The American Architect
Wednesday, January 8, 1919Number 2246
Government Housing: What Will Follow?
By C. Grant La Farge, F. A. I. A.
It is too early to do more than to speculate, however advisedly, upon the effect that the
housing for war workers, undertaken by the Government, is to have upon the general question we somewhat vaguely indicate by the term “reconstruction. It were better called re-adjustment,” so far as concerns this country.
Those of our citizens who, as individuals or as associations, have long been concerned with the problems of town planning and housing; who have convened and discussed, preached and toiled in the face of a public mostly blind and indifferent; these have turned eager eyes upon what must have seemed almost a miracle: The actual venturing by the United States Government upon the construction of dwellings for working people, upon a large scale and, so far as the personal characters and abilities of those employed for the task could guarantee, in a manner and upon terms that would be a very long step in advance. Those same eyes had scrutinized the examples furnished overseas, especially, perhaps, the remarkable performance of Great Britain in war time. To thoughtful persons, open-minded students of the subject, the conviction was not new that the living conditions of working people, outside the factories, were at least as important as those surrounding their working hours. They measured the question in terms of citizenship, not satisfied that any purely economic formula was adequate to cover a subject so complex. Not that radicalism should be suspected of dismissing the necessity for a sound economic basis, but rather of believing the commonly accepted one to be unsound. Housing must pay, of course, but must the standard of payment be an irreconcilable incompatibility between the workman’s resources and such living conditions as are essential to the health, contentment, efficiency and well-being of himself and his family; yes—let us face it—even to their honorable pride and their opportunity for that “pursuit of happiness” recognized by the founders of this republic?
It would appear to be so, if the solution of the problem of industrial housing were to be left en
tirely to the laws of supply and demand, as interpreted and made use of by the speculative builder chiefly, with an occasional contribution from some enlightened association (of which New York City affords a notable example), or from industries become aware of the important part to be played by housing in stabilizing labor. The limits of this brief article forbid more than this mere glance at a great and many-sided question, but even the glance may suggest that if any lessons are to be gleaned from governmental entry into the field, they are worth attention.
There are such lessons, many of them, and they will doubtless be elaborated in various ways; one only will be indicated here. It has to do with production. Occupancy and its methods; terms of rental and sale; plan of holding the properties; their management; the effect of the housing—these matters at this writing lie in the lap of the gods, some of whom thunder upon Capitol Hill.
In ordinary circumstances, the great bulk of lowcost housing is a real estate speculation pure and simple; much of it is vicious. The common phenomena are familiar: some land secured at a bargain; cheap houses crowded as close as the law will permit ; the minimum of ground improvements; poor plan; no continuing responsibility of the promoters ; no decent system of management, probably none at all. The whole thing is unloaded by shrewd advertising methods and is left to take care of itself, which it usually does by becoming a slum. Not that this is universally the story of speculative building; some of it is good in its way, rather limited so far as design of houses and their surroundings goes; or a fair plan of disposal by stable companies. But —and it must be understood that we are not here considering the few exceptional instances—in ascertaining, analyzing and relating the many factors involved in a proper determination of the investment, nowhere is there brought to bear such an assemblage of qualified skill and opinion as the United States Housing Corporation has had at its command.
To set forth these factors it will be well to see how
Copyright, 1919, The Architectural & Building Press (Inc.)
Wednesday, January 8, 1919Number 2246
Government Housing: What Will Follow?
By C. Grant La Farge, F. A. I. A.
It is too early to do more than to speculate, however advisedly, upon the effect that the
housing for war workers, undertaken by the Government, is to have upon the general question we somewhat vaguely indicate by the term “reconstruction. It were better called re-adjustment,” so far as concerns this country.
Those of our citizens who, as individuals or as associations, have long been concerned with the problems of town planning and housing; who have convened and discussed, preached and toiled in the face of a public mostly blind and indifferent; these have turned eager eyes upon what must have seemed almost a miracle: The actual venturing by the United States Government upon the construction of dwellings for working people, upon a large scale and, so far as the personal characters and abilities of those employed for the task could guarantee, in a manner and upon terms that would be a very long step in advance. Those same eyes had scrutinized the examples furnished overseas, especially, perhaps, the remarkable performance of Great Britain in war time. To thoughtful persons, open-minded students of the subject, the conviction was not new that the living conditions of working people, outside the factories, were at least as important as those surrounding their working hours. They measured the question in terms of citizenship, not satisfied that any purely economic formula was adequate to cover a subject so complex. Not that radicalism should be suspected of dismissing the necessity for a sound economic basis, but rather of believing the commonly accepted one to be unsound. Housing must pay, of course, but must the standard of payment be an irreconcilable incompatibility between the workman’s resources and such living conditions as are essential to the health, contentment, efficiency and well-being of himself and his family; yes—let us face it—even to their honorable pride and their opportunity for that “pursuit of happiness” recognized by the founders of this republic?
It would appear to be so, if the solution of the problem of industrial housing were to be left en
tirely to the laws of supply and demand, as interpreted and made use of by the speculative builder chiefly, with an occasional contribution from some enlightened association (of which New York City affords a notable example), or from industries become aware of the important part to be played by housing in stabilizing labor. The limits of this brief article forbid more than this mere glance at a great and many-sided question, but even the glance may suggest that if any lessons are to be gleaned from governmental entry into the field, they are worth attention.
There are such lessons, many of them, and they will doubtless be elaborated in various ways; one only will be indicated here. It has to do with production. Occupancy and its methods; terms of rental and sale; plan of holding the properties; their management; the effect of the housing—these matters at this writing lie in the lap of the gods, some of whom thunder upon Capitol Hill.
In ordinary circumstances, the great bulk of lowcost housing is a real estate speculation pure and simple; much of it is vicious. The common phenomena are familiar: some land secured at a bargain; cheap houses crowded as close as the law will permit ; the minimum of ground improvements; poor plan; no continuing responsibility of the promoters ; no decent system of management, probably none at all. The whole thing is unloaded by shrewd advertising methods and is left to take care of itself, which it usually does by becoming a slum. Not that this is universally the story of speculative building; some of it is good in its way, rather limited so far as design of houses and their surroundings goes; or a fair plan of disposal by stable companies. But —and it must be understood that we are not here considering the few exceptional instances—in ascertaining, analyzing and relating the many factors involved in a proper determination of the investment, nowhere is there brought to bear such an assemblage of qualified skill and opinion as the United States Housing Corporation has had at its command.
To set forth these factors it will be well to see how
Copyright, 1919, The Architectural & Building Press (Inc.)