378 



TIMBER RESOURCES FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE 



Census Bureau surveys show that about 1 out of 

 every 5 households moves during the course of 

 each year. About 6.5 percent move from one 

 State to another or from one county to another. 

 In areas that are losing population there is 

 abandonment of the poorest housing, which soon 

 deteriorates to unusable condition. 



The Census of Housing indicates that dm-ing 

 the decade 1940-50 some 2.0 to 2.5 million 

 dwelling units were demolished or converted to 

 other use, or became so deteriorated that they 

 were no longer habitable. ^^ That would be an 

 average of 200,000 to 250,000 units per year. 

 Because of the critical housing shortage that 

 prevailed dm-ing the period (on account of the 

 low level of residential construction during the 

 1930's, and the virtual stoppage of residential 

 building during World War II) the disappearance 

 of older housing was probably far less than would 

 be expected under conditions of sustained high- 

 level employment and no major wars. The stock 

 of housing actually aged to a considerable extent. 

 The percentage of all dwelling units in structures 

 30 or more years old increased from 41 percent to 

 46 percent and nearly one-thii"d of the 1950 units 

 were in structures built before 1910: ^° 



Year built: Age (years) 



Prior to 1879 70 and over. 



1880-89 60-69 



1890-99 50-59 



1900-09 40-49 



1910-19 30-39 



1920-29 20-29 



1930-39 10-19 



1940-49 10orles.s___ 



Dwellirifj ujiits 



(millions) (percent) 



2. 6 5. 7 



2. 4. 3 



3. 7 8. 

 6. 3 13. 7 

 6. 6 14. 3 

 9. 2 20. 

 6. 1 13. 3 

 9. 5 20. 7 



" This inference is based on a State-by-State compari- 

 son of the reported net gain in number of dwelling units 

 against the number of units in structures built in that 

 decade. Where the 10-year net increase was less than 

 number built, that difference was obviously due to dis- 

 appearance from the stock of housing that existed in 

 1940. The net disappearance, thus indicated, in 31 of 

 the States amounted to 1,136,000 dwelling units. The 

 total number of units that disappeared from housing stock 

 in those States was certainly larger, because part of the 

 net gain in number of units undoubtedly resulted from 

 subdivision of older large units into two or more dwelling 

 units. This type of conversion was stimulated by the 

 housing shortage during the war j'ears and immediately 

 thereafter. 



In 17 other States, the net gain in number of dwelling 

 units exceeded the number of new units built by 619,000. 

 In those States the gain by conversions exceeded the num- 

 ber that disappeared by that margin. But still a consider- 

 able disappearance of housing must have occurred even 

 in those States. Housing does wear out no matter where 

 it is. Changes in land use to make way for commercial 

 and industrial development occur all the time, and demo- 

 lition of residential structures is frequently involved. 



»" 1950 Census of Housing, Ser. HC-9, No. 5, p. 1. Units 

 built prior to 1920 are allocated to earlier periods according 

 to distribution reported in the 1940 Census of Housing. 



Age of structure is of course not the only factor 

 that leads to replacement of older housing. As 

 standards of living rise, more people want modern 

 homes. As their families grow, they also want 

 bigger houses. 



Insofar as can be judged from data available, 

 replacement of dwelling units in the years 1952-55 

 has averaged not less than 568,000 annually 

 (table 211). For the longer period 1950-55 it 

 averaged not less than 437,000 per j^ear.®' 



The various considerations presented above 

 support the belief that in a national economy 

 functioning at sustained high levels of employ- 

 ment, with continuing increase of per capita 

 buying power and continuing government pro- 

 grams to improve housing and encourage home 

 ownership, obsolescent and wornout housing wUl 

 be replaced at a rate substantially above that of 

 recent years. Average annual replacement in the 

 future is estimated as follows: 



Thousand 



dwelling 



units 



1 954-60 550 



1961-65 600 



1966-70 625 



1971-75 650 



1976-2000 { ;;250 



While the replacement estimate for 2000 appears 

 large, the stock of housing in which replacements 

 will be required will probablv be more than twice 

 that of 1950. 



Adding the three separate estimates, for net 

 addition to housing stock and for replacement of 

 disaster losses and obsolescent housing, the 

 following average annual requirements for new 

 dwelling units are indicated: 



Thousand 



dwelling 



units 



1954-60 1, 200 



1 961-65 1, 500 



1966-70 1, 800 



1971-75 2, 000 



197(^2000 { 2,500 



For tlie period 1954-60, the estimate is somewhat 

 under the average number of new units built 

 annually during 1950-55. Whether there will 

 actually be a sag in residential construction in the 

 years just ahead depends on liow fast the present 

 accumulation of substandard housing is replaced. 

 But even though residential construction may 

 not be maintained at 1950-55 levels during the 

 next few years, there can be no doubt about the 

 large demand that will develop beyond 1960. 



'' These figures are obtained by subtracting the Census 

 Bureau's estimates of net increase of households from the 

 estimated total number of dwelling units built. The 

 figures are probably on the low side because official data 

 on number of dwelling units built do not includ(! those in 

 structures classified as temporary. 



i 



