I was looking up old census records for my street and found a house that shouldn't be there

I was digging through the 1940 census online for my block in Portland. The records clearly show a house at 421 Maple that was listed as vacant. But I know for a fact that lot has been a small city park since at least 1935, according to the plaque there. There's never been a house on that spot. I even checked old fire insurance maps and they show the park. Has anyone else found a building that just doesn't match up in old records?

3 comments

3 Comments

troyjackson3mo ago

Eh, census takers messed up sometimes.

wrenwilson3mo ago

Maybe the census taker saw a really convincing treehouse.

uma_reed261mo ago

Hear me out, I gotta say that doesn't add up. Census workers are trained pretty thoroughly, and they're supposed to count actual homes, not treehouses. A treehouse might be a fun play space, but it's not a dwelling with a real address, water, or electricity. The whole point is getting an accurate population count, so if a taker marked a treehouse as a residence, that's a serious mistake. They have checklists and verification steps to avoid stuff like that. I think it's way more likely the census taker just missed the house entirely or couldn't find it, not that they confused it with a tree fort.