New Britain herald., 1925-01-16
oNE-FAMILY OR TWO-FAMILY HOUSES.

A councilman the other day made the remark that this Is 6 city of working people and that not all of them can afford to construct cottages 10 live In, evidently inferring that ambitious home owners who are un- able to construct cottages should be permitted to construct two-family houses and hereby rent half the structure to another family. the rent In some cases covering the "carry- ing costs" of the building.
 Obviously, it Is much easier to own home under such circumstances than If one-family house were built. Yet 1t should not be over looked that hundreds of thousands of working families in these United States live In family houses of their own.
 But in the manufacturing centers of New England the two-family and three-family house is conspicuous upon the landscape. Not necessarily because there Is lack of sufficient land for construction of one-family cottages, but for the reasons men, toned by the councilman.
 It is not always the case that one Of the families in such structures are landlords: the latter frequently own two or three such houses, in some instances more.
 The two or three-family house H. illustrates economy in construction. Whether it be a one, two or three- family building. foundation and a roof must be constructed in any case: in the case of two-family house an extra roof and extra foun- dation Is saved, and in the case of a three-story house two of each are saved.
 The re-than-one family house usually is constructed in sections of cities where land Is higher in price than where cottages are constructed, although the latter frequently make up for this difference by having more land around them.
 In some parts of New England the three-family house has been discrim- mated against by the auth critics, and In some cities their construction Is all but barred, especially in cer- tain sections. The zoning principle is one reason for this. Another req son is the fire hazard, the belief be- ing prevalent that the family on the third floor has less chance of es- cape than those on the lower floors. Whether or not such fears are en- tirely justified depends upon the viewpoint, personal interest and per faps a bit of prejudice one way or the other.
 Local custom is 8 great governing [ factor in the attitude toward houses and the assumed desirability of liv- ing on the lower or the upper floors In some parts of New England it is { customary to value the second floor of a two-family house greater than the first floor, and higher rents arc charged for them. Reasons given are that there is more light and air on the upper floor, and no noise from a family overhead. Of course, there always is an extra flight of steps to climb. but this doesn't appear to en- ter into the calculations.
 There seems to be disposition to regard cottages as for the compara- lively well-to-do and the other 1ol the workers. This Is rather an arti- 1cial classification. The better method is to regard them from standpoints of taste. Of course most people perhaps would prefer cottage if the costs were not greater
 In buying or building houses those who do 50 for the purpose ol nossessing their own home will al ways do well to consider their prop able financial situation, tastes ah1 desires 10 or 15 years hence and no' he guided entirely by the present situation.