Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Puzzler
17 views
Skip to first unread message
UC
May 25, 2012, 3:33:40 PM5/25/12
to
I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
googled it.
I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
the homes in the central part of the city.
Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
http://www.applevalleyohhomes.com/Listing/ViewListingDetails.aspx?ListingID=13514396&Bb=M3&Cc=13514396
This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
http://c1964182.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/3yd-NEOHREXOH-3217092_0.jpg
Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
googled it.
I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
the homes in the central part of the city.
Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
http://www.applevalleyohhomes.com/Listing/ViewListingDetails.aspx?ListingID=13514396&Bb=M3&Cc=13514396
This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
http://c1964182.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/3yd-NEOHREXOH-3217092_0.jpg
Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
UC
May 25, 2012, 4:11:08 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 3:33 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> googled it.
>
> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
> http://www.applevalleyohhomes.com/Listing/ViewListingDetails.aspx?Lis...
> I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> googled it.
>
> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
>
> This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
> http://c1964182.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/3yd-NEOHREXOH-32170...
> This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
>
> Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
Here's a good example:
> Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thoeflich/2867600485/
Arkalen
May 25, 2012, 4:22:17 PM5/25/12
to
you can google that. Bill Bryson also talks about the trend towards
absurdly large houses in 19th century Britain in his latest book "A
history of the home" (more or less, I don't remember the exact title).
I don't have a real answer for you, but if you're interested those
sources give some context to the phenomenon.
Richard Norman
May 25, 2012, 4:55:48 PM5/25/12
to
would not know where to begin.
I am guessing here but certainly there are many factors. The most
obvious is economic: the price of home construction vs. the income of
families. Second there was a distinct sociological shift: in earlier
eras extended families all lived together in one large house or in a
large house subdivided into separate units. My own family lived with
the grandparents in the top floor, one set of uncle/aunt/cousins on
the second floor, us on the first, and another uncle/aunt/cousins in
the basement. But that was the 40's. Later economic times drove
young people away from the family home in search of jobs starting in a
new, very small starter house in a distant community.
No doubt there are people here who actually know some facts about this
subject. I would like to see a proper explanation.
J. J. Lodder
May 25, 2012, 5:21:29 PM5/25/12
to
UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> googled it.
>
> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
The rich were really rich,
> I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> googled it.
>
> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
and servants were cheap and servile,
Jan
UC
May 25, 2012, 5:26:39 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 5:21 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
By definition servants were servile. Duh.
UC
May 25, 2012, 5:27:42 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 5:21 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
UC
May 25, 2012, 5:53:25 PM5/25/12
to
don't have a ready explanation.
deadrat
May 25, 2012, 6:01:13 PM5/25/12
to
former is a job description; the latter, an attitude.
Check a dictionary. Duh.
Arkalen
May 25, 2012, 6:10:43 PM5/25/12
to
how to google it, doesn't mean that the people whose job it is to study
such questions (historians, architects, etc) don't have explanations.
UC
May 25, 2012, 6:11:39 PM5/25/12
to
other things:
"befitting a slave or servant"
Webster third unabridged
Main Entry:1servile
Pronunciation:*s*r]v*l, *su], *s*i], ]*v*l, ](*)vil
Function:adjective
Etymology:Middle English, from Latin servilis, from servus slave,
servant + -ilis -ile * more at SERVE
1 a : of, relating to, or appropriate to slaves *the stigmata T of his
servile antecedents Oscar Handlin* b : befitting a slave or servant :
unsuitable for a free man *the machine increased the servitude of
servile personalities Lewis Mumford* c : held in servitude : subject
to a master or owner *manors T within which both independent farmers
and servile tenants lived R.B.Morris* d : held by or relating to base
services or a base as opposed to a free tenure of land under feudal
law
2 Roman Catholicism : of, relating to, or constituting physical or
manual as distinguished from mental labor *the first day shall be most
solemn unto you, and holy: you shall do no servile work therein Lev
23:7 (Douay Version)*
3 : subject to despotic or tyrannical rule : politically oppressed or
subjugated *doomed T to be destroyed or reduced to a servile station
Sir Winston Churchill*
4 a : behaving like a slave : lacking spirit or independence : ABJECT,
SUBMISSIVE *the servile attitude which he always maintained towards
authority in intellectual and religious matters R.A.Hall b.1911*
*leaves a servile old man in the clutches of his daughter Times
Literary Supplement* *too servile to the authority of older
dictionaries Louise Pound* b : lacking moral worth or dignity :
IGNOBLE *servile fear* c : CONTROLLED, SUBJECT, SUBORDINATE used
with to
5 : slavishly imitative of a model especially in literature or art :
lacking independence or originality *could draw inspiration from the
past without stooping to servile imitation American Guide Series: New
York*
6 : of, relating to, or engaged in the work of a servant or menial *if
it is used by a servile class it is avoided by the educated
A.N.Whitehead*
7 a : of or relating to a derivational, inflectional, or relational
element of speech : not belonging to the root *servile sounds or
letters* *s in English sits, man's, dogs is servile* b : not itself
sounded but serving to indicate a long preceding vowel *the e in stone
is servile* c : subject to assimilation
8 : constituting a means rather than an end : INSTRUMENTAL *in
philosophy itself investigation and reasoning are only preparatory and
servile parts, means to an end George Santayana*
synonyms see SUBSERVIENT
UC
May 25, 2012, 6:28:23 PM5/25/12
to
and perhaps not obvious. Although it was not my intention, this does
serve as a nice example of how difficult it can be to understand
causes operating in the past.
Glenn
May 25, 2012, 6:40:35 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 12:33 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> googled it.
>
> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
> http://www.applevalleyohhomes.com/Listing/ViewListingDetails.aspx?Lis...
> I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> googled it.
>
> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
>
> This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
> http://c1964182.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/3yd-NEOHREXOH-32170...
> This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
>
> Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
"Lot sizes began to grow after the turn of the century. Early 20th
> Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
century bungalows were one-storey or storey and a half dwellings of
between 600 and 800 square feet. In most new houses of the early
twentieth century, square footage was drastically reduced to
compensate for the increased expenses of plumbing, heating, and other
new technological improvements. Housing studies also attribute the
reduced square footage to a decline in domestic production of goods.
There was no longer any reason to have storage places for things such
as home-canned fruit and vegetables, dowry linens, and supplies for
making the family's clothes and bedding. People were no longer
producers, but consumers."
http://www.moyak.com/papers/house-sizes.html
chris thompson
May 25, 2012, 6:41:55 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 3:33 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> googled it.
>
> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
> http://www.applevalleyohhomes.com/Listing/ViewListingDetails.aspx?Lis...
> I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> googled it.
>
> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
>
> This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
> http://c1964182.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/3yd-NEOHREXOH-32170...
> This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
>
> Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
You might want to google on "family size" as a start. Also, try
> Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
"contraception" and "the pill".
Chris
Steven L.
May 25, 2012, 7:26:53 PM5/25/12
to
"chris thompson" <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0d291712-de36-4767...@n33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
The switch to the "nuclear family" with just 2 kids living in a
cookie-cutter suburban home was already well underway in the 1950s,
years before the contraceptive Pill was introduced in 1960.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
May 25, 2012, 7:26:06 PM5/25/12
to
"Richard Norman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:s3svr7l6ml0k8bbj7...@4ax.com:
Parents used to have a lot more kids, so they needed a home big enough
for 6 kids typically.
But there's another point too:
I suspect that building large homes near the end of the 19th century was
also a kind of exuberance, a sigh of relief as the so-called "Long
Depression" of the 1870s and 1880s was ebbing. That had been a
long-lasting economic slump, interrupted by a few rallies along the way.
You see these periods of exuberance in response to earlier tough times:
The "Roaring 20's" in response to the horrors of World War I, the 1950s
"Baby Boom" in response to the horrors of the Great Depression and World
War II, the "Greed is Good" 1980s in response to the stagflation of the
1970s.
-- Steven L.
Glenn
May 25, 2012, 7:03:31 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 3:41 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
You want UC to take the pill?
wrote:
UC
May 25, 2012, 5:20:32 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 4:22 pm, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> (2012/05/26 4:33), UC wrote:
> > I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> > googled it.
>
> > I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> > communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> > few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> > though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> > supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> > I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> > the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> > Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
> >http://www.applevalleyohhomes.com/Listing/ViewListingDetails.aspx?Lis...
> (2012/05/26 4:33), UC wrote:
> > I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> > googled it.
>
> > I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> > communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> > few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> > though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> > supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> > I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> > the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> > Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
>
> > This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
> >http://c1964182.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/3yd-NEOHREXOH-32170...
> > This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
>
> > Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> > curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> > 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
>
> Sounds like what Old Urbanist might call "19th century hypertrophism";
> you can google that. Bill Bryson also talks about the trend towards
> absurdly large houses in 19th century Britain in his latest book "A
> history of the home" (more or less, I don't remember the exact title).
>
> I don't have a real answer for you, but if you're interested those
> sources give some context to the phenomenon.
But they were not 'absurdly' large, just very big. Was this because
> > Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> > curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> > 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
>
> Sounds like what Old Urbanist might call "19th century hypertrophism";
> you can google that. Bill Bryson also talks about the trend towards
> absurdly large houses in 19th century Britain in his latest book "A
> history of the home" (more or less, I don't remember the exact title).
>
> I don't have a real answer for you, but if you're interested those
> sources give some context to the phenomenon.
they had servants? These big houses almost completely disappeared
after about 1910 or so, and though there were still big houses built
in the 20s, they were not as big. By mid-century the 'typical' house
was much smaller.
On the street where I grew up, houses north of the main road half a
block away, built in the 1920s, are older and bigger. The ones south
of the main road were built in the late 1940s and are smaller. The
difference is quite significant.
Arkalen
May 25, 2012, 9:07:24 PM5/25/12
to
UC
May 25, 2012, 9:21:27 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 7:26 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "chris thompson" <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
This was 1910 or so, when these large homes were no longer built.
> "chris thompson" <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Paul J Gans
May 25, 2012, 10:34:15 PM5/25/12
to
depressions leading up to 1929. By 1945 when we'd come out
of the great depression and WWII, things were very different.
But great houses are still being build, just not in Willoughby,
Ohio.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Mark Isaak
May 25, 2012, 11:03:46 PM5/25/12
to
1. Maids and cooks require more room than washing machines,
refrigerators, and blenders.
2. Small houses might have actually been very common in the 1800s, but
they got torn down to make room for modern housing. The fewer large
houses from that era were worth keeping.
My suspicion is that the second guess is the main reason.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
UC
May 25, 2012, 11:09:49 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 11:03�pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>
wrote:
large houses are like fossils of hard-shelled animals; the small
houses are like soft=bodied animals that left few fossil remains.
wrote:
> On 5/25/12 12:33 PM, UC wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> > googled it.
>
> > I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> > communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> > few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> > though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> > supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> > I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> > the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> > Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
> >http://www.applevalleyohhomes.com/Listing/ViewListingDetails.aspx?Lis...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> > googled it.
>
> > I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> > communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> > few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> > though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> > supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> > I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> > the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> > Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
>
> > This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
> >http://c1964182.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/3yd-NEOHREXOH-32170...
> > This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
>
> > Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> > curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> > 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
>
> Two guesses:
>
> 1. Maids and cooks require more room than washing machines,
> refrigerators, and blenders.
>
> 2. Small houses might have actually been very common in the 1800s, but
> they got torn down to make room for modern housing. �The fewer large
> houses from that era were worth keeping.
>
> My suspicion is that the second guess is the main reason.
>
> --
> � Mark Isaak � � � � �eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
> � honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
> � pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
I was thinking the same thing. The fact of selective preservation. The
> > Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> > curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> > 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
>
> Two guesses:
>
> 1. Maids and cooks require more room than washing machines,
> refrigerators, and blenders.
>
> 2. Small houses might have actually been very common in the 1800s, but
> they got torn down to make room for modern housing. �The fewer large
> houses from that era were worth keeping.
>
> My suspicion is that the second guess is the main reason.
>
> --
> � Mark Isaak � � � � �eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
> "It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
> � honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
> � pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
large houses are like fossils of hard-shelled animals; the small
houses are like soft=bodied animals that left few fossil remains.
James Beck
May 25, 2012, 11:56:53 PM5/25/12
to
US was 1,000 square feeet (Two stories, 3 small bedrooms, a small
living room and a kitchen. Fifty-fifty chance of a bathroom.) In 1950,
the average home size was <drumroll> 1,000 square feet. Some of those
houses were still around when I was a boy. They were tiny, ugly, and
(mostly) wood-framed--easy to tear down. Commercial duplexes for
renters were a bit larger and usually bricks-and-mortar construction.
On the theory that you could live in one side and rent the other, a
few of those survived into the 1980s. As a practical matter, by the
1960s they were not viable investment properties, but here's an
example of one:
http://www.mscd.edu/golda/house/tour/
It was declared a landmark in part because Golda Meir lived there for
a time, but mainly because it was the center of social life for
immigrant Russian Jews. A tree obscures the second entrance. It is a
small duplex. Even in 1988, when it was scheduled to be torn down, it
was a rare survivor. Its original location was about a half mile from
downtown. When it was built, it was technically a home in the suburbs.
The houses were small because the people were poor. They were located
close to the city center because there was limited transportation. The
cities were smaller because the population was smaller. Most of those
houses were torn down to make room for other urban development.
Scrape-and-rebuild is a common theme in growing cities. Likewise,
cheap construction is a sign of instability. There is not, in other
words, much mystery here.
As you move farther west in the US, and if you know what you're
looking for, you can observe the remnants of the cities' rings, though
the surviving houses are usually large. That is mainly because they
were well-built and too valuable to tear down. Jan is correct; the
rich were, relatively speaking, very rich. What we might think of as
the upper middle class was also, relatively speaking, very rich. At
7,600 square feet, the Molly Brown House in Denver was considered a
typical upper middle class home. By contrast, the middle and lower
classes were, relatively speaking, very poor. Their shacks have all
been torn down.
As in most of the western cities, as the city expanded, the rich moved
further out. What remains are (occasional) mansions and clusters of
large homes at intervals that are fairly predictable if you know the
local history. St Louis is similar. Grandiose homes and world's
tallest buildings tend to be built after economic peaks and on the eve
of the next trough.
The beginning of the depression leading into WWI is sufficient to
explain the fall in construction of huge houses around 1910.
Construction of huge homes resumed the 1920s, which roared for the
relatively rich. The Gold Coast mansions of Long Island date from that
era, but the tenement museum in Manhattan dates from that era, too.
It's worth seeing, but as my father, who grew up in Alphabet City
warned, no one actually lived that well. The Lower East Side was one
of the early public/private gentrification projects. It was pushed by
Robert Moses and completed after the end of WWII.
That construction of large homes didn't resume in Coshocton, Ohio may
serve as a warning of sorts. Nothing says that the economy has to
recover from a depression.
Average home size in the US increased from 1,000 square feet in 1950
to about 1,400 square feet in 1970. It nearly doubled to 2,700 square
feet in 2009. You could take that in at least two ways. The sharp
improvement in living conditions dates from the Great Society period
of income stabilization. Before that, most people's incomes were never
secure enough to buy a large house. On the other hand, borrowing huge
amounts of money to live twice as large as our parents is one of the
main reasons for our recent real estate woes.
Message has been deleted
UC
May 26, 2012, 12:07:25 AM5/26/12
to
On May 25, 11:56 pm, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 12:33:40 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> >googled it.
>
> >I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> >communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> >few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> >though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> >supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> >I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> >the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> >Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
> >http://www.applevalleyohhomes.com/Listing/ViewListingDetails.aspx?Lis...
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 12:33:40 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> >googled it.
>
> >I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> >communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> >few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> >though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> >supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> >I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> >the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> >Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
>
> >This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
> >http://c1964182.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/3yd-NEOHREXOH-32170...
> >This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
The large houses were concentrated in a relatively small area in the
central part of town.
Coshocton Ohio has had very little growth for 150 years! Why are there
so many large houses built within a fairly short time, with few before
or since? And this is true all over this area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coshocton,_Ohio
Fremont, Ohio, is similar, as are numerous other small commnuities in
Ohio.
UC
May 26, 2012, 12:18:42 AM5/26/12
to
On May 25, 11:56 pm, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 12:33:40 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> >googled it.
>
> >I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> >communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> >few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> >though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> >supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> >I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> >the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> >Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
> >http://www.applevalleyohhomes.com/Listing/ViewListingDetails.aspx?Lis...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> >googled it.
>
> >I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> >communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> >few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> >though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> >supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> >I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> >the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> >Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
>
> >This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
> >http://c1964182.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/3yd-NEOHREXOH-32170...
> >This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coshocton_County,_Ohio
I am wondering about WWI and the income tax, what effect they had on
the economy of places like Coshocton.
James Beck
May 26, 2012, 2:36:47 AM5/26/12
to
and Erie Canal in 1913. It's a coal mining area. The owners and
executives live near the office. After the Civil War, more than half
of the labor force were coal miners earning 56 cents a ton for picked
coal. Those big houses weren't theirs; the miners live near the mine,
commonly in tents, but town had a boarding house for miners at that
time, too. Coal boomed and wages roughly doubled from 1896 to 1909,
and then the next round of bust started.
Why is that mysterious? It was a one-horse town where the horse died.
There are mining towns like that all over the country. Farm towns,
too. You don't see the miners' houses because most of the miners
didn't have them.
The town itself is listed as a land grant to Elijah Backus signed by
John Adams in 1800. He paid $4,000 for the land and resold it the
following year for $10,000. Bahmer's Centennial History, a free ebook
btw, Coshocton is one of the places they dumped the Revolutionary War
veterans. They were a buffer against the unhappy natives.
In response to your other question, Bahmer discusses the tax code at
some length in Chapter 15 p246-
Biographies of the local worthies at the time of interest start on
page 279. They will be your grand householders.
Bahmer's Centennial History is available here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=EDsVAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
jillery
May 26, 2012, 4:14:33 AM5/26/12
to
something to do with it?
Kleuskes & Moos
May 26, 2012, 4:13:53 AM5/26/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:11:39 -0700, UC wrote:
> On May 25, 6:01 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> On 5/25/12 4:26 PM, UC wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 25, 5:21 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>> >> UC<uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
>> >>> googled it.
>>
>> >>> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
>> >>> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
>> >>> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
>> >>> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
>> >>> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>>
>> >> The rich were really rich,
>> >> and servants were cheap and servile,
>>
>> >> Jan
>>
>> > By definition servants were servile. Duh.
>>
>> Just because someone is in service, doesn't mean he's servile. The
>> former is a job description; the latter, an attitude.
>>
>> Check a dictionary. Duh.
>
> Well, servants were originally slaves, of course. Servile means, among
> other things:
>
> "befitting a slave or servant"
>
> Webster third unabridged
<snip webster>
> On May 25, 6:01 pm, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> On 5/25/12 4:26 PM, UC wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 25, 5:21 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>> >> UC<uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
>> >>> googled it.
>>
>> >>> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
>> >>> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
>> >>> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
>> >>> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
>> >>> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>>
>> >> The rich were really rich,
>> >> and servants were cheap and servile,
>>
>> >> Jan
>>
>> > By definition servants were servile. Duh.
>>
>> Just because someone is in service, doesn't mean he's servile. The
>> former is a job description; the latter, an attitude.
>>
>> Check a dictionary. Duh.
>
> Well, servants were originally slaves, of course. Servile means, among
> other things:
>
> "befitting a slave or servant"
>
> Webster third unabridged
As for the latin roots of the word, you may want to take a peek at Juvenalis,
and discover that the Roman ''servus'' wasn't all that "servile" at all. Another
fine example from literature would be Jeeves, as in "Jeeves takes charge".
Burkhard
May 26, 2012, 5:29:33 AM5/26/12
to
On May 25, 8:33 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> googled it.
>
> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> googled it.
>
> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
> http://www.applevalleyohhomes.com/Listing/ViewListingDetails.aspx?Lis...
>
> This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
> http://c1964182.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/3yd-NEOHREXOH-32170...
>
> Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
Can only speak for the UK, but the traditional tenement was build as
> the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
> http://www.applevalleyohhomes.com/Listing/ViewListingDetails.aspx?Lis...
>
> This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
> http://c1964182.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/3yd-NEOHREXOH-32170...
>
> Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
to provide quarters for your servants. as "domestic employment"
virtually disappeared after WWI for all sorts of social, cultural and
economic reasons, they were subdivided into flats for the newly
emerging middle classes - who when they build new homes also settled
for something smaller. The newest trends are of course for smaller
still, with more singles, and a decreased likelihood that more than
one generation lives under one roof
J. J. Lodder
May 26, 2012, 7:09:54 AM5/26/12
to
UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 5:21 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> On May 25, 5:21 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> > > googled it.
> >
> > > I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> > > communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> > > few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> > > though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> > > supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
> >
> > > I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> > > googled it.
> >
> > > I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> > > communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> > > few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> > > though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> > > supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
> >
> > The rich were really rich,
> > and servants were cheap and servile,
> >
> > Jan
>
> By definition servants were servile. Duh.
No doubt, but some servants are more servile than others,
> > and servants were cheap and servile,
> >
> > Jan
>
> By definition servants were servile. Duh.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
May 26, 2012, 7:20:53 AM5/26/12
to
UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 5:21 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> > > googled it.
> >
> > > I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> > > communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> > > few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> > > though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> > > supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
> >
> > The rich were really rich,
> > and servants were cheap and servile,
> >
> > Jan
>
> On May 25, 5:21 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> > > googled it.
> >
> > > I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> > > communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> > > few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> > > though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> > > supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
> >
> > The rich were really rich,
> > and servants were cheap and servile,
> >
> > Jan
>
> The extinction of really big houses...remains a mystery..
You mean extinct like this one?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates'_house>
Jan
UC
May 26, 2012, 9:32:10 AM5/26/12
to
UC
May 26, 2012, 9:39:15 AM5/26/12
to
> something to do with it?
Yes, of course.
UC
May 26, 2012, 9:36:07 AM5/26/12
to
The thing is that Coshocton is not unusual. I see the same pattern
everywhere in Ohio in smaller communities: An area with really big
houses built in the late 19th c.
UC
May 26, 2012, 9:33:44 AM5/26/12
to
Yes, I made a mistake. I meant for 100 years. Hardly any growth in
Coshocton County between the end of the 19th century and today. Only
6,000 more in the whole county than in 1900!
UC
May 26, 2012, 10:35:29 AM5/26/12
to
I meant the last 100 years. Sorry, typo. Coshocton County has about
36K residents today, up only 6K from 1900.
James Beck
May 26, 2012, 1:56:54 PM5/26/12
to
either. This is what planned economic growth using incentives like
land grants looks like. If you're interested, you might read this:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/12a837f5e2847919/59fee5c2eccaa093?lnk=gst&q=beck+hazard#59fee5c2eccaa093
It's a summary of the literature on growth economics followed by a
framework that you can use to understand it. I left out the math, so
it's not a difficult read, but of course if you really want to
understand it, there will be a good deal of work involved. It's a bit
long. Sorry about that, but there's no such thing as free lunch. It's
a lot easier than reading a few hundred journal articles, though.
Not that it's particularly mysterious, but you might consider the
difference in realization between land-grant towns like Cashocton and
this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braselton,_Georgia
After that, you might entertain yourself with a thought experiment.
What would a land-grant mining colony on the moon look like? What
would take the place of Cashocton's 'mysteriously' vanishing tent
colony of itinerant coal miners? How long might it take to find
anything useful? Under what circumstances might such a venture be
considered practical?
Bob Casanova
May 26, 2012, 2:28:58 PM5/26/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:28:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
>On May 25, 6:10 pm, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> (2012/05/26 6:53), UC wrote:
>> > On May 25, 5:27 pm, UC<uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > don't have a ready explanation.
>>
>> Who's "we" ? Just because nobody here knows the answer, nor do we know
>> how to google it, doesn't mean that the people whose job it is to study
>> such questions (historians, architects, etc) don't have explanations.
>
>Well by 'we' I mean non-specialists. It seems the reasons are complex,
>and perhaps not obvious.
Possibly; many reasons for obscure data aren't obvious to
the casual observer. Or more likely, it didn't occur to
anyone here to ask the question. Nor is it obvious that
non-specialists in general don't know the answer; t.o is not
a cross-section of the population.
> Although it was not my intention, this does
>serve as a nice example of how difficult it can be to understand
>causes operating in the past.
Actually, it's not, nor is it evidence that this particular
question has other than a prosaic answer. It *is* an example
of the fact that things which aren't investigated don't
usually get explained.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
>On May 25, 6:10 pm, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
>> (2012/05/26 6:53), UC wrote:
>> > On May 25, 5:27 pm, UC<uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>> UC<uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>> I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
>> >>>> googled it.
>>
>> >>>> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
>> >>>> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
>> >>>> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
>> >>>> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
>> >>>> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>>
>> >>>> I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
>> >>>> googled it.
>>
>> >>>> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
>> >>>> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
>> >>>> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
>> >>>> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
>> >>>> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>>
>> >>> The rich were really rich,
>> >>> and servants were cheap and servile,
>>
>> >>> Jan
>>
>> >> The extinction of really big houses...remains a mystery..
>>
>> > I just realized that this happened only a hundred years ago, and we
>> >>> and servants were cheap and servile,
>>
>> >>> Jan
>>
>> >> The extinction of really big houses...remains a mystery..
>>
>> > don't have a ready explanation.
>>
>> Who's "we" ? Just because nobody here knows the answer, nor do we know
>> how to google it, doesn't mean that the people whose job it is to study
>> such questions (historians, architects, etc) don't have explanations.
>
>Well by 'we' I mean non-specialists. It seems the reasons are complex,
>and perhaps not obvious.
Possibly; many reasons for obscure data aren't obvious to
the casual observer. Or more likely, it didn't occur to
anyone here to ask the question. Nor is it obvious that
non-specialists in general don't know the answer; t.o is not
a cross-section of the population.
> Although it was not my intention, this does
>serve as a nice example of how difficult it can be to understand
>causes operating in the past.
Actually, it's not, nor is it evidence that this particular
question has other than a prosaic answer. It *is* an example
of the fact that things which aren't investigated don't
usually get explained.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
UC
May 26, 2012, 3:37:58 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 2:28 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:28:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:28:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
been an explosion of big-home building everywhere in Ohio in the late
19th c. I travel around the state occasionally in connexion with my
job, and I end up in many communities that I otherwise would never
see. Springfield, Dayton, Coshocton, Zanesville, Fremont etc.
In the bigger cities, due to the growth-related processes of razing
and rebuilding, many older structures have been replaced several times
over. Columbus, for instance, where I live, has only a very few
pristine pockets of older houses from the 19th c. Many were divided
into apartments or left to ruin or have been torn down. It is in these
smaller communities (some of them) that older houses are kept up. This
is perhaps due to the smaller size of such towns, which does not bring
about a division into "inner city" and "suburbs". The flight to the
suburbs in larger cities meant that the older homes from the Victorian
era were more or less abandoned, whereas in smaller communities this
did not happen to the same extent. Places like Coshocton seem to have
been exceptionally stable in population (the county population has
hardly changed for 100 years), and it is perhaps this very lack of
growth that has preserved these older homes, as people perhaps handed
them down over the generations. Rapid growth causes decay in some
cases. In some small towns the people have left; other small towns get
'attached to' nearby larger communities (New Albany, Ohio, for
instance) and extensive rebuilding occurs.
Many of the Ohio county courthouses were built in the 1870s and 1880s
and are still in use. Not so in the bigger cities, where growth has
meant that such old building long ago were demolished and replaced
with more modern facilities.
UC
May 26, 2012, 3:46:43 PM5/26/12
to
On May 26, 2:28 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:28:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
to the center) should be the biggest (one can envision smaller ones
being there first), but perhaps even older structures did exist and
were demolished to make way for these grand homes near the center of
town. My hunch is that this did not happen here though; I get the
impression that the 'grand' homes in the center of Coshocton were the
first ones built on those lots. As you move away from this part of
town, the houses get gradually newer and smaller.
UC
May 26, 2012, 4:09:18 PM5/26/12
to
these houses are:
http://www.trulia.com/property/3035521187-343-S-4th-St-Coshocton-OH-43812
(built 1900)
http://www.trulia.com/property/3035094556-450-S-4th-St-Coshocton-OH-43812
(built 1910)
I know these may not be impressive compared to east-coast standards,
but just imagine where this town is! The county has only 36,000
residents and in 1900 it had only 30,000.
The town itself has only about 11,000 residents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coshocton,_Ohio
UC
May 26, 2012, 4:24:36 PM5/26/12
to
> (built 1900)
>
> http://www.trulia.com/property/3035094556-450-S-4th-St-Coshocton-OH-4...
> (built 1910)
>
> I know these may not be impressive compared to east-coast standards,
> but just imagine where this town is! The county has only 36,000
> residents and in 1900 it had only 30,000.
>
> The town itself has only about 11,000 residents.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coshocton,_Ohio
Compare this one, built in 1948:
>
> I know these may not be impressive compared to east-coast standards,
> but just imagine where this town is! The county has only 36,000
> residents and in 1900 it had only 30,000.
>
> The town itself has only about 11,000 residents.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coshocton,_Ohio
http://www.trulia.com/homes/Ohio/Coshocton/sold/1000151172-1508-Orchard-St-Coshocton-OH-43812
So, my theory on the Brontosaurus homes, is that once a good number of
these were built, and in the absence of significant growth after about
1910, they were turned over to descendants more often than resold or
being torn down. The modest demand for homes by those who could not
afford these large homes or inherit them was met by smaller new homes.
James Beck
May 26, 2012, 9:49:30 PM5/26/12
to
sometime in the 1970s. Its population has collapsed back to slightly
higher than its level in 1900. Thirty years after the collapse of the
Rust Belt (Billy Joel released Allentown in 1982), most of the bad
news has been demolished and cleared away. What remains is an
expression of past exuberance. There's not much mystery there, at all.
jillery
May 27, 2012, 1:31:19 PM5/27/12
to
houses lacked the features of more recent smaller houses. Electric
power, telephone, public sewer and water were all features coming in
vogue during that period. The market voted with its feet which
features it considered more important, and size by itself wasn't
enough.
You can buy huge mansions for surprisingly little, if you don't mind
the drafts.
UC
May 27, 2012, 2:52:08 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 1:31 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:24:36 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:24:36 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >So, my theory on the Brontosaurus homes, is that once a good number of
> >these were built, and in the absence of significant growth after about
> >1910, they were turned over to descendants more often than resold or
> >being torn down. The modest demand for homes by those who could not
> >afford these large homes or inherit them was met by smaller new homes.
>
> Size is one of many features of a house. Chances are large older
> houses lacked the features of more recent smaller houses. Electric
> power, telephone, public sewer and water were all features coming in
> vogue during that period. The market voted with its feet which
> features it considered more important, and size by itself wasn't
> enough.
>
> You can buy huge mansions for surprisingly little, if you don't mind
> the drafts.
Well the Victorian homes were bigger and more ornate, fancier. Built
> >So, my theory on the Brontosaurus homes, is that once a good number of
> >these were built, and in the absence of significant growth after about
> >1910, they were turned over to descendants more often than resold or
> >being torn down. The modest demand for homes by those who could not
> >afford these large homes or inherit them was met by smaller new homes.
>
> Size is one of many features of a house. Chances are large older
> houses lacked the features of more recent smaller houses. Electric
> power, telephone, public sewer and water were all features coming in
> vogue during that period. The market voted with its feet which
> features it considered more important, and size by itself wasn't
> enough.
>
> You can buy huge mansions for surprisingly little, if you don't mind
> the drafts.
of costlier materials, with more rooms, etc. And of course many of
these older homes were updated rather quickly.
UC
May 27, 2012, 3:13:58 PM5/27/12
to
the rust belt, by the way; it is in the middle of nowhere) has
fluctuated with a rather small range for 100 years, and the one decade
of growth is in fact 1970-1980, where one would least expect it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coshocton_County,_Ohio
Historical populations
Census Pop. %ą
1820 7,086
--
1830 11,161 57.5%
1840 21,590 93.4%
1850 25,674 18.9%
1860 25,032 -2.5%
1870 23,600 -5.7%
1880 26,642 12.9%
1890 26,703 0.2%
1900 29,337 9.9%
1910 30,121 2.7%
1920 29,595 -1.7%
1930 28,976 -2.1%
1940 30,594 5.6%
1950 31,141 1.8%
1960 32,224 3.5%
1970 33,486 3.9%
1980 36,024 7.6%
1990 35,427 -1.7%
2000 36,655 3.5%
The population of the city is slightly more variable, showing a
decline in the 1970-1980 decade that saw growth in the county overall.
Again, net growth is almost zero for 100 years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coshocton,_Ohio
Historical populations
Census Pop. %ą
1850 850
--
1860 1,151 35.4%
1870 1,754 52.4%
1880 3,044 73.5%
1890 3,672 20.6%
1900 6,473 76.3%
1910 9,603 48.4%
1920 10,847 13.0%
1930 10,908 0.6%
1940 11,569 6.1%
1950 11,675 0.9%
1960 13,106 12.3%
1970 13,747 4.9%
1980 13,418 -2.4%
1990 12,193 -9.1%
2000 11,682 -4.2%
Est. 2008 11,353
The rust belt runs along Great Lakes, for the most part, and includes
upper New York State, Cleveland (and Akron area) Toledo, Chicago and
environs, etc. Coshocton was never, to my knowledge, a heavy
manufacturing site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_Belt
The economy of Coshocton seems to have been involved in coal, fuel for
the large industries, but the city itself does not seem to have any
closed abandoned factories typical of places such as Dayton or
Springfield. The fact that the population is fairly stable indicates
that it has not experienced a great deal of impact from the rust belt
syndrome. There were some run-down areas that I saw, but nothing like
what I have seen elsewhere, in fact nearby in Zanesville, for
instance. For the most part, I was shocked at how unscathed Coshocton
seems to be compared to other small cities nearby. It's not paradise
by a long shot, but it isn't Steubenville or Zanesville. That's what
surprises me about it. It is almost unique among eastern Ohio
communities.
J. J. Lodder
May 27, 2012, 4:04:28 PM5/27/12
to
The hard-working miners made less than a dollar for a ton dug.
Backus made 6000 $ in a year by just speculating.
(and no doubt a lot more from other sources)
It isn't really surprising that the rich could afford big houses,
and lots of servants to run them,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
May 27, 2012, 4:04:28 PM5/27/12
to
Big houses have gone extinct,
except for those that aren't,
Jan
Bob Casanova
May 27, 2012, 6:39:35 PM5/27/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:46:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
Until the early 20th century most people did *not* live in
cities, but in rural areas; those living in cities tended to
be more wealthy and thus more inclined to build larger
houses.
As the population expanded and more people moved into the
cities the houses the population in general could afford
would have become smaller, since the average wealth was
decreasing.
As cities expanded the new areas, with immigrants from the
rural areas, would generally have had a higher percentage of
the less-wealthy as residents, and therefore the outlying
areas would have consisted of the smaller houses the new
residents could afford.
Very large homes, built with 19th-century technology, are a
bitch to maintain, and especially to heat, and therefore
tend to be razed in favor of smaller, more efficient homes
which can actually be sold.
Doubtless there were other factors.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
>Well it's not 'obvious' why the oldest homes in the city (or closest
>to the center) should be the biggest (one can envision smaller ones
>being there first), but perhaps even older structures did exist and
>were demolished to make way for these grand homes near the center of
>town. My hunch is that this did not happen here though; I get the
>impression that the 'grand' homes in the center of Coshocton were the
>first ones built on those lots. As you move away from this part of
>town, the houses get gradually newer and smaller.
Consider a few points, just off the top of my head...
>to the center) should be the biggest (one can envision smaller ones
>being there first), but perhaps even older structures did exist and
>were demolished to make way for these grand homes near the center of
>town. My hunch is that this did not happen here though; I get the
>impression that the 'grand' homes in the center of Coshocton were the
>first ones built on those lots. As you move away from this part of
>town, the houses get gradually newer and smaller.
Until the early 20th century most people did *not* live in
cities, but in rural areas; those living in cities tended to
be more wealthy and thus more inclined to build larger
houses.
As the population expanded and more people moved into the
cities the houses the population in general could afford
would have become smaller, since the average wealth was
decreasing.
As cities expanded the new areas, with immigrants from the
rural areas, would generally have had a higher percentage of
the less-wealthy as residents, and therefore the outlying
areas would have consisted of the smaller houses the new
residents could afford.
Very large homes, built with 19th-century technology, are a
bitch to maintain, and especially to heat, and therefore
tend to be razed in favor of smaller, more efficient homes
which can actually be sold.
Doubtless there were other factors.
Bob Casanova
May 27, 2012, 6:46:40 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 13:31:19 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
....and the heating bills. My G-Grandparents had a *huge*
(around 6,000 sq ft) home in Frederick MD, built in the late
19th century, which I had the opportunity to buy back in the
mid-'70s for less than $10k. The only problem was that it
had *zero* insulation, and its plaster/lath construction
didn't allow for easy installation of any; it would have
required a complete internal teardown and rebuild - probably
around $80k. Or I could have paid the approximate $6k/year
heating cost, with oil at 17 cents/gal. I decided to pass...
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
(around 6,000 sq ft) home in Frederick MD, built in the late
19th century, which I had the opportunity to buy back in the
mid-'70s for less than $10k. The only problem was that it
had *zero* insulation, and its plaster/lath construction
didn't allow for easy installation of any; it would have
required a complete internal teardown and rebuild - probably
around $80k. Or I could have paid the approximate $6k/year
heating cost, with oil at 17 cents/gal. I decided to pass...
UC
May 27, 2012, 8:48:19 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 6:39 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:46:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:46:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
much (in percentage) as the city population in the late part of the
19th c:
City, 1870-1910
1870 1,754 52.4%
1880 3,044 73.5%
1890 3,672 20.6%
1900 6,473 76.3%
1910 9,603 48.4%
County, 1870-1910
1880 3,044 73.5%
1890 3,672 20.6%
1900 6,473 76.3%
1910 9,603 48.4%
1870 23,600 -5.7%
1880 26,642 12.9%
1890 26,703 0.2%
1900 29,337 9.9%
1910 30,121 2.7%
To me, there does not seem to have been a lot of new building of homes
1880 26,642 12.9%
1890 26,703 0.2%
1900 29,337 9.9%
1910 30,121 2.7%
to replace old ones. The biggest, oldest homes are near the center of
town, with newer, smaller or less fancy ones increasing as you move
away from the center.
UC
May 27, 2012, 8:50:23 PM5/27/12
to
near the center of town, becoming less common as you move forward in
time and away from the center. The very large, ornate Victorian
designs did become extinct for the most part.
UC
May 27, 2012, 9:04:16 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 6:39 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:46:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:46:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
large, but only about 1/3 the square footage of the 3950 sq feet of
the ones I found links to in Coshocton.
http://www.trulia.com/property/3084142729-337-S-Burgess-Ave-Columbus-OH-43204
http://www.realtyohio.com/p/42/212014428
James Beck
May 27, 2012, 9:23:51 PM5/27/12
to
Coshocton Census 1850 through 2000
1850 850
1860 1,151 35.4%
1870 1,754 52.4%
1880 3,044 73.5%
1890 3,672 20.6%
1900 6,473 76.3%
1910 9,603 48.4%
1920 10,847 13.0%
1930 10,908 0.6%
1940 11,569 6.1%
1950 11,675 0.9%
1960 13,106 12.3%
1970 13,747 4.9%
1980 13,418 -2.4%
1990 12,193 -9.1%
2000 11,682 -4.2%
Why is the county population relevant to your question about urban
1870 1,754 52.4%
1880 3,044 73.5%
1890 3,672 20.6%
1900 6,473 76.3%
1910 9,603 48.4%
1920 10,847 13.0%
1930 10,908 0.6%
1940 11,569 6.1%
1950 11,675 0.9%
1960 13,106 12.3%
1970 13,747 4.9%
1980 13,418 -2.4%
1990 12,193 -9.1%
2000 11,682 -4.2%
architecture?
Message has been deleted
UC
May 27, 2012, 10:11:30 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 9:23�pm, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >The population of the city is slightly more variable, showing a
> >decline in the 1970-1980 decade that saw growth in the county overall.
> >Again, net growth is almost zero for 100 years:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coshocton,_Ohio
>
> I notice that you cut this off:
>
> Coshocton Census 1850 through 2000
> 1850 ...
> >The population of the city is slightly more variable, showing a
> >decline in the 1970-1980 decade that saw growth in the county overall.
> >Again, net growth is almost zero for 100 years:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coshocton,_Ohio
>
> I notice that you cut this off:
>
> Coshocton Census 1850 through 2000
I was comparing the 1870-1910 growth of the county vs the city. This
is the period during which the large ornate homes were built. The
statistics support the hypothesis that people were moving to the city
from the countryside.
UC
May 27, 2012, 10:17:52 PM5/27/12
to
http://www.homes.com/listing/161084334/765_Sullivant_Ave_COLUMBUS_OH_43222
Square Ft: 1,026
James Beck
May 27, 2012, 10:27:41 PM5/27/12
to
perspective, the long term bond equivalent of Backus' selling price of
$10,000 today is about US$400 million. That's a lot of land-grant.
We know from Bahmer that there were 285 landowners in the township, so
the major landholders probably represented 3% or less of the
population and most of the local wealth in 1910. There were several
agricultural booms, and they discovered coal and oil there sometime
before 1850. Steel manufacturing in support of the railroads appears
to have been important after 1870 or so, and the town saw much slower
growth after the canal shut down, bypassed by rail freight, after
1913. Price competition from imported steel likely undermined local
industry after the late 1970s. Coshocton has been contracting rapidly
since then.
What remains are some moderately large, well-built homes of fairly
wealthy people. Absent are the tent-and-shanty dwellings of the
miners, servants, and early steel workers. The houses aren't
particular grand, so we can guess that Coshocton's economy was always
marginal. That is, they were well-off, but not extremely rich. Judging
from the MLS listings, at US$82,000 for a 5,000 sq ft house, the
Coshocton economy is still very depressed; that's far below
replacement cost. Had Coshocton become an important urban hub, some of
the more famous homes near city hall would be landmarks and we'd see
bigger, grander homes progressively farther out. This is a very common
story in US history. There's no mystery here.
UC
May 27, 2012, 10:51:49 PM5/27/12
to
lunch since it was the closest town that I could count on having a
Wendys, and it was in the opposite direction from Columbus. It took me
almost half an hour to get there from rt 79 where I was photographing
some bridges for work. But it was an even greater distance to the
nearest Wendys going back to Columbus and I was quite hungry. So, I
decided to spend a few minutes cruising around town before heading
back to Columbus. I am sure that some old buildings have been torn
down, but I was shocked at the state of preservation of the really big
houses near the center of town. Only in places like Delaware and
Granville are there well-preserved older homes like this; it's quite
rare to see this in eastern Ohio. Most eastern Ohio town s are in sad
shape.
East Palestine comes to mind as one that was not in great shape.
Harry K
May 27, 2012, 11:55:39 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 3:39 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:46:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:46:43 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
Harry K
James Beck
May 28, 2012, 12:46:14 AM5/28/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 19:17:52 -0700 (PDT), UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 27, 10:11�pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 27, 9:23 pm, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >The population of the city is slightly more variable, showing a
>> > >decline in the 1970-1980 decade that saw growth in the county overall.
>> > >Again, net growth is almost zero for 100 years:
>>
>> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coshocton,_Ohio
>>
>> > I notice that you cut this off:
>>
>> > Coshocton Census 1850 through 2000
>> > 1850 ...
>>
>> I was comparing the 1870-1910 growth of the county vs the city. This
>> is the period during which the large ornate homes were built. The
>> statistics support the hypothesis that people were moving to the city
>> from the countryside.
>
Aggregate census data does not tell you where the people were moving
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 27, 10:11�pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 27, 9:23 pm, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >The population of the city is slightly more variable, showing a
>> > >decline in the 1970-1980 decade that saw growth in the county overall.
>> > >Again, net growth is almost zero for 100 years:
>>
>> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coshocton,_Ohio
>>
>> > I notice that you cut this off:
>>
>> > Coshocton Census 1850 through 2000
>> > 1850 ...
>>
>> I was comparing the 1870-1910 growth of the county vs the city. This
>> is the period during which the large ornate homes were built. The
>> statistics support the hypothesis that people were moving to the city
>> from the countryside.
>
from. From Bahmer, we know that the coal miners were Welsh, Irish, and
German immigrants. If you want granular data on the county, you can
probably get it from IPUMS-USA.
It is a waste of time to look for a mystery where there is none. We
know a good deal about the economics of cities, including those
created by land-grants.
>Then look at this house, built in 1934:
>
>http://www.homes.com/listing/161084334/765_Sullivant_Ave_COLUMBUS_OH_43222
>
>Square Ft: 1,026
particularly interesting about it.
Does visiting Coshocton on business include earning real estate
commissions by any chance? It looks like the sort of place business
goes to die.
Mike Painter
May 28, 2012, 2:04:53 AM5/28/12
to
On 5/25/2012 12:33 PM, UC wrote:
> I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> googled it.
>
> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> googled it.
>
> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
> http://www.applevalleyohhomes.com/Listing/ViewListingDetails.aspx?ListingID=13514396&Bb=M3&Cc=13514396
> the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
>
> This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
> http://c1964182.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/3yd-NEOHREXOH-3217092_0.jpg
> This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
>
> Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
>
There was a depression in 1907, and 1920-21 that might have led to
> Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
>
smaller homes.
I suspect the rise of a real middle class was the main reason.
In the smaller towns in Northern California you can find areas with
large old homes and still find many more much smaller places that served
the people who owned the big houses.
jillery
May 28, 2012, 3:34:21 AM5/28/12
to
new modern home with all the fancy bells and whistles, and an older
but larger home, my impression is most people voted with their
pocketbooks for the former. Also, for many people in many cases,
larger is a liability not an asset.
jillery
May 28, 2012, 4:13:48 AM5/28/12
to
pregnant"?
jillery
May 28, 2012, 4:41:57 AM5/28/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 15:46:40 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
Likely a wise decision. I envision "The Money Pit".
UC
May 28, 2012, 2:25:18 PM5/28/12
to
> Also, for many people in many cases,
> larger is a liability not an asset.
'plainer'.
UC
May 28, 2012, 2:24:15 PM5/28/12
to
On May 28, 2:04 am, Mike Painter <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/25/2012 12:33 PM, UC wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> > googled it.
>
> > I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> > communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> > few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> > though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> > supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> > I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> > the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> > Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
> >http://www.applevalleyohhomes.com/Listing/ViewListingDetails.aspx?Lis...
> On 5/25/2012 12:33 PM, UC wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> > googled it.
>
> > I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> > communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> > few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> > though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> > supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> > I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> > the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> > Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
>
> > This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
> >http://c1964182.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/3yd-NEOHREXOH-32170...
> > This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
>
> > Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> > curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> > 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
>
> There was a depression in 1907, and 1920-21 that might have led to
> smaller homes.
I did not know this, but how much would it have impacted this region?
> > Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> > curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> > 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
>
> There was a depression in 1907, and 1920-21 that might have led to
> smaller homes.
> I suspect the rise of a real middle class was the main reason.
tell the tale of what happened in this town.
UC
May 28, 2012, 2:33:34 PM5/28/12
to
may have continued to be built in some areas after it had become
extinct in others.
I don't know all the terms for styles of homes. This is basic info
that I found:
http://www.findingfixerupperhomes.com/1420391.html
Here is a recent home billed as 'Victorian':
http://activerain.com/states/TN/cities/Brentwood/communities/Hampton%20Reserve
This is what I consider a typical large Victorian:
http://ask-old-house.oldhousess.com/images/old-victorian-houses-for-sale-2.jpg
UC
May 28, 2012, 2:54:19 PM5/28/12
to
On May 28, 12:46 am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 19:17:52 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 19:17:52 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On May 27, 10:11 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On May 27, 9:23 pm, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >The population of the city is slightly more variable, showing a
> >> > >decline in the 1970-1980 decade that saw growth in the county overall.
> >> > >Again, net growth is almost zero for 100 years:
>
> >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coshocton,_Ohio
>
> >> > I notice that you cut this off:
>
> >> > Coshocton Census 1850 through 2000
> >> > 1850 ...
>
> >> I was comparing the 1870-1910 growth of the county vs the city. This
> >> is the period during which the large ornate homes were built. The
> >> statistics support the hypothesis that people were moving to the city
> >> from the countryside.
>
> Aggregate census data does not tell you where the people were moving
> from.
Correct, but the fact that the city growth outpaced the county growth
> >On May 27, 10:11 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On May 27, 9:23 pm, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >The population of the city is slightly more variable, showing a
> >> > >decline in the 1970-1980 decade that saw growth in the county overall.
> >> > >Again, net growth is almost zero for 100 years:
>
> >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coshocton,_Ohio
>
> >> > I notice that you cut this off:
>
> >> > Coshocton Census 1850 through 2000
> >> > 1850 ...
>
> >> I was comparing the 1870-1910 growth of the county vs the city. This
> >> is the period during which the large ornate homes were built. The
> >> statistics support the hypothesis that people were moving to the city
> >> from the countryside.
>
> Aggregate census data does not tell you where the people were moving
> from.
in absolute terms is suggestive that people were leaving the
countryside for the city.
> From Bahmer, we know that the coal miners were Welsh, Irish, and
> German immigrants. If you want granular data on the county, you can
> probably get it from IPUMS-USA.
>
> It is a waste of time to look for a mystery where there is none. We
> know a good deal about the economics of cities, including those
> created by land-grants.
>
> >Then look at this house, built in 1934:
>
>
> >Square Ft: 1,026
>
> This was an average home in the US at the time. There's nothing
> particularly interesting about it.
That's my point. 35-50 years earlier the houses being built were far
> >Square Ft: 1,026
>
> This was an average home in the US at the time. There's nothing
> particularly interesting about it.
larger.
>
> Does visiting Coshocton on business include earning real estate
> commissions by any chance? It looks like the sort of place business
> goes to die.
poorly other cities in that part of the state are doing (Zanesville,
Cambridge, Steubenville, etc.).
Steubenville is losing population (peaked in 1940):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville,_Ohio
Historical populations
Census Pop. %ą
1840 4,247 42.2%
1850 6,140 44.6%
1860 6,154 0.2%
1870 8,107 31.7%
1880 12,093 49.2%
1890 13,394 10.8%
1900 14,349 7.1%
1910 22,391 56.0%
1920 28,508 27.3%
1930 35,422 24.3%
1940 37,651 6.3%
1950 35,872 -4.7%
1960 32,495 -9.4%
1970 30,771 -5.3%
1980 26,400 -14.2%
1990 22,125 -16.2%
2000 19,015 -14.1%
2010 18,659 -1.9%
So is Cambridge (peaked 1930):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge,_Ohio
Census Pop. %ą
1850 1,041 --
1860 1,452 39.5%
1870 2,193 51.0%
1880 2,883 31.5%
1890 4,361 51.3%
1900 8,241 89.0%
1910 11,327 37.4%
1920 13,104 15.7%
1930 16,129 23.1%
1940 15,044 -6.7%
1950 14,739 -2.0%
1960 14,652 -0.6%
1970 13,656 -6.8%
1980 13,450 -1.5%
1990 11,748 -12.7%
2000 11,520 -1.9%
Est. 2008 11,192
Same sad story in Zanesville (peaked 1950):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanesville,_Ohio
Census Pop. %ą
1820 2,052
--
1830 3,094 50.8%
1840 4,766 54.0%
1850 7,929 66.4%
1860 9,229 16.4%
1870 10,011 8.5%
1880 18,113 80.9%
1890 21,009 16.0%
1900 23,538 12.0%
1910 28,026 19.1%
1920 29,569 5.5%
1930 36,440 23.2%
1940 37,500 2.9%
1950 40,517 8.0%
1960 39,077 -3.6%
1970 33,045 -15.4%
1980 28,600 -13.5%
1990 26,778 -6.4%
2000 25,586 -4.5%
2010 25,487 -0.4%
So, the fact that Coshocton has bucked the trend is rather remarkable.
The center of the city is clean and the old houses are in great shape,
unlike the communities named above.
Looking at the map you can see all four communities (Cambridge,
Coshocton, Steubenville, and Zanesville) are fairly close:
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&q=cambridge+ohio&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x8837b5e7d9a4c5d5:0x484050a1274b3a7a,Cambridge,+OH&gl=us&ei=MMjDT63EJ4Si8gS98u20Cw&oi=local_group&sqi=2&ved=0CIsBELYD
Bob Casanova
May 29, 2012, 1:37:24 AM5/29/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 04:41:57 -0400, the following appeared
Well, not quite *that* bad (great flick, BTW). But the cost
of updating old (ca. 1900 and previous) houses to current
electrical, plumbing and HVAC standards is usually pretty
exorbitant, and the larger the house the worse the cost.
of updating old (ca. 1900 and previous) houses to current
electrical, plumbing and HVAC standards is usually pretty
exorbitant, and the larger the house the worse the cost.
UC
May 29, 2012, 10:18:40 AM5/29/12
to
On May 28, 2:04 am, Mike Painter <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/25/2012 12:33 PM, UC wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> > googled it.
>
> > I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> > communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> > few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> > though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> > supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> > I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> > the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> > Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
> >http://www.applevalleyohhomes.com/Listing/ViewListingDetails.aspx?Lis...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have no idea where to turn on the internet for this, and i have
> > googled it.
>
> > I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> > communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> > few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> > though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> > supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> > I was in Coshocton Ohio last week, and I was shocked at the size of
> > the homes in the central part of the city.
>
> > Here's one, run down, built in 1895:
>
>
> > This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
> >http://c1964182.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/3yd-NEOHREXOH-32170...
> > This is typical of mid-20th century homes:
>
>
> > Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> > curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> > 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
>
> There was a depression in 1907, and 1920-21 that might have led to
> smaller homes.
> I suspect the rise of a real middle class was the main reason.
>
> In the smaller towns in Northern California you can find areas with
> large old homes and still find many more much smaller places that served
> the people who owned the big houses.
The city vs the county, growth:
> > Obviously big homes have been built in more recent times, but I am
> > curious why there were so many large homes built in the 1880s and
> > 1890s, then this style of home virtually disappeared almost overnight.
>
> There was a depression in 1907, and 1920-21 that might have led to
> smaller homes.
> I suspect the rise of a real middle class was the main reason.
>
> In the smaller towns in Northern California you can find areas with
> large old homes and still find many more much smaller places that served
> the people who owned the big houses.
City of Coshocton:
1850 850 --
1860 1,151 35.4%
1870 1,754 52.4%
1880 3,044 73.5%
1890 3,672 20.6%
1900 6,473 76.3%
1910 9,603 48.4%
1920 10,847 13.0%
1930 10,908 0.6%
1940 11,569 6.1%
1950 11,675 0.9%
1960 13,106 12.3%
1970 13,747 4.9%
1980 13,418 -2.4%
1990 12,193 -9.1%
2000 11,682 -4.2%
2008 11,353 (Est.)
1870 1,754 52.4%
1880 3,044 73.5%
1890 3,672 20.6%
1900 6,473 76.3%
1910 9,603 48.4%
1920 10,847 13.0%
1930 10,908 0.6%
1940 11,569 6.1%
1950 11,675 0.9%
1960 13,106 12.3%
1970 13,747 4.9%
1980 13,418 -2.4%
1990 12,193 -9.1%
2000 11,682 -4.2%
County of Coshocton:
1820 7,086 --
1830 11,161 57.5%
1840 21,590 93.4%
1850 25,674 18.9%
1860 25,032 -2.5%
1870 23,600 -5.7%
1880 26,642 12.9%
1890 26,703 0.2%
1900 29,337 9.9%
1910 30,121 2.7%
1920 29,595 -1.7%
1930 28,976 -2.1%
1940 30,594 5.6%
1950 31,141 1.8%
1960 32,224 3.5%
1970 33,486 3.9%
1980 36,024 7.6%
1990 35,427 -1.7%
2000 36,655 3.5%
From 1870 to 1910, the City population grew by 7894. During the same
1830 11,161 57.5%
1840 21,590 93.4%
1850 25,674 18.9%
1860 25,032 -2.5%
1870 23,600 -5.7%
1880 26,642 12.9%
1890 26,703 0.2%
1900 29,337 9.9%
1910 30,121 2.7%
1920 29,595 -1.7%
1930 28,976 -2.1%
1940 30,594 5.6%
1950 31,141 1.8%
1960 32,224 3.5%
1970 33,486 3.9%
1980 36,024 7.6%
1990 35,427 -1.7%
2000 36,655 3.5%
period, the county population grew by 6,521. This suggests that at
least some of the city increase did not come from outside the county.
If immigration was substantial during this period, most of it seems to
have been to the city, rather than to rural areas.
UC
May 29, 2012, 10:45:41 AM5/29/12
to
On May 29, 1:37 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 04:41:57 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, 28 May 2012 04:41:57 -0400, the following appeared
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 27 May 2012 15:46:40 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 27 May 2012 13:31:19 -0400, the following appeared
> >>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 27 May 2012 15:46:40 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 27 May 2012 13:31:19 -0400, the following appeared
>
> >>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:24:36 -0700 (PDT), UC
> >>>On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:24:36 -0700 (PDT), UC
observations of the city as it stands today. It's sort of paleo-
sociology.
Bob Casanova
May 29, 2012, 1:16:57 PM5/29/12
to
On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:45:41 -0700 (PDT), the following
anecdotal evidence, and you have a point.
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
>It is interesting to see what we can deduce simply from statistics and
>observations of the city as it stands today. It's sort of paleo-
>sociology.
Replace "deduce" with "conjecture", since all we have is
>observations of the city as it stands today. It's sort of paleo-
>sociology.
anecdotal evidence, and you have a point.
UC
May 29, 2012, 1:30:07 PM5/29/12
to
On May 29, 1:16 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:45:41 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:45:41 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
Message has been deleted
UC
May 29, 2012, 1:43:00 PM5/29/12
to
On May 29, 1:16 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:45:41 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
> <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com>:
> On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:45:41 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
cities in the region (east Ohio) show significant loss of population
and decay EXCEPT Coshocton. The question is: why?
RichD
May 29, 2012, 1:58:09 PM5/29/12
to
On May 26, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> >> > communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> >> > few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> >> > though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> >> > supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
> >On the street where I grew up, houses north of the main road half a
> >> > I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> >> > communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> >> > few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> >> > though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> >> > supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
> >block away, built in the 1920s, are older and bigger. The ones south
> >of the main road were built in the late 1940s and are smaller. The
> >difference is quite significant.
>
> Do you think two World Wars and a Depression inbetween might
> have something to do with it?
That doesn't make sense.
Don't we all know, that war, and eternal preparation
for war, is good for the economy? It creates
millions of jobs, GOOD jobs. Don't we know that
St. FDR cured the economic contraction, with a
Great War? Don't we know that we can't afford
to cut military spending, the economy can't affrod it?
And, USA is the world's biggest arms merchant,
it saves our Balance of Payments, plus it supports
lots of Vital Research?
Why would war cause reduction of living quarters?
We know it creates prosperity -
--
Rich
UC
May 29, 2012, 3:12:08 PM5/29/12
to
there....methinks...
jillery
May 30, 2012, 3:14:53 AM5/30/12
to
large volume. Making that enclosed space attractive and functional
requires attention to detail, which necessarily takes time and so
increases costs. Market preferences compete with technical
practicalities. If builders made large 'plainer' homes, it's likely a
response to a demand to reduce costs.
jillery
May 30, 2012, 10:33:28 AM5/30/12
to
prosperity. There is the case where war consumes excess production,
and so stimulates production. But there is also the case where war
creates scarcity of necessary commodities.
But both of these effects are most obvious in remote wars. When the
action is in one's own backyard, explosions reduce living quarters
directly.
UC
May 30, 2012, 10:55:39 AM5/30/12
to
the outside, and 'fancy' accoutrements on the inside. Turrets, towers,
bay windows, elaborate carved wood, and stone construction certainly
add to the cost. The large homes built later were structurally and
decoratively simpler, with fewer rooms.
UC
May 30, 2012, 11:05:42 AM5/30/12
to
UC
May 30, 2012, 5:35:27 PM5/30/12
to
examples:
http://whisperedwhimsyvintage.blogspot.com/2011/02/vibrant-victorians.html
UC
May 30, 2012, 5:45:49 PM5/30/12
to
UC
May 31, 2012, 9:46:33 AM5/31/12
to
Now that's what I call DESIGN!!!!!
Message has been deleted
RichD
Jun 1, 2012, 12:32:19 AM6/1/12
to
Re-try::
On May 29, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> >I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> > > >> >communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
how the japanese auto industry rose, they were
bombed to the stone age in 1945, then rebuilt,
giving them an unfair advantage over Detroiit,
which was never bombed.
But normal peacetime capitalism causes misery
and poverty by over-production, hence imbalances,
hence the horror of UNCERTAINTY!!!! Think of all
those GOOD MANUFACTURING JOBS that were
lost after war's end.
That's why mass destruction is good for the economy,
it keeps people busy, JOBS, that's the important thing,
as long as people are doing SOMETHING, ANYTHING,
the economy grooves.
Like, In 1993, Christine Romer, Clinton's chef
advisor, the Economist General, said the Mississippi
River floods resulted in economic growth, it was a
blessing. It's so obvious, once the perfessor explains it.
--
Rich
On May 29, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> >I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
> > > >> >communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
> > > >> > ew large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
> > > >> >though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> > > >> >supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> > > >> >though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
> > > >> >supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>
> > >Do you think two World Wars and a Depression inbetween
> >>might have something to do with it?
>
> > That doesn't make sense.
> > Don't we all know, that war, and eternal preparation
> > for war, is good for the economy? It creates
> > millions of jobs, GOOD jobs. Don't we know that
> > St. FDR cured the economic contraction, with a
> > Great War? Don't we know that we can't afford
> > to cut military spending, the economy can't affrod it?
> > And, USA is the world's biggest arms merchant,
> > it saves our Balance of Payments, plus it supports
> > lots of Vital Research?
> > Why would war cause reduction of living quarters?
> > We know it creates prosperity -
>
> >>might have something to do with it?
>
> > That doesn't make sense.
> > Don't we all know, that war, and eternal preparation
> > for war, is good for the economy? It creates
> > millions of jobs, GOOD jobs. Don't we know that
> > St. FDR cured the economic contraction, with a
> > Great War? Don't we know that we can't afford
> > to cut military spending, the economy can't affrod it?
> > And, USA is the world's biggest arms merchant,
> > it saves our Balance of Payments, plus it supports
> > lots of Vital Research?
> > Why would war cause reduction of living quarters?
> > We know it creates prosperity -
>
> Military spending creates jobs here and destroys them
> there....methinks...
No, it also creates jobs due to the cleanup. That's
> there....methinks...
how the japanese auto industry rose, they were
bombed to the stone age in 1945, then rebuilt,
giving them an unfair advantage over Detroiit,
which was never bombed.
But normal peacetime capitalism causes misery
and poverty by over-production, hence imbalances,
hence the horror of UNCERTAINTY!!!! Think of all
those GOOD MANUFACTURING JOBS that were
lost after war's end.
That's why mass destruction is good for the economy,
it keeps people busy, JOBS, that's the important thing,
as long as people are doing SOMETHING, ANYTHING,
the economy grooves.
Like, In 1993, Christine Romer, Clinton's chef
advisor, the Economist General, said the Mississippi
River floods resulted in economic growth, it was a
blessing. It's so obvious, once the perfessor explains it.
--
Rich
Mike Painter
Jun 1, 2012, 9:51:14 PM6/1/12
to
On 5/31/2012 9:13 PM, RichD wrote:
>
MacArthur and a man named Edward Deming gave then that "unfair" advantage.
When Harley-Davidson was circling the drain because of the Japanese
motorcycles, they decided to go with Deming's approach and saved the
company.
Most of America holds with "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Japan argues that If it ain't broke, make it better."
> On May 29, UC<uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
>>>>>>> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
>>>>>>> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
>>>>>>> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
>>>>>>> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>>
>>>>>>> I occasionally drive around Ohio for work, and in many smaller
>>>>>>> communities I see enormous-size late Victorian-era houses, but very
>>>>>>> few large houses that were built in the later years. It seems as
>>>>>>> though after about WWI there was either little home-building (existing
>>>>>>> supply sufficient?) or the ones being built were much smaller.
>>
>>>> Do you think two World Wars and a Depression inbetween
>>>> might have something to do with it?
>>
>>> That doesn't make sense.
>>> Don't we all know, that war, and eternal preparation
>>> for war, is good for the economy? It creates
>>> millions of jobs, GOOD jobs. Don't we know that
>>> St. FDR cured the economic contraction, with a
>>> Great War? Don't we know that we can't afford
>>> to cut military spending, the economy can't affrod it?
>>> And, USA is the world's biggest arms merchant,
>>> it saves our Balance of Payments, plus it supports
>>> lots of Vital Research?
>>
>>> Why would war cause reduction of living quarters?
>>> We know it creates prosperity -
>>
>>>> might have something to do with it?
>>
>>> That doesn't make sense.
>>> Don't we all know, that war, and eternal preparation
>>> for war, is good for the economy? It creates
>>> millions of jobs, GOOD jobs. Don't we know that
>>> St. FDR cured the economic contraction, with a
>>> Great War? Don't we know that we can't afford
>>> to cut military spending, the economy can't affrod it?
>>> And, USA is the world's biggest arms merchant,
>>> it saves our Balance of Payments, plus it supports
>>> lots of Vital Research?
>>
>>> Why would war cause reduction of living quarters?
>>> We know it creates prosperity -
>>
>> Military spending creates jobs here and destroys them
>> there....methinks...
>
>> there....methinks...
>
> No, it also creates jobs due to the cleanup. That's
> how the Japanese auto industry rose, they were
> bombed to the stone age in 1945, then rebuilt,
> giving them an unfair advantage.
>
MacArthur and a man named Edward Deming gave then that "unfair" advantage.
When Harley-Davidson was circling the drain because of the Japanese
motorcycles, they decided to go with Deming's approach and saved the
company.
Most of America holds with "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Japan argues that If it ain't broke, make it better."
0 new messages