A HOUSING SURVEY
• By F. J. OSBORN
WAR creates or enlarges a housing shortage in three ways: by the lag in replacement of houses wearing out ; by the absence of provision for new families needing separate dwellings ; and by the destructive efforts of the enemy. War also makes difficult the full resumption of building: by the absorption of builders in the Services ; by the suspension of normal recruitment ; and by the break in organisation. To estimate the numerical short- age of houses at the date of the defeat of Germany is, I think, little more than an academic exercise. Theoretically, you can arrive at it by adding to the arrears at September, 1939, the number of houses which have crossed the line of decrepitude in six years, the war-time increase of families or potential households, and the dwellings destroyed by bombing, and deducting the number built during the war. But each of these component estimates will vary with the standard adopted. And the factor of geographical dstribu- lion vitiates any overall estimate. It is profitless to debate whether the shortage is one million, two millions, or more, since the lowest arguable estimate is big enough to exceed our practical building capacity within three years. Thereafter we shall be facing the larger problem of the replacement of obsolete and sub-standard dwellings, involving much larger figures.
The building industry of Great Britain had 1,008,00o workers in 1939. By mid-1944 It was reduced to 345,000. The stated intention of the Government is to raise the number to 1,250,000. This can- not be done in much less than four years, and for the first three years, though builders are on the priority-list for release from the Services, building man-power will be far below the 1939 level. There will be heavy arrears of normal repairs, besides war damage, to catch up with. But by about the fourth year the expanded industry, if 4o per cent. of it (the 1938 proportion) is engaged in house-building, will be capable of producing 400,000 to 450,000 houses a year. Thus the-Government's programme of three to four million houses in ten years is in step with its proposals for the increased labour force. In the first two or three years, how- ever, nothing like this rate of production is possible by traditional building methods. After the last war, though the shortage was then greater, only 7,000 houses were built in the first two years ; and even in the third year output did nor reach 100,000. The Govern- ment's aim to have 300,000 permanent houses completed or com- menced by the end of two years is therefore not a contemptible one. Some caution as to the extent to which th's output can be supplemented by " factory-built " houses, whether temporary or permanent, is wise. The Government contemplate that another quarter of a million or so may be produced by these new methods in the two years.
But all experience shows that the satisfactory mass-production of any complicated article involves a period of development. In factory-built housing we are only at the " prototype" stage, and as it happens none of the early modeli" has gained enthusiastic acceptance. The Portal steel bungalow is a clever engineering job ; but its internal planning is weak, its floor area (655 square feet, including shed) is too small for a family house, its external appear- ance is unattractive, and its siting uneconomical ; and while its limit of ten years' life is for these reasons a merit, the annual charge necess'tated by so short an existence seems a heavy price to pay for speed. No alternative design for temporary houses has escaped similar criticisms. The query arises, therefore, as to whether factory methods could not be better used for the production of larger and more permanent houses. But this was the quest of experts during years of active construction in many countries, with- out clear success ; and Mr. Nathan Strauss, formerly chief of the United States Housing AuthOrity, warns us that "reliance on novel manufacturing techniques to solve housing problems varies in inverse ratio to the experience of the individual or the nation in practical achievements." A generally acceptable solution is unlikely to be found by paper-work and restricted experiment during the war shut- down. Frankly, I do not expect pre-fabrication of complete houses to do more than supplement production to a moderate extent in the first two years, at a disproportionate cost that may be justified by emergency.
If in one way and another we succeed in housing 400,000 or 500,000 families in two years we shall have done well. During that period the main effort should be to improve methods and organisa- tion along evolutionary rather than revolutionary lines, coupled with the production of materials and fittings at the lower cost that a large demand should make possible. Permits for building, control of materials and prices, and control of building wages (offset by a guarantee of long-term employment) will be necessary during the shortage period. Temporarily, a high rate of subsidy, both to local housing authorities and to private enterprise, is unavoidable. But in view of the definite programme ahead, of at least four million houses, largely under public promotion, it should take a much shorter time after this war than after the last to reach the pre-war standard of organisation and output, and to improve upon it. Within two or three years it ought to be possible to stabilise costs at a level no higher, relative to the general price-level, than before the war.
The report of the Dudley Committee on Design of Dwellings has established the case for a normal minimum of about 900 square feet of floor-space for the three-bedroom family house. If the Full Employment policy is a success, the country can afford this standard, which compares with the 750-80o feet house common in inter-war housing schemes. The same report proposes certain advances in construction and fittings, and the valuable work done by the Ministry of Works and technical bodies provides the data on which manufacturers and builders can, in view of the assurance of continued demand, implement these advances. In the matter of lay-out and of housing density in urban areas, the new Housing Manual indicates some progress in official opinion, though here there is still timidity, owing to the political obstacles to a solution of the land-value compensation problem.
Behind the task of overtaking the war-time shortage stands the much larger one of the replacement of sub-standard dwellings. Of the nation's stock of 13,000,00o.dwellings two-thirds date from before 1914, and few will be less than sixty years old by 1965. It would be easily within the capacity of the expanded building industry of 5,250,000 men to rebuild, or recondition thoroughly satisfactorily, the whole of our pre-19x4 urban fabric in twenty to twenty-five years. That ought to be the aim—the equivalent of 8,00o,00o houses in twenty to twenty-five years—for no class of expenditure could give the nation a better return in individual and social well-being, of which a satisfactory home-life is much the most important ingredient.
Such a programme, however, raises the wider issues of town and country planning and the location of industry. The Govern- ment have accepted the policy of decongestion of large cities and dispersal of part of their industry and population to smaller towns. But there is a great danger that the initial steps in housing, in response to the sheer pressure for dwellings where people now are or near where they worked in 1939, will restart urban development on, the inter-war lines. To avoid that, housing must from the outset be coupled with the re-location of industry and with positive community development. Unless there fs immediate legislation on the issue of compensation for land values reduced by preserving green belts and opening-up cities in re-development, the old dilemma between multi-story flats and suburban sprawl will face the authorities on a larger scale than ever. This is the major crux of the housing problem.
In principle the policy accepted by the Government is sound. But the departments are pursuing independent lines which do not fully carry out this policy, and which tend to clash. Many housing schemes now being prepared are in the wrong places. The Board of Trade's influence on industrial location is not taking account of the necessity of dispersal within each region. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning is still trying to piece together local planning schemes, instead of insisting on a positive national policy. No machinery yet exists for promoting and financing the new com- munities implied in the accepted policy. The value of much good detailed work, and of the good intentions in White Papers, will be lost unless there is more drive and decision at Cabinet level.
Previous page
