[To THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sur,—The article in your issue of November 23rd deals with a subject which is at the root of the difficulties with regard to the housing question, and perhaps you may care to have the following proof of your statement that "any appreciable increase in the cost of building means a corresponding
diminution in the amount of building done Suppos- _ ing that it were possible to build a decent cottage for a working man and his family for £100, what a rush alike of business and philanthropic enterprise there would, be, Cottages would rise up in every direction, because it would be possible to let them at rents which would be willingly paid by the tenants, and yet return a decent profit to the owner." Your estimate of £100 is too low; but the fellow- ing are facts and figures which I am prepared to prove. In May, 1894, I prepared plans to develop a small building estate, on which it was proposed to build twenty-six six-roomed houses. Nine tenders were invited by me from builders, the lowest working out at £160 lls. per house. The tenders were refused as being too high to yield a fair return to the freeholder. The land has remained =built upon, with obviously the following result :—
(1) Approximately £4,000 was not spent in building.
(2) Accommodation for twenty-six families was not provided.
(3) The building trade has been deprived of the work there would necessarily be in keeping a property of this descrip. tion in good repair.
The above figures are accentuated when it is borne in mind that building prices between 1894 and now have been at least about 15 per cent. in excess of those ruling at the earlier date, and that the foregoing is but one of numerous experiences.— HENRY
Previous page
