. \., a . 4 V .. m .
{cry L wililtflfiȤ

 

 

 

(LA)

 

 

 

 

 

A G00d HOme FOr
Every Wage- Earner,

 

By JOHMfyOLEN , , x

City Planner. Cambriflge, Masaachfisefls

 

 

 

 

 

r
- u‘
» .p ,
v.

 

   
 

 

 

 

A GOOD HOME FOR
EVERY WAGE-EARNER

By JOHN NOLEN,

City Planner, Cambridge. Massachusetts

The general benefits of building and loan associations need
no rehearsing or praise at' such a meeting as this, after a
quarter of a century of fruitful work. It is decidedly worth
while, however, to discuss at this time the close relation of
these associations to the housing problem of wage—earners.
The statement of the United States Bureau of Labor that “no one
class of provident institutions in this country has contributed more
largely than have building and loan associations to the material
welfare of that portion of our citizens dependent upon a daily
.vage for support" is suggestive of the facts.

I cannot refrain from an expression of my personal indebted—
ness to the Local Building and Loan Association. The first system—
atic saving which I began as a boy thirty years ago was at the
suggestion of my employer, and went into the old City Hall
Buildingiand Loan Association of Philadelphia. It enabled me
first to go to Europe and begin travel into the bigger world, and
later, when I married, my first home was secured through the
same Building and Loan Association. So, here in New England,
the Co—operative Bank, the Massachusetts form of the Pennsyl-
vania Building and Loan Association, has been the means which
I found most convenient for home ownership, and with which I
wanted to again identify myself for whatever influence it
might have.

My early days in Philadelphia impressed me with the building
and loan association, and with the importance of the single family
home.’ Unfortunately, while that home has many of the things
which are most essential to family life, its appearance is monoto-
nous and forbidding, and quite unnecessarily ugly. Of course,
this is true of the wage-earner’s home nearly everywhere in the
United States. One can easily find illustrations in the press and
literature of the day, of the sordid and depressing character of
the modern home, the modern city, and the relation of the factory

RARE

2

to these conditions, especially in England and the United States.
An instance is the address on “The Social Basis of the New
Education for \\'omen,” delivered at Columbia University last
winter, in which Dr. Frederick H. Sykes said, “The factory
system spread rapidly through the world, for it meant wholesale
production and wholesale profits to the capitalist. But it did not
concern itself directly with mere living. Homes for the new
industrial and commercial classes were evolved in muddling,
makeshift fashion, under dreadful conditions of congestion. The
shadow of the factory stack falls on ugly rows of houses, mean
tenements, with great sacrifice of human values. The old joy in
good hand work died in a new ground barren of art. Go through
the main street of a factory town—see the tawdry signs, the
perverse decorations, the muddy, discordant paints, the dirty
streets. Look into the houses—the ugly furniture, glaring wall
papers, poor utensils, pathetic pictures. ‘\\'e have,’ said \Villiam
Morris, ‘practically killed the beautiful in the nineteenth century.
Railroads are ugly. Streets are ugly. Clothes are ugly. Capital—
ism has plunged us into a mass of ugliness out of which there
seems no escape.’ And this ugliness is not external merely. It
strikes in. Inner ugliness, unrest, recklessness sadden and brutal—
ize human life in many parts of industrial society. This devel-
opment of cities and city life cannot be arrested. It is the historic
trend. It is left us only to face the by-product of industrialism,
the city, and, if possible, civilize it.”

Modern housing is “big business," and should be handled,
at least on its constructive side, as big business is handled.
Building operations in the United States amount annually, it is
said, to four billion dollars. Probably half or nearly half of this
great total is spent in dwellings; much of it—in fact, from an
economic point of view, most of it—is not well spent. A large
percentage of the houses, especially the cheaper sorts, are poorly
conceived for their purpOses, and 80 per cent of all of them are
built of wood. Of course, a frame house may be a reasonably
safe and satisfactory house, provided it has a fire—proof roof,
and that there is ample space between and around the houses,
say at least twenty feet as a minimum. But, usually on account
of the laxity of laws for building control, there is an excessive
depreciation in a frame house and a fearfully costly fire-risk.
This constitutes a huge economic loss, amounting, by the most
conservative estimate, to two hundred and fifty millions of

 

3

dollars annually, which sum must be paid, as other carrying
charges are paid, out of production, and finally must be taken
care of in the wage-earner’s pay—roll.

A good home for every wage—earner is possible only by recog-
nizing that housing is intimately and permanently related to a
number of large and difficult problems. Some of these are plan—
ning problems, some questions of broad economic policy, and
some problems of finance. For example, we have the close
relation between city planning and housing—how it is influenced
by the location of factories; by the proper districting of the city,
giving greater stability to the value of real estate, and by other
building regulations; by the street system, and especially by
means of transportation; by the proper distribution and develop—
ment of parks, playgrounds and neighborhood facilities for
recreation. This relationship of city planning and housing is
illustrated in a recent report of an English architect, who has
pointed out that many housing schemes have been carried through
as if they were isolated phenomena—just as though a physician
were to attempt to cure a body permeated with a scorbutic disease
by applying a soothing salve to a few sore places on the face and
hands. One of the most important city-planning aspects of
housing that has as it’s ideal “a good home for every wage—earner”
is the removal of the factory and the home to the city outskirts,
thus instituting a process of industrial and residential decentrali—
zation, and all the benefits which that process involves.

Then, housing is, of course, closely related to the building in—
terests, materials of construction, and the loss by depreciation and
fire. It is affected directly by policies with regard to land and
taxation, the prevailing practice as to public health and sanitation,
and especially standards of living and their dependence upon the
minimum wage. These cannot be discussed here in detail, but
consider, for example, these four points in connection with wages
and their relation to one another:

1. The minimum desirable house of four or five rooms can—
not be provided in the United States, even under favorable con—
ditions, for less than about $1,800 or $2,000—that is, for house
and lot—with street improvements, essential public utilities and
neighborhood recreation. _

‘3. A house c0sting that sum cannot be offered on the basis
of an economic rent of, say 5 per cent or 6 per cent net, for less
than $15 a month.

4

3. Unless a wage-earner witha normal family of wife and
three dependent children has an income of $15 a week, or $800 a
year, he cannot afford to pay as much as $15 a month for rent.

4. More than one—half of all workingmen in the United
States earn less than $800 a year.

Thus we see that no solution of the housing problem in its
most acute form, affecting more than 50 per cent of all wage—
workers, is possible until a better adjustment can be made in the
relation of these four points. Here is our choice. Either the cost
of the house and lot must be substantially reduced, or the standard
of healthful living must be lowered, or the wages of the lowest—
paid workmen must be raised. The other three possible alterna—
tives, if they may be so considered, are to put the wife and chil—
dren at work to add to the family income, to take in boarders or
lodgers, or to count upon private philanthropy or the public
treasury to provide, not a few, but great masses of wage—
workers with a house at less than an economic rent. 7

\\'hat, then, is the first step toward a solution of this large-
and important problem? I believe it is to recognize that the sub-
lect is primarily one for the right application of broad economic
principles and more aggressive methods of securing the necessary
capital. \Ye must in some thoroughgoing way convert the great
forces, working through regular channels, which now produce
bad housing and an inadequate supply, to produce good housing,
and in more ample supply, and we must do it by bringing into
control and co-operation with them the forces that belieye in good
housing and will gain from it, which are mainly the manufactur—
ing, financial, and business interests that depend upon the efficient ‘
and happy workman, and such organizations as this Convention _
represent. This great change in housing methods will come, if it
does come, from the substitution of the reasonable profits'bf
business for exploitation and excessive return, from the transfer
of housing from the field of speculation to that corresponding to
other forms of legitimate manufacturing and investment. \Ve
shall then proceed to get houses as a commodity in very much the i
same way that the manufacturer proceeds with other com—
modities. \Ye shall want to know the facts as to the nature and _
extent of the demand. \\'e shall have definite aims as to the
product. \Ve shall use skill and experience and factory methods. .
\\'e shall provide for a wider use of building and loan associa—J
tions, back the enterprise with adequate capital, and count upon
a fair rate. of interest.

a
a,
,5
.15»
‘f
3.?
a?

   
 
    

5

It would be comparatively easy to show that the larger part of
low—cost housing in the United States is not today satisfactory in
character nor adequate in extent. To my mind, however, a
peculiar opportunity for improvement is now presented. Some-
thing relatively new has recently happened in this country,
leargely as a result of the European \Var. linmloyers of
labor, not a few, but many, are having such great difficulty
in getting and holding employes, and they are so impressed
by the new conditions and the cost and inconvenience that
these conditions involve, that they are ready to consider any
practicable proposition that will lessen their troubles. It is now
easy'to draw their attention to the poor character of much of the
housing of wage—earners, and more especially to the utter in-
adequacy of the supply of small houses of suitable types available
at rents which the workingman can afford.

From a recent study of conditions in four cities, I believe
that there is today an opportunity for a substantial and permanent
advance. The four cities investigated were \V'aterbury and
Bridgeport, Conn.; Kenosha, \r\7isconsin; and Akron, Ohio. In
some respects the problems are similar for all these cities; in other
respects they are local and peculiar.

In all cases the local organization resolved that before
plunging in and building something, they would find out by careful
investigation the extent and character of the demand for houses,
and also the experience of other places in meeting somewhat
parallel conditions and requirements. The first step, it seemed to
them, was a social and economic survey, a diagnosis that would
give them confidence in the prescription for immediate needs, and,
at the same time, enable them to adopt measures that would be
preventivein character and apply to meeting the situation in more
normal times.

A typical illustration of procedure is that of \V'aterbury. The
investigation began by the consideration of three main classes of
facts: (1) \Vhat are \Yaterbury’s housing needs? (2) Where
can these needs best be met? (3) How can workingmen’s houses
be provided in \Vaterbury? The data, when collected, showed
that there were from 1,000 to 2,000 families to be provided for;
that 35 per cent of these were skilled workingmen and 65 per cent
unskilled; that the average weekly wage of the skilled was about
$20, and of the unskilled $14; that 54 per cent of the total were
married men; and the consensus of opinion with regard to

6

type or types of houses was that the one—family house should I
be preferred, if the family could afford it. If not, a double house, ~
or two one—family houses built together, with separate yards, and'
that only 33 hen necessa13 the three or four— tenement flat should
he built. ’

Detailed investigations based upon the questionaire which was '
submitted to the manufacturers were made for each city. The
results were summarized in each case and made the principal basis .1
for the recommendations which followed. .

The recommendations were somewhat different for the dif—
ferent cities, because of the different local conditions. However,
those submitted to the Bridgeport Chamber of Commerce are
typical, and will serve for illustration. They were seven in num—
ber, as follows:

 

]. That the Bridgeport Housing Company be formed at once,
with a capital of at least $1,000,000.

73. That someone with special fitness be employed by the
Company to give all his time to the problem of providing houses
or apartments for workingmen.

3. That various tracts of land suitable in character and loca—‘
tion and low enough in price for the housing of workingmen be ’
purchased by the Company.

4. That the Housing Company undertake the early building
of houses and apartments primarily for rent.

.3. That the Company should provide especially the single-
fa1nil3, detached d33 elling, for sale on easy terms. ‘

(i. That the proposed Housing Company should co—operate
with the family which has acquired title to a building lot, but
has not yet built upon it.

T. That the Housing Company should facilitate, so far as
possible, broad cit3— —planning unprov ements, especially those relat—;
ing to main tho1oughfa1es, parks, play grounds, and the district—,
ing of the city.

The recommendations submitted to these four cities, of which
those for Bridgeport are typical, have been so framed as to meet;
the actual housing needs of workingmen, on terms which their
wages make possible. The proposals are not essentially new,:,~
and not in any sense radical. In fact, they follow conser3ative
and well—tried—out schemes of other housing companies. Vir-f
tually everything recommended has been successfully executed?

i.

 

 

7

elsewhere in this country for the same classes of workingmen,
with the same income or even less. No one house or method is
endorsed as the only one, although the emphasis is put upon the
single—family, self—contained, detached house or cottage as on the
whole the most American and most desirable when possible. In
addition to the single—family house, detached, the recommenda-
tions include an endorsement of the single—family house in groups,
also of well—arranged, well—lighted apartments or flats. All these
types have some advantages of economy of land cost or of land
improvement cost, or of house construction, and they take into
account the fact that different people have different tastes and
preferences as well as different needs in housing, as in other
matters. “hat is best depends upon conditions and circumstances
and the cost. These recommendations were, of course, only the
lirst step in a constructive program. livery effort, however, was
put forth to make it a definite and practicable step, and to suggest
logical methods for following the matter promptly by action.

What has actually been accomplished so far? Briefly, the fol—
lowing may be said:

In \Vaterbury, two large manufacturing concerns have begun
operations and a considerable number of new houses of desirable
types have been completed and made available. Furthermore,
the attention of all the manufacturers of the city has been
effectively drawn to the subject, and through the publication of
the report in full in the Waterbury Republican, as a Sunday sup-
plement, interest has been aroused and public opinion formed
favorable to the energetic prosecution of the subject. No joint
action, however, on the part of manufacturers or of business ,
interests generally, has yet been secured, and it will be interesting
to observe how much can be accomplished without it.

In Kenosha, the movement was'begun by the Manufacturers’
,\ssoeiation and had the approval and support from the start of
all thebusiness interests of the city. Although the investigation
was not taken up until May, .1916, the Kenosha House Building
Company and the Kenosha Homes’Company were successfully

; organized in July. Land was purchased and building begun early
in August. Plans have been made for the construction of at
least 400 single—family houses. Many of these are already

: completed and occupied. So far the operation is confined
to the detached cottage type of five or six rooms. The price of

l the first houses on 40—foot lots, which had already been laid out

8
when purchased, will be from $2,200 to $2,600. It is hoped that
later operations will make possible houses at about $72,000, on a
minimum of 50—foot lots.

Some forces are now being used for securing good housing
for Kenosha that formerly built houses less good or were rela—
tively inactive in adding to the supply of houses. These forces
have been stimulated, directed and helped by the effective organi—
zation of the manufacturing, business and financial interests of
the city. The work is on a good business basis, yielding a good
return. It places no dependence upon philanthropy. It is being
done by the entire community for the entire community. It is free
from any taint of paternalism. It is permanent and intends to
occupy the field so long as there is any need for it. It is of inesti-
mable benefit to the four parties most affected, namely, the em—
ployers of labor, the people of the city as a whole, the legitimate
real estate operators and builders, and, above all, to the wage-
earner himself. \\'ith slight modifications to meet local condi—
tions, the method of Kenosha is, I believe, capable of wide
apphcafion. .

The Bridgeport development is now well under way. After
the presentation of my report entitled, “More Houses for Bridge-
port,” and the careful consideration of the whole matter by a
special Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, the Bridgeport
Housing Company was incorporated, with a capital of one million
dollars. A prospectus was issued, a capable manager was en—
gaged, offices were opened, land acquired, and contracts made
for the construction of buildings. An apartment house with
accommodations at low rents has been completed, and group
houses accommodating nearly one hundred and fifty families will
be finished this summer. A better development of detached and
semi—detached houses has already begun on the Fairfield tract,
and the Building Committee has been authorized to erect houses
on land acquired at Lordship Manor. I believe that the move—
ment in Bridgeport will be particularly instructive and significant.
Its operations are bound to be large, because the demand is so
great, and the conditions which the Housing Company has been
organized to meet and master are typical of a modern American
industrial city in the throes of very rapid growth.

So much for the results of the plan followed at \Vaterbury,
Kenosha and Bridgeport. No panacea is offered, but the sug—
gestion and encouragement of a successful experiment.

9

Notwithstanding the Great \\'ar, with all its waste and all
its indescribable horrors and disappointments, two of the greatest
words of the day are thrift and co—operation. For example, a
conference was called in New York only a week ago by the
greatest of our financiers, to adopt measures for the encourage—
ment of thrift. At this meeting it was pointed out that over
thirty—five thousand war savings associations have been founded
in England during the last- three years, and that these savings
from small investors amounted already to $118,117,000. So also
with co-operation. Kropotkin’s great work on “Mutual Aid"
proves by a rich array of facts taken from the life of animals
and the evolution of human society that progress, both biological
and social, is best fostered, not by brute force or cunningness.
but by the practice of mutual co—operation and support.

N0 better example combining both thrift and the co—operatire
principle could be named in connection with a discussion of this
subject than the garden city and garden suburb, especially as it
has been developed in recent years in lingland, and is now being
discussed in the United States. Directly connected with it' is the
movement for co—partnership housing. I heartily recommend
this subject of the garden city as a tOpic for a subsequent conven-
tion of the United States League of Building and Loan Asso—
ciations.

In the consideration of industrial housing or the securing of
good homes for wage—earners, two questions are constantly
asked which call for some answer here. One is the possibility of
the use of methods and material that would decidedly reduce the
cost of the small home. This would come mainly from wholesale
operations, and from the adoption of the standardizing principle,
which might be applied successfully in concrete, brick, stucco,
wood, or other material.

It ought also to be possible to effect substantial economies, and
at the same time secure houses of good design and sound con—
struction, by the wider application to wage—earners’ homes of
mill—cut methods. There are a number of mill—cut house concerns
in the United States, but they all appear to be doing a relatively
small retail mail business, each handling a considerable variety
of designs. \\"hat is most needed, it would seem, is a large
wholesale business, with carefully worked out, standardized
plans, limited to a few varieties, and sound construction. There
is a call especially for four and five—room houses with bath, the

10

materials for which would cost not more than $800, and the con-
struction, according to the 'usual estimate, about $800 more,
making a total of $1,600. A lot 50 feet by 100 feet, with improve
ments, would normally not run over $400, so that the total cost
for house and lot would be approximately $2,000.

In the case of concrete, as illustrated at Forest Hills Gardens,
Long Island, N. Y., and elsewhere, the noteworthy advantages of
a standardized system lie in the natural adaptation of construc—
tion and design, shop manufacture with its possibilities of
standard, economic conditions of all kinds, the use of efficient
mechanical devices, and the adjustment of the building units.
The use in construction of large concrete units for bridges, ware—
houses, power—plants, hotels, etc., is no new idea. Now it is
proposed to extend this principle to the low—cost house field, made
practicable at last by Grosvenor Atterbury through standardized
and wholesale building operations. The Standardized Housing
Corporation has. been organized recently for the purpose of deal—
ing in housing as a commodity. This Company is a manufacturer
of houses. Its incorporators realize that only factory methods have
made possible the ten dollar suit of clothes, the one dollar watch,
the two dollar shoes, and the Ford motor car. They believe that
the same methods should be applied to the production of industrial
housing. The custom made house is too expensive for the work—
ingman. The business of the Company is thus stated in its cer—
tificate of incorporation: ”To deal in economic housing as a
standard commodity by the manufacture and erection of low cost
dwellings and tenements; to develop, by research or other means,
and to operate a system of Standardized Sectional Hollow Con-
crete House Construction and such other inventions and processes
as may prove serviceable in producing more substantial struc-
tures, and in lowering the cost of workingmen’s homes; and, to
further this purpose, to promote, plan, execute, administer and
finance industrial housing developments.”

The other question upon which good low cost housing de—
pends is of still greater importance, I believe, and the one upon
which the whole matter rests. it is also the one in which the
United States League of Local Building and Loan Associations
is permanently interested, and I may add, of great influence. I
mean capital,~the capital necessary for setting in motion the
construction of homes of the right sort, and in number far
exceeding anything we have heretofore known.

 

11

I have not had time to study the census figures carefully, but
it seems clear even from a superficial examination of available
statistics that the number of families added to the population of
the United States each year is in the neighborhood of 500,000.
To supply them with new houses costs at least a billion dollars.
Add to this the number of homes that must be rebuilt because of
loss by fire and depreciation, and we have probably another four
hundred million dollars. making a grand total of nearly a billion
and a half, or fourteen hundred million dollars annually. \\'here
is this vast sum to come from? Some of us have thought it
would come from “big business,"—from the great financial inter--
ests that provide capital for the railroads, for shipping, for public
utilities, for manufacture. So far it has not come from this
source. \\’hy? Not, surely, because it is not big business, but
because, I believe, the profits to be had from housing are only
moderate, say ten per cent gross, or at most six per cent net.
Big business wants big profits, or at least a chance at big profits.
Housing, on the other hand. offers only moderate profits; and
public welfare, most of us believe, rests in the elimination from
the \vage-earner’s home of exorbitant profits and speculation.
The capital for wage—earners’ homes is to come, I am more and
more convinced, from the wage—earners themselves. This im—
mense body, now numbering at least 30,000,000, receives annually
in wages about $20,000,000,000, nearly one—quarter of which goes
annually for rent or home ownership. What a field and what an
opportunity is offered the local building and loan associations!
They may be the means to encourage thrift and the habits of
systematic saving that will provide first the margin for home
ownership, and afterwards the capital for the permanent financing
of the wage-earner’s home. Already such associations occupy
the field and do a truly great work, the surprising extent of which
has been reported at this Convention. For example, the number
of associations is now over 7,000, with a membership of 3,500,000,
and the total assets amount to $1,696,707,0Jx]. Yet when we com—
pare these figures with the total of wage—workers and their earn—
ings, do we not realize that there is a possibility of a great ex—
tension of activity to meet the greater need?

Advance in this housing matter will probably come, as it has
come in other matters hitherto. Vision creates responsibility, on
penalty of losing the vision. Men like those in this association
will see the controlling importance of the subject under discussion

12

and the best ways to promote it. They, in common with others,
will apply themselves to the task and gradually we shall solve,
mainly on economic lines, through the application of principles
of thrift, and sound investment, and co-operation, the problems
of industrial housing. In so doing we shall make one of the
greatest contributions to industrial efficiency and to the welfare
of the wage—earner at a time when these are indispensable to
National safety and success.

In closing, may I repeat the two conclusions of the paper on
“The Organization of Credit for Housing Purposes” which I
prepared for the International Housing Congress held at Vienna ,
in May, 1910. These were (1) that building and loan associa-
tions, co—operative banks, and other similar organizations have a
vital and far—reaching importance in the improvement of dwell—
ings; (2) that private individuals and public bodies can increase
the usefulness of these associations by a careful investigation _
of their workings, by the steady improvement of their methods
and regulations. and by making their merits more widely known,
especially to people of small means.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

all”

CDBHBSUHSD

 

n...“

a. 9%..5c12
hifluu id in
30...): :3:

5.1}.4312
, a: , . "f8 .
1.3.15.“

, vs
hit-h. .

i J
{2
rail—ll
an

THU
E

:555, SEE:

4° ”HAHN—UM” m1m0~1<

2°. .NNHL fiOFU—HW

E>Um 54 C. M. >.