|
What Every Family Should Haveby CATHERINE BAUER and JACOB CRANE
We are the richest nation in the world—in resources in the modern skills necessary to use those resources; and in the energy, hope, capacity for peaceful change and growth, and independence of our people. If we cannot provide an acceptable modern standard of living for all of our people, if we cannot peacefully and democratically make any changes in our political, industrial or financial framework necessary to bring this about, then who can? The clarification and extension of rational minimum standards—in food consumption, in safety and security, in health services, in recreation, and certainly in shelter—will give the only realistic index of our success in making effective use of our wealth and resources. In our country which is technologically and industrially advanced, standards of consumption must not only be progressively kept from falling below a minimum level—they must also be gradually raised and improved. Otherwise bitter crisis and unemployment descend like plagues. Now that we are actually beginning to improve our housing and our environment on practically all levels of income, by public and by private action, in cities and in villages and in the country, we find a number of different sets of housing standards. We might say there is a healthy confusion which we must soon simmer down. There are in the first place the local ordinances which should logically differ in different localities, but which are generally obsolete and almost never geared to modern large scale community planning technique, modern zoning, and structural, sanitary and fire protective requirements. On the physical side we may look for improvement and regeneration in the present cooperative effort by the National Bureau of Standards and the Low Cost Housing Research Advisory Council of the Department of Commerce in devising a code based on simple criteria, discarding excessive factors of safety. On the social side—standards of light and air, room sizes, community requirements—we have the standards of USHA, FHA, financial agencies and mortgage conferences; standards for old housing which are important because they will long be with us standards set forth by national and local agencies such a the National Recreation Association, the American Public Health Association; and finally the standard set by the American dream—how our people think they and other e should and could live. Perhaps the first standard to be considered is the least "standardized" and scientific, the most subjective one of all. What kind of houses do we really want ourselves ? What are the little images we carry around in our minds of the ideal way to live? How do these images tie up with actual trends and possibilities? How Do We Want to Live? THERE HAVE BEEN MANY RECENT CHANGES IN THE IDEAS of the average citizen about the Good Life. Forty or fifty years ago, the image of the ideal though unattainable home held warmly by most ordinary urban citizens probably took some such shape as follows: an overstuffed frame mansion, studded with highly individual decorations, with 12 or 15 rooms filled with heavy furniture and endless bric-a-brac and dimmed by fancy dark wallpaper and several complete sets of drapes; the house, of course, located on a 100-foot lot landscaped for show but not for use, and facing the main "avenue" in town. It would have taken at least three servants to run it well, plus the entire time and energy of the women of the family. And there would have been practically no concern about bathroom or kitchen equipment, convenient layout, or efficient up keep. Today, most people with $10,000 incomes want compact, well-planned homes. They want light and air and simple furniture and decorations. They have sleeping porches and playrooms instead of parlors, and are romantically interested in bathrooms and kitchens, and labor saving devices. They would rather live on a quiet street near the country club than facing four lanes of traffic. A few of them are even beginning to feel that some sort of architectural harmony in the neighborhood might be better than a series of competitive architectural advertisements. If they want to live in the middle of town, near work and shops and theaters, they are quite satisfied with the anonymity and convenience of an apartment house—only grumbling at the noise and congestion which still seem to accompany even upper-class apartment living. In place of the urban mansion, two different ideals seem to be emerging—two poles which may determine between them the future of American environment. At one extreme is the country house—not a show place but a simple rural home brought up-to-date and made convenient and livable, looking out not on neighbors' backyards or nursery shrubbery but on real fields and a view. Outdoor life is increasingly important in America for all ages and all classes, and the possibility of it must be an integral part of future housing standards. The movement to the country has taken a deep hold among all groups able to afford it, despite the time and trouble of commuting which has been mitigated only very slightly by developments in parkways and rapid transit. The decentralization of industry gives a further impetus. At the opposite pole is the ideal of the apartment house, "down town," near work and everything that makes urban living attractive, but surrounded by a park and with a wide view from all windows. Here every emphasis will be on central services, and painless and effortless domesticity. The kind of interior organization and arrangement may be presaged by two successful cooperative buildings in Stockholm, occupied largely by professional people of rate incomes (including a number of working wives and mothers): balconies for all dwellings; a central kitchen which serves good food at reasonable prices either in an attractive restaurant with a terrace, or by dumbwaiter to the apartments; magnificent laundries; workshops and club rooms; nurseries and kindergartens with all day and even all night care available, and an infirmary. These two poles are not really extremes, in the sense either is impractical or unsuited to the needs of average people. What they actually mark is the beginning of very healthy recognition that town is town, and country, and each of them has virtues and qualities that suburbia can never achieve. The heyday of the 25-foot lot he long, narrow "individual" house beginning with a porch on a noisy street in front, flanked by dark chasms, and ending in a garage on a dirty alley in the rear, is definitely over. Many combinations are possible without compromise of ideals and are needed to meet the requirements of different groups and pocketbooks. The urban row or "group" house is shallow for sun and cross ventilation, a small private garden but also tied into a neighborhood plan providing play areas and a variety of community facilities. This type of dwelling is probably better than the apartment to most families with children, ever their income, if they need or desire to live in central part of town. Minimum Standards for New Public Housing BY FAR THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THE EVOLUTION OF minimum standards for new housing is our rapidly expanding experience with public housing: homes for the lowest income group otherwise forced to live in slums. Out of the fabric of American life, out of the attitudes of the American democracy toward all of its citizens, there has emerged the clear concept and the clear intention that American families shall not live in slums. For every family a decent place to live is indispensable, and should not be denied. In the United States Housing Act of 1937, Congress enunciated the principle of minimum standards. In accordance with this, USHA has set up requirements derived out of contemporary American standards representing a minimum of decent, safe and sanitary housing without extravagance in the year 1940. We say in the year 1940 because it must never be forgotten that America is on the make, that standards are constantly changing, and that generally standards tend to rise. This is good; it represents the very intent of democracy. The standards adopted by USHA include the headings listed below. FHA and FSA and the New York State Division of Housing have corresponding lists of standards adapted to their conditions, but space does not permit of their detailed discussion here. It is perhaps more informative to analyze one set rigorously than merely to mention all the various kinds:
1. Site selection and site planning The most significant thing about this list, in contrast with the standards generally prevailing a few years ago—the local building codes—is the inclusion of an entirely new set of factors specifying the kind of community and environment we must insist on the inclusion of recreational facilities, proper relation to schools, parks and playgrounds, the larger relation to city layout and planning. Statement of this relationship was long overdue and is one of the great contributions of public housing. A brief list of specimen details that go to make up the four main headings should be noted, with especial emphasis on those now not generally covered by local codes. 1. Site, Selection and Site Planning—Must be in conforming with official city or county plan; minority racial group not to be displaced; assurance that project is placed in a stable residential neighborhood; protective zoning of the neighborhood or natural protection. Sites must be well related to inexpensive transportation facilities, free and adequate schools, recreation areas, places of employment. Must not be subject to nuisance from smoke, noise, fumes and odors from industrial plants and railroads. Sites should not be crossed by heavy traffic arteries; streets within projects must be laid out to secure privacy for the families living there and safety from traffic hazards. Density of population, i.e., number of families per acre, must not be so low as to be wasteful of streets and utilities nor so high as to interfere with light and air or with proper town planning. Maximum coverage is specified, also minimum distances between rows of buildings. Note the contrast of these simple criteria to the generally very complicated statement of sizes of courts, yards, alleys, etc., in local codes which, however, result in much greater density and crowding of land. 2. Community Activities—Special play areas for pre-school children required within the project, so as not to involve crossing of any street. Recreational areas and facilities for children of school age and older, primarily the responsibility of school boards and park departments, must be available within a half mile or so of the project; or failing that, are to be included in the project. Wading or spray pool, or access to one, is provided; out side sitting areas for adults. Projects are required to have in. door community space, and work or hobby shops. 3. Residential Buildings—As this is the only one of the four headings under standards which is generally covered locally, only a very brief list is here noted. Sizes of room' are specified corresponding to anticipated occupancy; win cows with direct outside exposure to be at least 10 percent of the floor area of rooms; naturally lighted stair halls; electric light; hot and cold running water; bathtub and toilet in the dwelling; kitchen equipment; heating. 4. Occupancy—The actual carrying out of occupancy standards depends, of course, on management by the local Authority after completion. USHA contemplates that a bedroom of 120 sq. ft. or over (a room 10' x 12') may be occupied by two people and an infant; a bedroom of 100 sq. ft. by two people; a bedroom of 65 to 80 sq. ft. by one person; that a living room will not be used for sleeping unless privacy is provided—that is, unless there is separate access to the bedrooms without passing through the living room. Amount of closet space and of bulk storage space is likewise specified. Note that the main criteria are based on considerations of physical and mental health, as important to the community as a whole as to the families actually housed. The experience and standards of organizations such as the American Public Health Association and the National Recreation Association have been heavily drawn upon Citizens should study these reports as guides to home and community standards as avidly as they now study House Beautiful, House and Garden and others. While the question cannot be discussed in detail here, these standards consider the relationship between first cost and minimum annual operating and maintenance cost, which determines the crucial final figure of rent or rent equivalent. This is a particularly healthy influence in America, where capital cost has too often been the only consideration in evaluating new houses, and where the greatest need of the private building industry is to be transformed from a speculative "quick-profits" trade into a sound investment business. Intensive research for good materials which require little or no upkeep, plans that result in the greatest possible degree of tenant maintenance, and successful work toward lower utility and insurance rates, are among the results of this policy. And lower taxes generally result from community planning standards. To achieve construction that is both cheap and sound there are certain basic principles of design which the public should understand, since they greatly affect the layout and appearance of a housing development. Experience has conclusively demonstrated that the prime recipe for lower building costs is the standardization of building and dwelling plans—just as in automobiles and radios. More and more we are beginning to realize that this by no means imposes monotony or dullness; that artificial juxtaposition of "styles"—Spanish, Colonial, Tudor, Regency, and heaven knows what—do not create distinction but simply restlessness and eventual boredom; that, as in all periods of good architecture, beauty depends on the proper placing of buildings, on their massing and arrangement with relation to each other, rather than on the amount of diverse ornament we can muster. The average capital cost per dwelling for the new public housing projects is about $1000 under that for private enterprise. Where direct slum reconstruction and purchase of Fold buildings is involved—where purchase price is far above use value of the land—site costs are necessarily higher and must be added to final development costs. Low interest rates and the other factors mentioned result in annual costs (rental) which, without allowance for either federal or local subsidies, bring practically every project within reach of middle income families who are now outside the private market. The methods and techniques worked out for public housing involve essential and important economies. It has been demonstrated in the past year that, by allowing the full maximum subsidy, rents can be achieved in every locality within the reach of the very lowest income families. Indeed, within the past few months it has become clear that a large proportion of future projects, even to meet the needs of the lowest income group, can do with less than the maximum subsidy and still maintain these minimum standards. Are These Standards "Too Good"? AT THIS POINT LET US CONSIDER THE CONTENTION THAT LOW residential housing is "too good." In cities all over the country, housing projects are going up. They are usually adjacent to older residential buildings. The private developments may be slums, or they may be relatively decent middle class homes, or even better. But there is usually a sharp contrast in any case. The new project is well built of solid, fire-resistant materials. It is also surrounded by open space, either private gardens or public parks or play areas, that are neat and attractive. Children can play in safety and most dwellings are located away from noisy streets. Every family has a conveniently planned dwelling with direct sunlight, cross ventilation, a pleasant outlook, a modern bathroom, and a well-equipped kitchen. Compare this with existing houses: Almost certainly drab and messy even if the neighborhood is well above the slum level. Jostling frame houses of all shapes and sizes and types, probably needing paint and repairs; badly planned two-or-three-deckers; flat buildings with dowdy pretentious fronts; bleak alleys and yards filled up with garages, sheds and rubbish; no play space, no meeting places, no community facilities. What is the answer? Is it simply that one is extravagant and the other economical ? It would certainly not be difficult to believe so. And yet, if true, it is probably the other way around: the new project is generally more economical than the dreary speculative area adjacent, designed and built on the pitifully small scale of the 25' or 40' lot rather than as a whole community of living. If we assume that the same site had been built up by ordinary private residential methods, by scores of separate operative builders, with flimsy planless cutrate construction, the total first cost would probably have been greater than that of the housing project. And annual costs of operating the houses, of keeping up a standard of decency, would have been much greater than the cost of running the community project. It isn't that public housing is too good; most private housing just isn't good enough—not for the money expended and the prices charged. One very important thing that is sometimes overlooked by non-technical people is the fact that housing is only in part a social-economic problem. It is also an urgent technical problem. And by "technical" is not meant merely the introduction of prefabricated materials or the manufacture of houses on the assembly line. Large scale neighborhood planning and rational large scale construction methods; intelligent land use; a pooling and complete reorganization of all the elements which should go into a residential neighborhood; design of buildings and open spaces with a constant weather-eye for their economic and efficient operation, and for continuous attractiveness and livability over a long period of years . . . these are the basic technical problems. Private builders will learn from public housing experience a great deal about that urgent need of the residential building industry today: a technique which will make long term low interest investment safe and sound. As Lewis Mumford long ago pointed out, housing has become one of those many contemporary products, which al they progress toward rational standardization and modern production methods, lose most of their class distinctions. The electric light bulb or refrigerator is pretty much the same whether the income of the purchaser is $1000 or $10,000. For all ordinary purposes, the dowager duchess' radio is not much better than her butler's. A Ford or a Chevrolet is basically just as efficient a mechanism for transportation purposes as a Packard or Rolls Royce. The same trend, so healthy and so fundamental for modern democracy, carries over into many of the social services. Public schools today offer just as good education as private—often much better buildings and equipment. We shouldn't have one kind of sewer pipe for the rich and another for the poor. And now housing is one more thing which must lose most of its snob appeal. Rich people will, of course, have better housing—more space, more individuality of design, fancier gadgets. But the basic mechanism of their houses will not be so very different from that of a minimum standard dwelling. The only answer to perfectly legitimate complaints of the middle income group is to insist on some way of providing decent modern housing for them as well. By improvements in building technique, by using up-to-date large scale building practice to justify lower profits and financial charges, by investment housing methods, public utility societies and cooperatives, there is no reason why this cannot be accomplished. While it will probably be generally agreed that the magnitude of our productive forces is such that standards at all levels, and particularly the middle and upper income levels, can be raised greatly above what they now generally are, and even above those that are now being introduced, we will certainly have to make choices. Many seem to be willing to pay the extra cost for the luxury of a "free-standing" house with narrow side alleys, even at the expense of losing important communal playgrounds as a result, instead of choosing the more economical group house and the aggregate open spaces. Standards for Existing Housing THERE IS CERTAINLY FAR TOO GREAT A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN the standards actually enforced by local inspection agencies and those used in new housing. Local housing ordinances are for the most part extremely inadequate, particularly in their enforcement and in their failure to cover standards of operation and overcrowding. Enforcement of even the most obvious minimum standards as to fire safety or sanitation usually depends more on the personal zeal of an official than on habitual policy. In open cities with low buildings, where congested tenements have not made a glaring public problem of building safety and sanitation, housing ordinances are almost nonexistent or at least unenforced. In the case of the worst houses, a big boost was given to condemnation and demolition activity in the earliest years of the depression through WPA demolition projects, and the later decline in activity largely resulted from the acute general housing shortage which began to be felt. Even the "equivalent elimination" of unfit dwellings to meet the conditions of the United States Housing Act in connection with the new low rent projects on vacant sites has encountered considerable difficulty due to the shortage. The dwellings at present likely to be condemned probably conform roughly to the 1934 Real Property Survey figures for "structurally unfit" dwellings—about 3 percent of the total in lost cities. On the ocher hand, these same surveys showed at, when serious overcrowding and sanitary defects are taken into account as well as the need for major repairs, about 0 45 percent of all dwellings are actually substandard. Greater awareness and recognition of the serious condition of much existing housing has come from the WPA surveys of housing conditions made in almost 300 cities since 1933, covering about three fourths of the urban population. A similar survey, on a standard nationwide basis, will be included in the 1940 census. While these surveys have yielded much useful data, they row no light at all on such important matters as building congestion, room sizes, lack of light and ventilation, fire safe,, neighborhood conditions, parks, playgrounds—fully as important as the physical facts they do reveal. Since the housing shortage makes it impossible in most ties to enforce wholesale condemnation and evacuation of substandard dwellings until the rate of production of new low rent housing is vastly increased, inspection must recognize degrees of substandardness. Possibly these may be graded on the basis of:
1. Dangerously unfit, requiring immediate demolition. From the determination of physically unfit dwellings and the blocks in which they predominate, slum or blighted areas can be designated. Such areas should then automatically become part of the planned long term program of private and public housing. They should be set aside under special councils similar to those now beginning to be effective in England. Where the area is ultimately to be cleared and used for me public purpose—re-housing, a park, or what not—it should be purchased immediately if the price is reasonable. Otherwise systematic condemnation of unfit dwellings should carried out, and owners should be discouraged from engaging expensive repairs which may only slightly improve the dwellings, but will certainly add to the cost of later site acquisition. Some legal means should be found for not granting scattered building permits in such areas. Even where legal means are not feasible of attainment, voluntary charting of as among mortgagees and large holders, as proposed by the Citizens Housing Council in New York City, should be shed forward, in cooperation with departments of local governments, particularly the agencies with powers of inspection and condemnation, if we are going to avoid waste, extravagance and profiteering. Where dwellings are unfit, we must determine which are to be torn down and which may effectively be modernized, and where feasible carry this out the basis of large integrated areas. To sandwich in magnificent rehabilitations between vacant demolished properties d substandard quarters is a moth-eaten, uneconomic pattern from every point of view. Here is a field where intelligent private real estate, banking crests, local government and the housing authority can all profitably cooperate. In concluding, we must again emphasize the importance of understanding of the housing process, and the insistence of the public on the attainment of such reasonably modern standards as indicated. The housing movement in America rests on the soundest possible basis: a deep belief that the resources and skill of this nation should make it possible for "one to live in a decent, comfortable and attractive home. But to fulfill this belief we must all know and recognize three things very clearly: How do we really want to live? What is the least we should expect of new dwellings? And, when is a house no longer fit to be occupied?
|