 11.5 11.2 13.0 9.7 8.3 6.0 4.3 3,811 2,598 1,429 629 412 10.5 7.2 3.9 1.7 1.1 28,035 15, 895 10,497 5,434 1, 446 16.1 9.1 6.0 3.1 .8 12, 266 7,382 5,975 4,023 2,888 12.0 7.3 5.9 4.0 2.8 5,058 3,714 3,394 2,844 1,393 15.6 11.4 10.5 8.8 4.5 5.6 730 2.0 1, 303 .7 2,684 2.6 1, 776 5.5 N um ber Per cent age 100.0 .L 0) .1 .1 .4 R E S ID E N T IA L B U IL D IN G 29 C O N S T R U C T IO N B 2 .— Fam ily-dwelling units in structures for which building permits were issued in 2 8 6 cities, by estimated cost per unit, in each geographic division, 1 929 to 1935 — Continued T able South Atlantic (37 cities) East South Central (15 cities) West South Central (17 cities) Mountain (7 cities) Pacific (18 cities) Estimated cost per family-dwelling unit N um ber Per cent age N um ber Per cent age N um ber Per cent age N um ber Per cent age N um ber Per cent age 41, 514 100.0 10, 713 100.0 38, 887 100.0 8,969 100.0 94, 390 $25,000 and over_______ $22,500-$24,999_________ $20,000-$22,499_________ $17,500-$19,999_________ $15,000-$17,499_________ 139 37 61 76 203 .3 .1 .1 .2 .5 9 1 12 7 25 .1 0) .1 .1 .2 101 25 44 34 125 .3 .1 .1 .1 .3 21 2 14 9 40 .2 0) .2 .1 .4 218 25 152 108 280 $12,500-$14,999_________ $10,000-$12,499_________ $9,500-$9,999___________ $9,000-$9,499___________ $8,500-$8,999___________ 200 1,234 113 657 264 .5 3.0 .3 1.6 .6 24 118 7 28 16 .2 1.1 .1 .3 .1 97 325 61 116 85 .2 .8 .2 .3 .2 28 139 4 47 18 .3 1.5 0) .5 .2 268 967 140 300 209 .3 1.0 .1 .3 .2 $8,000-$8,499___________ $7,500-$7,999___________ $7,OOO-$7,490___________ $6,500-$6,999___________ $6,000-$6,499___________ 1,185 689 871 602 1, 777 2.9 1.7 2.1 1.4 4.3 87 82 92 66 215 .8 .8 .9 .6 2.0 238 262 306 233 572 .6 .7 .8 .6 1.5 91 32 159 43 252 1.0 .4 1.8 .5 2.8 493 579 704 650 1,426 .5 .6 .8 .7 1.5 $5,500-$5,999___________ $5,000-$5,499___________ $4,500-$4,999___________ $4,000-$4,499___________ $3,500-$3,999___________ 1, 263 3, 437 1,619 2, 714 2, 764 3.0 8.3 3.9 6.5 6.7 83 489 239 751 420 .8 4.6 2.2 7.0 3.9 302 2,100 924 1, 580 1, 820 .8 5.4 2.4 4.1 4.7 68 680 219 1,083 652 .8 7.6 2.4 12.1 7.3 1,256 3, 257 3, 561 7, 775 8, 922 1.3 3.5 3.8 8.2 9. 5 $3,000-$3,499___________ $2,500-$2,999___________ $2,000-$2,499___________ $1,500-$1,999___________ $1,000-$1,499___________ 3, 921 4,099 3,993 2, 792 2, 497 9.4 9.9 9.6 6. 7 6.0 896 613 1, 357 894 1, 334 8.4 5.7 12.7 8.3 12.4 2, 984 3, 594 4, 099 4, 096 4, 746 7.7 9.2 10.5 10. 5 12.2 919 1, 011 1, 232 635 715 10.2 11.3 13.8 7.1 8.0 12, 297 13, 442 12, 711 10,920 7, 819 13.0 14.2 13.5 11.6 8.3 Under $1,000__________ 4,307 10.4 2, 848 26.6 10,018 25.7 856 9.5 5,902 6.3 Total— ________ _ 100.0 .2 0) .2 .1 .3 i Less than Ho of 1 percent. F am ily-D w elling U n its Provided, by Cost Groups and T ype o f Structure The highest percentage (10.8) of one-family detached houses in the 286 cities covered by this repoft cost $4,000 to $4,500, while the greatest number of single-family row houses, roughly one-fifth of the total, had estimated costs of $5,000 to $5,500. There was a marked concentration in the lower cost groups of dwelling units in two-family, side by side houses, approximately two-thirds of the dwelling units having estimated costs of less than $3,000. Over half of the dwelling 30 STA TISTICS OF B U IL D IN G CO N ST R U C T IO N units in two-family, two-decker buildings cost from $2,500 to $4,500. The highest percentage of units in any of the cost classes for threefamily, three-decker structures and apartment houses providing for five or more families without space for commercial units was in the $3,000 to $3,500 class. More of the dwelling units in four-family structures had estimated costs between $2,500 and $3,000 than for any other cost group. When residential buildings also provided space for commercial purposes, the greatest number of units in oneand two-family and in three- and four-family structures cost from $5,000 to $5,500; and apartments for five or more families and com mercial space, $3,000 to $3,500. Since the value of the building as shown on permits issued for residential structures containing com mercial units covers dwelling units and store space, it was impossible to obtain the estimated costs of the dwelling units only. The esti mated costs shown in table B3 are based on the estimated cost of the structure by the prospective builder at the time the permit was applied for. T B 3 .— Fam ily-dwelling units in structures fo r which building permits were issued in 2 86 cities , by estimated cost per unit and by type o f structure, 1929 to 1935 able 1-family 2-family All types Detached Estimated cost per family-dwelling unit Attached Side b y side 2-decker N um ber Per cent age N um ber Per cent age N um ber Per cent age N um ber Per cent age N um ber T o t a l_________________ 539,104 19,699 100.0 17,070 100.0 44,998 0) (!) 0) 0) .1 10 0) 0) 4 4 6 6 12 4 18 18 (i) (i) 0) Per cent age 100.0 255,839 100.0 $25,000 and over___ __ $22,500-$24,999_________ $20,000-$22,499_________ $17,500-$19,999 ________ $15,000-$17,499_________ 2, 581 382 1,283 1,087 2, 637 .5 .1 .2 .2 .5 1,614 244 839 749 1,873 .6 .1 .3 .3 .7 $12,500-$14,999_________ $10,000-$12,499_________ $9,500-$9,999___________ $9,000-$9,499___________ $8,500-$8,999___________ 2,934 8,908 1,495 4,044 3,471 .5 1.7 .3 .8 .6 1,782 6,874 1,104 2,966 1,907 .7 2.7 .4 1.2 .7 155 5 108 33 .8 0) .6 .2 14 82 10 28 30 .1 .5 .1 .2 .2 68 222 64 134 102 .2 .5 .1 .3 .2 $8,000-$8,499___________ $7,500-$7,999___________ $7,000-$7,499___________ $6,500-$6,999___________ $6,000-$6,499___________ 7,154 6,581 10,908 8,504 22, 313 1.3 1.2 2.0 1.6 4.1 5,397 4,109 7,292 5,853 13,482 2.1 1.6 2.9 2.3 5.3 221 128 782 644 1,692 1.1 .7 4.0 3.3 8.6 78 96 114 170 274 .5 .6 .7 1.0 1.6 276 450 388 332 1,544 .6 1.0 .9 .7 3.4 $5,500-$5,999___________ $5,000-$5,499___________ $4,500-$4,999___________ $4,000-$4,499___________ $3,500-$3,999___________ 14,976 45, 617 32,137 55, 546 53, 374 2.8 8.5 6.0 10.3 9.9 7,891 26,898 17, 203 27,497 20, 693 3.1 10.5 6.7 10.8 8.1 752 4,179 1, 505 3,131 2,331 3.8 21.2 7.6 15.9 11.8 208 782 484 900 1,288 1.2 4.6 2.8 5.3 7.5 814 3, 374 3,840 7,200 7,432 1.8 7.5 8.5 16.1 16.6 $3,000-$3,499___________ $2,500-$2,999___________ $2,000-$2,499___________ $1,500-$1,999___________ $1,000-$1,499___________ 70,187 52, 348 44, 687 32, 276 23, 250 13.0 9.7 8.3 6.0 4.3 25,083 15,904 14,154 10, 360 10, 777 9.8 6.2 5.5 4.1 4.2 1,956 831 499 169 232 9.9 4.2 2.5 .9 1.2 1,688 2,520 2,392 2, 226 1, 746 9.9 14.7 14.0 13.0 10.2 6,956 4,832 3, 312 2, 370 768 15.5 10.7 7.4 5.3 1.7 Under $1,000_________ 30,424 5.6 23,294 9.1 331 1.7 1,908 11.2 470 1.0 1Less than Ho of 1 percent. 8. 7 0) 100.0 R E SID E N T IA L B U IL D IN G 31 C O N STR U C TIO N T able B 3 .— Fam ily-dwelling units in structures fo r which building permits were issued in 286 cities , by estimated cost per unit and by type of structure, 1929 to 1985 — Continued 5 or more fam ily- Estimated cost per family-dwelling unit 1- and 2-family and commer cial unit 3-family, 3-decker 3- and 4-family and commer cial unit 4-family Without commercial unit And commercial unit N um ber Per cent age N um ber Per cent age N um ber Per cent age N um ber Per cent age 4,744 100.0 5,514 100.0 13,588 100.0 1,230 100.0 155,928 100.0 20,494 59 9 37 49 87 1.2 .2 .8 1.0 1.8 8 4 .1 0) l1) .2 .2 .2 .6 .9 860 115 385 186 501 .6 .1 .2 .1 .3 .1 4 3 3 3 7 11 15 $22,500-$24,999_ $20,000-$22,499 _ $17,500-$19,999 $15,000-117,499. 72 118 .4 .6 $12,500-$14,999. $10,000-$12,499. $9,500-$9,999 $9,000-$9,499__ $8,500-$8,999__ 115 307 47 96 78 3.0 2.6 .6 2.4 1.5 838 838 108 629 898 .5 .5 .1 .4 .6 47 269 102 23 236 .2 1.3 .5 .1 1.2 $8,000-$8,499__ $7,500-$7,999__ $7,000-$7,499__ $6,500-$6,999__ $6,000-$6,499__ T otal___ . . . $25,000 and 3 9 .1 .2 6 .1 2.4 6.5 1.0 2.0 1.6 33 105 48 27 144 .6 1.9 .9 .5 2.6 154 239 127 81 313 3.2 5.0 2.7 1.7 6.6 90 93 195 183 78 $5,500-$5,999__ $5,000-$5,499__ $4,500-$4,999__ $4,000-$4,499— $3,500-$3,999__ 81 492 202 450 257 1.7 10.5 4.3 9.6 5.4 $3,000-$3,499__ $2,500-$2,999__ $2,000-$2,499__ $1,500-$1,999__ $1,000-$1,499__ 331 266 277 181 185 Under $1,000. 224 N um ber Per Per cent N um cent ber age age 100.0 24 .2 4 24 0) .2 37 32 7 29 19 1.6 1.7 3.5 3.3 1.4 4 52 12 36 140 0) .4 .1 .3 1.0 47 18 4 39 110 3.8 1.5 .3 3.2 8.9 599 1,100 1, 535 781 3, 751 .4 .7 1.0 .5 2.4 288 296 459 385 929 1.4 1.4 2.2 1.9 4.5 291 192 381 561 375 5.3 3.5 6.9 10.2 6.8 100 292 360 700 1, 264 .7 2.1 2.7 5.2 9.3 55 126 64 44 104 4.5 10.2 5.2 3.6 8.5 3, 540 7,137 6,869 12,833 17, 523 2.3 4.6 4.4 8.2 11.2 1,244 2,145 1, 229 2, 230 2,107 6.1 10.4 6.0 10.9 10.3 7.0 5.6 5.8 3.8 3.9 1,014 690 390 264 210 18.3 12.5 7.1 4.8 3.8 1,820 2,888 2, 556 1, 572 1,012 13.4 21.3 18.8 11.6 7.4 95 99 122 55 48 7.7 8.1 9.9 4.5 3.9 28,640 22, 571 19,430 13,926 7, 214 18.4 14.5 12.5 8.9 4.6 2,604 1, 747 1, 555 1,153 1,058 12.7 8.5 7.6 5.6 5.2 4.7 132 2.4 712 5.2 49 4.0 3,121 2.0 183 .9 i Less than Ho of 1 percent. Family.-Dwelling Units Provided, by Cost Groups and Sisje o f City The proportion of family-dwelling units provided in one-family de tached sStructures in the 286 cities covered by this report varied in versely with the size of city (see table B4). Single-family detached houses constituted 78.8 percent of all units in cities with a popula tion of 25,000 to 50,000. The proportion decreased to 30.6 percent in cities having a population of 500,000 or more. In contrast, the proportion of all units in structures housing five or more families with out commercial units varied directly with the size of city. Only 5.7 percent of all dwelling units in cities of 25,000 to 50,000 population were provided in buildings of this type, 10.4 percent in cities of 50,000 to 100,000 population, 16.3 percent in the 100,000 to 500,000 popula tion group, and 42.2 percent in the largest cities. In cities of all sizes, the third most common type of dwelling was the two-family, two- 32 STA TISTICS OF B U IL D IN G C O N S T R U C T IO N decker structure which provided from 6.5 percent to 9.5 percent of the total. T able B 4.— Fam ily-dwelling units in structures fo r which building permits were issued in 2 86 cities , by type o f structure and size o f cityf 1 929 to 193 5 Total, all cities (286 cities) 500,000 and over (14 cities) 100,000 and under 500,000 (72 cities) 50,000 and under 100,000 (83 cities) 25,000 and under 50,000 (117 cities) T ype of structure N um ber Per cent age N um ber A ll types______________ 539,104 100.0 292,439 1-family, detached_____ 255,889 1-family, attached-------- 19, 699 2-family, side b y s id e ... 17,070 2-family, 2-decker______ 44, 998 1- and 2-family and commercial u n i t ____ 4, 744 5, 514 3-family, 3-decker_____ 13, 588 4-family______________ 3- and 4-family and commercial unit_____ 1,230 5 or more family with out commercial unit._ 155,928 5 or more family and commercial unit_____ 20,494 47.5 3.7 3.2 8.3 89, 519 17, 537 3, 530 27,844 .9 1.0 2.5 2, 714 3,540 6,396 Per cent age N um ber Per cent age N um ber Per cent age 100.0 152,349 30.6 6.0 1.2 9.5 96,475 1, 514 9,906 10,410 100.0 48, 613 100.0 45,803 100.0 63.4 1.0 6.5 6.9 33, 796 491 2,010 3,784 69.5 1.0 4.1 7.8 36,049 157 1, 624 2,960 78.8 .3 3.5 6.5 .9 1.2 2.2 1,102 1,431 4, 536 .7 .9 3.0 505 273 1, 624 1.0 .6 3.4 423 270 1,032 .9 .6 2.3 N um ber Per cent age .2 513 .2 333 .2 231 .5 153 .3 28.9 123,399 42.2 24,831 16.3 5,074 10.4 2,624 5.7 3.8 17, 447 6.0 1,711 1.1 825 1.7 511 1.1 Family dwellings in the $3,000 to $3,500 cost class predominated in all sizes of city groups with the exception of cities with a population of 25,000 to 50,000 where the highest percentage of dwelling units cost less than $1,000. Units with estimated costs of less than $2,500 accounted for approx imately one-third of the total in cities of 25,000 to 50,000 and also in cities having a population of 100,000 to 500,000. In cities of 50,000 to 100,000 population, one-fourth, and in the largest cities nearly onefifth of the dwelling units cost less than this amount. In each of the sizes of city groups the proportion of dwelling units costing under $5,500 was high, ranging from 76.5 percent for cities with a population of 50,000 to 100,000 to 84.1 percent for the cities of 100,000 to 500,000. Family-dwelling units in structures for which building permits were issued, by estimated cost per unit and size of city, are shown in table B5. R E SID E N TIA L B U IL D IN G T able 33 C O N STR U C TIO N B 5 .— Fam ily-dwelling units in structures fo r which permits were issued in 2 86 cities , by estimated cost per unit and size of c ityf 1 929 to 1 935 Total, all cities (286 cities) 500,000 and over (14 cities) 100,000 and under 500,000 (72 cities) 50,000 a n d under 100,000 (83 cities) 2 5 ,0 00 a n d under 50,000 (117 cities) Estimated cost per family-dwelling unit N um ber Per cent age N um ber N um ber Per cent age N um ber Per cent age N um ber 100.0 152,249 Per cent age Per cent age T otal__________________ 539,104 100.0 292,439 100.0 48,613 100.0 45, 803 100.0 $25,000 and over. _ _ $22,500-$24,999_________ $20,000-$22,499_________ $17,500-$19,999_________ $15,000-$17,499_________ 2, 581 382 1,283 1,087 2,637 .5 .1 .2 .2 .5 1,382 187 591 496 1,133 .5 (0 .2 .1 .4 513 89 301 243 719 .3 0) .2 .1 .4 330 69 241 213 483 .7 .2 .5 .5 1.0 356 37 150 135 302 .8 .1 .3 .3 .7 $12,500-$14,999_________ $10,000--$ 12,499_________ $9,500-$9,999___________ $9,000-$9,499___________ $8,500-$8,999_............... . 2,934 8,908 1, 495 4,044 3, 471 •5 1.7 .3 .8 .6 1, 520 3, 658 688 2,005 1,969 .5 1.2 .2 .7 .7 694 2,710 452 1,114 824 .4 1.8 .3 .7 .5 435 1,508 215 534 394 1.0 3.1 .4 1.1 .8 285 1,032 140 391 284 .6 2.3 .3 .9 .6 $8,000-$8,499___________ $7,500-$7,999___________ $7,000-$7,499___________ $6,500-$6,999___________ $6,000-$6,499___________ 7.154 6, 581 10, 908 8, 504 22, 313 1.3 1.2 2.0 1.6 4.1 3,800 3,434 6, 614 4, 608 13, 754 1.3 1.2 2.3 1.6 4.7 1, 717 1,890 2,435 2,146 4,744 1.1 1.2 1.6 1.4 3.1 852 722 898 961 1, 974 1.8 1.5 1.9 2.0 4.1 785 535 961 789 1,841 1.7 1.2 2.1 1.7 4.0 $5,500-$5,999___________ $5,000-$5,499___________ $4,500-$4,999___________ $4,000-$4,499___________ $3,500-$3,999___________ 14,976 45, 617 32,137 55, 546 53, 374 2.8 8.5 6.0 10.3 9.9 8,986 28,016 18,027 32,'245 32, 790 3.1 9.6 6.2 11.0 11.2 3,314 10,179 8,089 14,066 12, 942 2.8 6.7 5.3 9.2 8.5 1, 427 3,984 3,162 4, 774 4,100 2.9 8.0 6.5 9.8 8.4 1,249 3,438 2,859 4, 461 3,542 2.7 7.5 6.2 9.7 7.7 $3,000-$3,499___________ $2,500-$2,999___________ $2,000-12,499___________ $1,500-$1,999___________ $1,000-$1,499___________ 70,187 52, 348 44, 687 32, 276 23, 250 13.0 9.7 8.3 6.0 4.3 42, 590 29,088 23, 913 16, 397 8,705 14.6 9.9 8.2 5.6 3.0 18,044 16,063 13, 448 10, 834 9,858 11.9 10.5 8.8 7.1 6.4 4,977 3,854 3,852 2,505 2,047 10.2 7.9 7.9 5.2 4.2 4,576 3, 343 3,474 2, 540 2,640 10.0 7.3 7.6 5.5 5.8 Under $1,000___________ 30, 424 5.6 5,843 2.0 14, 821 9.7 4,102 8.4 5,658 12.4 1 Less than Ho of 1 percent. Family-Dwelling Units Demolished Regulations concerning demolitions in the cities included in the survey varied considerably from city to city. In some cities, permits were definitely required for a demolition; in others, safety permits were required for the protection of nearby property and passers-by. Where no permit was required, information about a structure to be demolished was frequently entered on the permit for the new build ing which was replacing the demolished structure. Occasionally the only information concerning demolitions appeared on permits to obstruct sidewalks and highways during the razing. Field agents on the building permit survey were instructed to obtain whatever information was available concerning demolitions. Data for demolitions of housekeeping structures in 149 cities with a population of 25,000 or more are included in this summary. The number of family-dwelling units contained was reported for most of 34 STA TISTICS OF B U IL D IN G CO N ST R U C T IO N the structures to be demolished, but for some they were not reported. When the number of dwelling units was known the buildings were classified by type of structure. Sometimes dwelling units were not reported, but sufficient information was given on the permit to justify classification of the structure as housekeeping. Houses under this category were known to contain at least one family-dwelling unit each, but possibly more than one. Counting these structures as one unit each and adding the number of family units reported by type of structure, the minimum number of units demolished, as indicated by permits issued, may be obtained. In table B6 detailed information concerning housekeeping struc tures demolished is presented by geographic divisions. In the 149 cities for which demolition data were available, 105,376 family dwelling units, or 33 for each 10,000 population, were demolished.4 This ratio was highest in the Middle Atlantic division (50 per 10,000 population) and lowest in the West South Central (11 per 10,000 population). Of the total number of dwelling units in housekeeping structures for which demolition permits were issued, nearly two-fifths were in apartments having five or more families without commercial units; more than one-fourth were in single-family detached houses; and a tenth of the dwellings were in two-family, two-decker buildings. Of the 13,855 units razed in the New England division, 23.4 per cent were in two-family, two-decker houses; 20.2 percent were in three-family, three-decker houses; 19.5 percent were in apartments housing five or more families without space for commercial purposes; and 15.3 percent were single-family detached dwellings. In all other divisions one or two types accounted for a large majority of the total dwelling units demolished. In the Middle Atlantic States almost two-thirds were in apartments for five or more families without com mercial units. In the East North Central and West North Central States one-family detached houses accounted for 58.4 percent and 42.6 percent, respectively, while units in two-family two-decker houses in the same divisions were 21.4 percent and 38.2 percent of the total. Single-family detached dwellings accounted for 74.7 percent of the demolitions in the South Atlantic geographic division; 92.6 percent in the East South Central; 92.0 percent in the West South Central; 64.8 percent in the Mountain; and 88.7 percent in the Pacific. In only one of these latter five divisions did any other one type of struc ture account for a significant proportion of the total. In the Moun tain States, 18.5 percent of all units to be demolished were one-family attached houses. 4 Demolished units per 10,000 population are based on the number of family units reported b y type of structure. R ESID E N TIAL B U IL D IN G 35 CO N STRU CTIO N T able B 6 .— Buildings and fam ily-dwelling units in housekeeping structures fo r which demolition permits were issued in 11^9 cities , by type of structure, in each geographic division , 1929 to 1935 Item Number of cities----------------Population in thousands (census o f 1930)__________ Demolished units per 10,000 population1____ ______ S tru ctu res d em olish ed — ______ T otal__________ N ot reporting family units________________ Reporting fam ily units. Fam ily units demolished, b y type of structure. ___ Percentage of family-dwell ing units demolished, b y type of structure: 1-family, detached.. _ __ 1-family, attached___ 2-family, side b y side. .. 2-family, 2-decker______ 1- and 2-family and com mercial un it_________ 3-family, 3-decker--------4-family_____________ . 3- and 4-family and com mercial unit 5- or more family w ith out commercial un it. _ 5- or more family and commercial unit. . . All divi sions 149 31,863 New Eng land M id East West South East West dle N o rth N o r th A t South South M oun Pacific tain Cen Cen lantic Cen Cen At tral tral tral tral lantic 25 20 8 20 7 11 4 15 3,467 12,012 5,098 2,297 2,814 1,248 1,457 408 3,062 39 50 17 27 21 19 11 26 19 55,943 6, 744 17,474 9,304 4,436 6, 476 2,649 2,257 816 5, 787 6, 765 49,178 780 348 5,964 17,126 2,390 6,914 259 4,177 1, 588 4,888 412 2,237 731 1,526 11 805 246 5,541 105, 376 13,855 59, 798 8,909 6,176 5,687 2, 325 1, 594 1,072 5,960 33 40 28.5 7.3 2.6 10.8 15.3 1.0 1.7 23.4 10.3 11.7 2.7 5.0 58.4 0.1 3.0 21.4 42.6 74.7 6.4 5.1 8.4 92.6 0.1 3.1 2.7 92.0 2. 8 3.8 64.8 18.5 7.6 0.6 88.7 1.0 38.2 2.0 5.6 2.9 2.8 20.2 9.6 1.6 4.1 1.1 4.8 1.4 5.7 1.8 6.4 5.1 3.1 1.1 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.3 1.7 0.5 1.0 2.2 0.3 0.6 4.9 1.5 0.9 0.7 0. 7 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 38.7 19.5 62.4 4.4 4.2 0.5 0.9 3.5 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 4.3 (2) i Demolished units per 10,000 population are based on the number of family units reported b y type of structure. * Less than Mo of 1 percent. The number of housekeeping buildings and family-dwelling units in each type of structure are shown by size of city in table B7. The ratio of units demolished per 10,000 population moved directly with the city’s size. In the cities having a population of 500,000 or more, 54.2 per cent were in apartments of five or more families without commercial units and 14.4 percent were single-family detached houses. In the cities ranging in size from 100,000 to 500,000, one-family detached houses accounted for 55.5 percent of the units demolished, and twofamily, two-decker structures for 12.5 percent. One-half of the family-dwelling units demolished in cities with 50,000 to 100,000 inhabitants were one-family detached houses, while nearly one-fifth were in two-family, two-decker structures. In the smallest cities included in the survey, 25,000 to 50,000, threefifths of the demolished units were in one-family detached houses and one-tenth were in two-family two-decker structures. In table B8 the number of family-dwelling units provided and demolished in 149 identical cities are presented by geographic divisions for each year from 1929 to 1935, inclusive. 36 T STA TISTICS OF B U IL D IN G C O N ST R U C T IO N B 7 .— Buildings and fam ily-dwelling units in housekeeping structures for which demolition permits were issued in 1 49 cities, by type o f structure and size o f city, 1 929 to 1 935 able 100,000 and under 500,000 500,000 and over 50.000 and under 100.000 25.000 and under 50.000 Item Total Number of cities___________________________________ Population in thousands (census of 1930)___________ Demolished units per 10,000 population 1___________ Structures demolished—total______________________ N ot reporting fam ily units_____________________ Reporting fam ily units________________________ Fam ily units demolished, b y type of structure_____ Percentage o f family-dwelling units demolished, b y type of structure: 1-family, detached--------------------------------------------1family, attached___________________ 2family, side b y side________________ 2family, 2-decker___________________ 1- and 2-family and commercial unit___________ 3family, 3-decker___________________ 4family_____________________________ 3- and 4-family and commercial unit___________ 5- or more family without commercial unit_____ 5- or more family and commercial unit_________ 149 31,863 33 55,943 6, 765 49,178 105, 376 11 16,863 41 25, 652 2,249 23,403 69, 227 50 10,318 27 23,402 3,719 19,683 27, 724 44 3,035 18 4,316 445 3,871 5,406 44 1,647 18 2,573 352 2,221 3,019 28.5 7.3 2.6 10.8 2.0 5.6 2.9 .7 38.7 .9 14.4 9.8 2.1 9.5 1.7 5.4 2.1 .3 54.2 .5 55.5 2.4 3.1 12.5 2.4 6.2 4.6 1.6 9.8 1.9 52.1 1.4 3.8 19.5 3.4 6.7 4.0 1.1 7.0 1.0 59.2 7.0 6.8 10.0 2.4 2.9 3.3 .9 6.8 .7 1 Demolished units per 10,000 population are based on the number of family units reported b y type of structure. T B 8 .— Dwelling units provided compared with dwelling units demolished in housekeeping structures fo r which permits were issued in 149 identical cities, by geographic divisions, 1 929 to 1 935 able Geographic division Total 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 A ll divisions (149 cities): New__ . _ ------ --------Demolished________ - 473, 468 105, 376 181,065 14,609 100, 418 19, 247 81, 536 12,830 22,017 10.119 22,028 11, 987 17, 932 17, 650 48, 472 18, 934 26, 707 13, 855 11,294 1, 720 5, 425 1, 611 5,113 1,739 1,642 1, 496 1, 244 1,857 839 2,941 1,150 2,491 199, 701 59, 798 72, 277 9, 315 42,069 13,208 39,445 7,170 6, 771 4, 946 11,362 5, 617 8, 634 8,841 19,143 10, 701 56, 421 8,909 28,570 802 11,458 725 6,177 680 1,651 1, 067 1,025 1, 498 1,078 2,069 6,462 2, 068 26,340 6,176 11,016 805 5, 290 896 4,135 788 1, 557 648 1,007 806 1, 049 1, 052 2,286 1,181 37, 948 5, 687 10,873 631 6,109 915 7, 527 821 2, 730 759 1, 657 793 1, 707 973 7, 345 795 11, 449 2, 325 5,328 148 2, 719 329 1,105 315 528 308 396 342 327 361 1,046 522 23, 845 1, 594 8,208 303 4,441 260 3, 862 208 1,740 132 1,372 216 1,196 192 3,026 283 7, 056 1,072 2,943 105 1,281 133 1, 403 113 420 149 185 197 196 242 628 133 84,001 5,960 30, 556 780 21, 626 1,170 12, 769 996 4,978 614 3,780 661 2,906 979 7, 386 760 N ew England (39 cities): N ew ____ ___ _____ - _ Demolished________________ M iddle Atlantic (25 cities): N ew ----------- ----------------------Demolished_______________ East North Central (20 cities): N e w . ____________ _______ Demolished______ _____ ____ West North Central (8 cities): N e w ... . ------------------Demolished_________________ South Atlantic (20 cities): N ew ____ ___________________ Demolished_________________ East South Central (7 cities) : N ew . _ -------Demolished____ ___ West South Central (11 cities): New__ _____________________ Demolished ______ _______ Mountain (4 cities): ' N e w _ -------- ---------- --------------Demolished____ ______ __ Pacific (15 cities): N ew ________ - _ - _ ----Demolished___ -- - - -- --- 1935 In each year of the 7-year period, the total family-dwelling units provided exceeed units demolished in all of the divisions, although in 1934 new units numbered 17,932, or only 282 (1.6 percent) more than the 17,650 units demolished in these 149 cities. Appendix Cities Covered by Building^Permit Report [Dagger indicates city is included in classification] Cities i N ew England: 500.000 and over: Boston, Mass_________ 100.000 and under 500,000: Bridgeport, C onn_____ Hartford, Conn_______ N ew Haven, C onn___ Waterbury, Conn.2___ Cambridge, Mass____ Fall River, M ass_____ Lowell, Mass_________ Lynn, Mass__________ N ew Bedford, M ass._. Somerville, Mass_____ Springfield, Mass_____ Worcester, Mass______ Providence, R . I ______ 50.000 to 100,000: N ew Britain, C onn___ Portland, M aine_____ Brockton, M ass______ Holyoke, M ass_______ Lawrence, Mass______ Malden, Mass________ M edford, Mass_______ N ewton, Mass________ Quincy, M ass________ Manchester, N . H ____ Pawtucket, R . I ______ 25.000 and under 50,000: Bristol, C onn_________ Greenwich, C onn_____ Meriden, C onn_______ N ew London, Conn___ Norwalk, Conn_______ Stamford, C onn______ Torrington, C onn____ West Haven, C onn___ Bangor, M aine_______ Lewiston, M aine_____ Arlington, Mass______ Beverly, Mass________ Brookline, Mass______ Chelsea, Mass________ Chicopee, M ass______ Everett, M ass________ Fitchburg, Mass_____ Haverhill, Mass______ Pittsfield, Mass______ Revere, Mass_________ Salem, Mass__________ Taunton, Mass_______ Waltham, M ass______ W atertown, Mass____ Concord, N . H _______ Nashua, N . H ________ Central Falls, R . I ___ Cranston, R . I _______ East Providence, R . I_ Newport, R . I ________ Woonsocket, R . I _____ Population (census of 1930) 781,188 Included in Bureau’s m onthly reports on building permits Covered b y buildingpermit survey t t Included in this report Included in this report on new on demo residential lition construction t t 146, 710 164,072 162, 655 99, 902 113, 643 115, 274 100, 234 102, 320 112, 597 103, 908 149, 900 195, 311 252, 981 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 68,128 70, 810 63, 797 56, 537 85,068 58,036 59, 714 65, 276 71,983 76, 834 77,149 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t (3) t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t (3) t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t f t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 28, 451 33,112 38, 481 29, 640 36, 019 46, 346 26, 040 25, 808 28, 749 34, 948 36, 094 25, 086 47, 490 45, 816 43, 930 48, 424 40, 692 48, 710 49, 677 35, 680 43, 353 37, 355 39, 247 34,913 25, 228 31, 463 25, 898 42, 911 29, 995 27, 612 49, 376 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t See footnotes at end of table. 37 38 STA TISTICS OF B U IL D IN G CO N ST R U C T IO N Cities Covered by Building-Permit Report—Continued Cities M iddle Atlantic: 500.000 and over: Buffalo, N . Y ________ N ew York, N . Y _____ Philadelphia, P a_____ Pittsburgh, P a _______ 100.000 and under 500,000: Camden, N . J________ Elizabeth, N . J_______ Jersey C ity, N . J _____ Newark, N . J_________ Paterson, N . J________ Trenton, N . J ________ Albany, N . Y ________ Rochester, N . Y ______ Syracuse, N . Y _______ Utica, N . Y __________ Yonkers, N . Y _______ Erie, Pa______________ Reading, Pa__________ Scranton, P a_________ 50.000 and under 100,000: Atlantic City, N .J ___ Bayonne, N . J________ East Orange, N . J ____ Hoboken, N . J _______ Irvington, N .J _______ Passaic, N . J _________ Union City, N . J _____ Binghamton, N . Y ___ M ount Vernon, N . Y_. N ew Rochelle, N . Y___ Niagara Falls, N . Y___ Schenectady, N . Y ___ T roy, N . Y _______ Allentown, Pa________ Altoona, P a__________ Bethlehem, P a ____ Chester, P a __________ Harrisburg, P a _______ Johnstown, P a _______ Lancaster, P a ________ M cKeesport, P a______ Wilkes-Barre, Pa_____ York, P a___ ,_________ 25.000 and under 50,000: Belleville, N . J _______ Bloomfield, N . J ______ Clifton, N . J _________ Garfield, N . J ________ Kearny, N . J _________ Montclair, N . J ______ N ew Brunswick, N . J . North Bergen, N . J___ Orange, N . J _________ Perth A m boy, N . J ___ Plainfield, N . J _______ W est N ew York, N . J_ W oodbridge, N . J ____ Amsterdam, N . Y ____ Auburn, N . Y ________ Elmira, N . Y _________ Jamestown, N . Y _____ Kingston, N . Y ______ Newburgh, N . Y _____ Poughkeepsie, N . Y___ Rome, N . Y __________ W atertown, N . Y ____ W hite Plains, N . Y . . . Aliquippa, P a------------Easton, P a ___________ Hazleton, P a _________ Lebanon, P a _________ Lower Merion, Pa____ Nanticoke, Pa________ N ew Castle, P a ______ See footnotes at end of table. Included in Bureau’s m onthly reports on building permits Covered b y buildingpermit survey 573,076 6,930, 446 1,950,961 669,817 t t 1\ 1\ t t t t 118, 700 114, 589 316, 715 442, 337 138, 513 123,356 127, 412 328,132 209, 326 101, 740 134, 646 115, 967 111, 171 143, 433 t t t t t t t t t t t f f t 66,198 88, 979 68,020 59, 261 56, 733 62, 959 58, 659 76, 662 61,499 54,000 75,460 95, 692 72, 763 92, 563 82,054 57,892 59,164 80, 339 66, 993 59,949 54, 632 86, 626 55, 254 t t f t t t t t t t t t 1\ 1 1\ 1 t t f t t t t Population (census of 1930) 26, 974 38,077 46,875 29, 739 40, 716 42,017 34, 555 40, 714 35, 399 43, 516 34,422 37,107 25,266 34,817 36, 652 47,397 45,155 28,088 31, 275 40,288 32,338 32,205 35,830 27,116 34,468 36, 765 25, 561 35,166 26,043 48, 674 Included in this report Included in this report on new on demo residential lition construction t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 1 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t f t f t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t f t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t f t t t t t t t t t t t t t CITIES COVERED B Y 39 REPORT Cities Covered b y Building-Permit R eport—Continued Cities M iddle Atlantic—Continued. 25.000 and under 50,000—Contd. Norristown, Pa______________ Sharon, P a ---------------------------Upper Darby, P a ___________ Wilkinsburg, Pa_____________ W illiamsport, Pa____________ East North Central: 500.000 and over: Chicago, 111__________________ Detroit, M ich _______________ Cleveland, Ohio-------------------Milwaukee, W is_____________ 100.000 and under 500,000: Peoria, 111___________________ Evansville, In d --------------------Fort W ayne, In d ____________ Gary, In d ___________________ Indianapolis, Ind -----------------South Bend, In d ____________ Flint, M ich _________________ Grand Rapids, M ich ________ Akron, Ohio-------------------------Canton, Ohio_______________ Cincinnati, O hio____________ Columbus, Ohio_____________ D ayton, Ohio_______________ Toledo, O hio________________ Youngstown, O hio__________ 50.000 and under 100,000: Cicero, 111___________________ Decatur, 111_________________ East St. Louis, 111___________ Evanston, 111________________ Oak Park, 111________________ Rockford, 111________________ Springfield, 111_______________ East Chicago, Ind ___________ Hamm ond, In d _____________ Terre Haute, Ind ____________ Dearborn, M ich _____________ Hamtramck, M ich __________ Highland Park, M ich _______ Jackson, M ich _______________ Kalamazoo, M ich ___________ Lansing, M ich ______________ Pontiac, M ich _______________ Saginaw, M ich ______________ Cleveland Heights, O hio____ Hamilton, O hio_____________ Lakewood, Ohio_____________ Springfield, O hio____________ Kenosha, W is_______________ Madison, W is_______________ Racine, W is_________________ 25.000 and under 50,000: Alton, 111____________________ Aurora, 111___________________ Belleville, 111________________ Berwyn, 111__________________ Bloomington, 111_____________ Danville, 111_________________ Elgin, 111____________________ Galesburg, 111_______________ Granite City, 111_____________ Joliet, 111____________________ M ayw ood, 111_______________ M oline, 111__________________ Quincy, 111__________________ R ock Island, 111_____________ Waukegan, 111_______________ Anderson, Ind_______________ Elkhart, In d ________________ Kokom o, In d ________________ LaFayette, Ind ______________ Michigan City, In d _________ See footnotes at end of table. Population (census of 1930) Included in Bureau’s monthly reports on building permits Covered b y buildingpermit survey Included in this report Included in this report on new on demo residential lition construction 35,853 25,908 46,626 29,639 45,729 f f f f f t t t t t t 3,376,438 1,568,662 900,429 578,249 f f f f f f f f t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 104,969 102, 249 114,946 100,426 364,161 104,193 156,492 168, 592 255, 040 104,906 451,160 292, 522 200,982 290, 718 170,002 66,602 57,510 74,347 63,338 63,982 85.864 71.864 54,784 64,560 62,810 50,358 56,268 52,959 55,187 54,786 78,397 64,928 80,715 50,945 52,176 70,509 68,743 50,262 57,899 67,542 f f f f f f f f f f f t f f t t f f f f f t f f f 30,151 46, 589 28, 425 47, 027 30,930 36, 765 35,929 28,830 25,130 42,993 25,829 32, 236 39, 241 37,953 33,499 39, 804 32,949 32, 843 26, 240 26, 735 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t f t t t f _______ t ----------_______ _______ t ----------- t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 40 STA TISTICS OF B U IL D IN G C O N S T R U C T IO N Cities Covered by Building-Perm it R eport— Continued Cities East North Central—Continued. 25.000 and under 50,000— Contd. Mishawaka, In d ___________ M uncie, Ind_______________ N ew A lbany, In d __________ Richm ond, Ind -------------------A nn A rbor, M ich ---------------Battle Creek, M ich ________ B ay C ity, M ich ____________ Muskegon, M ich ___________ Port Huron, M ich --------------W yandotte, M ich --------------East Cleveland, Ohio______ Elyria, Ohio------ ----------------Lim a, Ohio________________ Lorain, O hio_______________ Mansfield, Ohio-----------------M arion, Ohio______________ Massillon, O hio____________ M iddletow n, Ohio--------------Newark, Ohio--------------------N orwood, Ohio-------------------Portsmouth, Ohio__________ Steubenville, Ohio_________ Warren, O hio______________ Zanesville, Ohio____________ Appleton, W is_____________ Eau Claire, W is____________ Fond du Lac, W is_________ Green B ay, W is____________ La Crosse, W is_____________ Oshkosh, W is______________ Sheboygan, W is____________ Superior, W is______________ W est Allis, W is____________ West N orth Central: 500.000 and over: St. Louis, M o ______________ 100.000 and under 500,000: Des M oines, Iowa__________ Kansas C ity, K ans_________ W ichita, K ans_____________ Duluth, M in n _____________ Minneapolis, M inn------------St. Paul, M in n ____________ Kansas C ity, M o --------------Omaha, N eb r______________ 50.000 and under 100,000: Cedar Rapids, Iowa________ Davenport, Iow a__________ Sioux C ity, Iow a___________ Topeka, Kans______________ St. Joseph, M o ____________ Springfield, M o ___________ Lincoln, N ebr--------------------25.000 and under 50,000: Burlington, Iowa__________ Clinton, Iowa______________ Council Bluffs, Iow a______ Dubuque, Iow a ___________ Ottumwa, Iow a___________ W aterloo, Iow a____________ Hutchinson, Kans_________ Joplin, M o ________________ University C ity, M o ______ Fargo, N . D a k ____________ Sioux Falls, S. D a k-----------South Atlantic: 500.000 and over: Baltimore, M d ____________ Washington, D . C . 2. ______ 100.000 and under 500,000: Wilmington, D el__________ Jacksonville, Fla__________ Miam i, Fla________________ See footnotes at end of table. Included in Bureau’s m onthly reports on building permits Covered b y buildingpermit survey 28,630 46, 548 25,819 32,493 26,944 43, 573 47, 355 41, 390 31,361 28, 368 39, 667 25, 633 42,287 44, 512 33, 525 31,084 26,400 29,992 30, 596 33,411 42, 560 35,422 41,062 36,440 25, 267 26, 287 26,449 37,415 39, 614 40,108 39, 251 36,113 34, 671 t t t t 821,960 t Population (census of 1930) t t t t _______ t t t ----------- t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 142, 559 121,857 111, 110 101,463 464,356 271, 606 399, 746 214,006 _____ t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 56,097 60,751 79,183 64,120 80,935 57,527 79,592 t t t t f t f t 26, 755 25, 726 42,048 41, 679 28,075 46,191 27,085 33,454 25,809 28, 619 33,362 t t 804,874 619,000 t t 106,597 135,146 110,637 Included in this report Included in this report on new on demo residential lition construction t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t ' t t t + t f t t t t t t CITIE S COVERED B Y 41 REPORT Cities Covered by Building^Permit R eport— Continued Cities South Atlantic—Continued. 100.000 and under 500,000—Con. Tampa, Fla________________ Atlanta, G a________________ N orfolk, V a ________________ Richm ond, V a _____________ 50.000 and under 100,000: Augusta, G a_______________ M acon, G a________________ Savannah, Ga_____________ Asheville, N . C ____________ Charlotte, N . C ____________ Durham, N . C _____________ Greensboro, N . C _________ Winston-Salem, N . C ______ Charleston, S. C __________ Columbia, S. C ___________ Roanoke, V a ______________ Charleston, W . V a ________ Huntington, W . V a _______ Wheeling, W . V a__________ 25.000 and under 50,000: Orlando, Fla______________ Pensacola, Fla_____________ St. Petersburg, F la ________ West Palm Beach, F la____ Columbus, G a_____________ Cumberland, M d _________ Hagerstown, M d __________ High Point, N . C _________ Raleigh, N . C _____________ Wilmington, N . C _________ Greenville, S. C____________ Spartanburg, S. C _________ Lynchburg, V a____________ Newport News, V a________ Petersburg, V a____________ Portsmouth, V a ___________ Clarksburg, W . V a________ Parkersburg, W . V a_______ East South Central: 100.000 and under 500,000: Birmingham, A la_________ Louisville, K y _____________ Chattanooga, Tenn________ Knoxville, Tenn___________ Memphis, Tenn___________ Nashville, Tenn___________ 50.000 and under 100,000: M obile, A la _______________ Montgomery, A la_________ Covington, K y ____________ 25.000 and under 50,000: Ashland, K y ______________ Lexington, K y ____________ Newport, K y ______________ Paducah, K y ______________ Jackson,, M iss_____________ Meridian, M iss____________ Johnson C ity, T enn_______ West South Central: 100.000 and under 500,000: N ew Orleans, L a ____ Oklahoma City, Okla. Tulsa, Okla_________ Dallas, T ex__________ El Paso, T ex_________ Fort W orth, T ex_____ Houston, T e x _______ San Antonio, T ex ____ 50.000 and under 100,000: Little R ock, A rk____ Shreveport, L a ______ Austin, T e x _________ Beaumont, T ex ______ See footnotes at end of table. Population (census of 1930) 101,161 270,366 129, 710 182,929 Included in Bureau’s m onthly reports on building permits Covered by buildingpermit survey t t t t t t t t 60,342 53,829 85,024 50,193 82, 675 52,037 53, 569 75,274 62, 265 51, 581 69,206 60,408 75,572 61, 659 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 27,330 31, 579 40,425 26, 610 43,131 37, 747 30,861 36, 745 37,379 32,270 29,154 28, 723 40, 661 34,417 28, 564 45, 704 28,866 29,623 259,678 307, 745 119, 798 105, 802 253,143 153,866 Included in this report Included in this report on new on demo residential lition construction t t t t t t t t t tt t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 68,202 66,079 65, 252 t t t t t t t 29,074 45, 736 32,824 33, 541 48, 282 31, 954 25, 080 t t t t t t t t t t 458,762 185,389 141,258 260,475 102,421 163,447 292,352 231,542 f f f f f f f f 81,679 76,655 53,120 57,732 f f f f t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 42 STA TISTICS OF B U IL D IN G CO N ST R U C T IO N Cities Covered by Building^Permit Report— Continued Cities W est South Central—Continued. 50.000 and under 100,000—Contd. Galveston, T ex---------------------Port Arthur, T ex____________ W aco, T ex __________________ 25.000 and under 50,000: Fort Smith, A rk ____________ Texarkana, A rk.4____________ Baton Rouge, La____________ Monroe, L a _________________ Enid, Okla__________________ Muskogee, Okla_____________ Amarillo, T ex_______________ Corpus Christi, T ex_________ Laredo, T ex_________________ San Angelo, T ex_____________ Texarkana, Tex.4____________ Wichita Falls, T ex__________ Mountain: 100.000 and under 500,000: Denver, C olo________________ Salt Lake City, Utah________ 50.000 and under 100,000: Pueblo, Colo___________________________ 25,000 and under 50,000: Phoenix, A riz. ___ ________ __ ___ Tucson, A r iz .. . . Colorado Springs, Colo Butte, M ont _ . . . __ ._ Great Falls, M ont __ Albuquerque, N . M ex_______ Ogden, Utah______________ . Pacific: 500.000 and over: Los Angeles, Calif____ San Francisco, Calif__. 100.000 and under 500,000: Long Beach, Calif____ Oakland, Calif_______ 100.000 and under 500,000: San Diego, C alif.-------Portland, Oreg_______ Seattle, W ash________ Spokane, W ash_______ Tacoma, W ash_______ 50.000 and under 100,000: Berkeley, Calif_______ Fresno, C alif_________ Glendale, C alif_______ Pasadena, Calif______ Sacramento, Calif____ San Jose, Calif..... ........ 25.000 and under 50,000: Alameda, Calif. ........... Alhambra, C alif._____ Bakersfield, C alif........ Belvedere, Calif______ Riverside, Calif______ San Bernardino, Calif. Santa Ana, C alif_____ Santa Barbara, C a lif.. Santa M onica, C alif... Stockton, C alif_______ Salem, O r e g ...:______ Bellingham, W ash___ Everett, W ash_______ Included in Bureau’s monthlyreports on building permits Covered b y buildingpermit survey 52,938 50,902 52,848 f f f t t t 31, 429 10, 764 30,729 26,028 26, 399 32,026 43,132 27, 741 32, 618 25,308 16, 602 43,690 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t f t --------------------t 287,861 140,267 f f f f Population (census of 1930) 50,096 Included in in this report Included this report on new on demo residential lition construction t t -------------------------------____________________ t f t t ----------- t 48,118 32,506 33, 237 39, 532 28,822 26,570 40,272 t t t t t t t t t _______ t ---------f t t t ------- 1,240,359 634,394 f f t f t f t ----------- 142,032 284,063 f f f f f t t t 147,995 301,815 365,583 115,514 106,817 f f f f f t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 82,109 52,513 62,736 76,086 93,750 57,651 f f f t f f t t t t t t t t ---------t t t f ----------f ----------- 35,033 29,472 26,015 33,023 29, 696 37,481 30, 322 33,613 37,146 47,963 26, 266 30, 823 30, 567 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t i A ll cities with a population of 25,000 or more in 1930. a Classified in this size of city group b y the U. S. Bureau of the Census. a Reports annually on building permits issued. . , , . „„„. 4 The inclusion of Texarkana in places of 25,000 or more is based upon the combined population (27,366 in 1930) of Texarkana, Tex., and Texarkana, Ark. O
@FedFRASER