Evening star., 1942-08-15
New Methods
K6|d Needed
For Housing
Only l0% Of Homes
Built for $3.50 of
U. S. Population

New construction methods In
building postwar homes must be
adopted If the lower third income
group in this country is to be ade-
quately housed, Robert l.. Dawson.
director of research of the John
B. Pierce Foundation, said at
conference in New York on POST
War Housing in America" at the
Columbia University summer ses-
sion.
while those of an income OF
$4,000 and up represent only per
cent of the families of the country
over so per cent of the houses built
we're for this income group, Mr..
Dawson pointed out. Those with
an income of $1,000 or less, repre-
senting 36 per cent of the popu-
lation. have had only 10 per cent
Of the houses built for them"
New materials and construction
methods on a mass production level
would help to cut the cost OF nous
ing In half, Mr.. Dawson declared.
This would effect a saving IN rent
or rent equivalent OF 43.3 per cent.
TT, In addition to this. reduction
rate of so per cent were effected
In the interest rate, 1t would save
~ per cent in the rent or rent
equivalent and thus it might be pos
sible to reduce the cost OF renS
or rent equivalent by u per cent.
Community Costs High.
Even if such a utopian situation
could be realized the rent or rent
equivalent on such a house. If built
in . garden city where each family
paid its proportion OF the COM
munity cost, would give rent or
rent equivalent out of reach OF half
the families in this country.
Il think it is very important
for any one who wishes to under
stand the housing problem to realize
that the community costs alone.
even If the house were absolutely
free. are greater than the average
family can afford to pay for monthly
rent. A large proportion OF the
community service costs are for
education. Roughly speaking, one
may assume that it costs on the
average at least 500 per child per
wear for education. An ideal Gar
den City or Greenbelt cannot be de-
veloped and operated successfully
for those in the low-income group
unless some method is developed
for taking care of these community
costs, aside from being assessed
against the individual property
owner on a family basis.
'Tn other words, there must be a
hidden subsidy or we must develop
an entirely new system Of levying
taxes before it is going to be possible
to have garden communities for
those of the low-income bracket.
Subsidies Are Simple Answer.
"The. simple answer to the whole
problem is to Subsidize housing both
by direct subsidy as practiced by the
USHA, or by indirect subsidy, which
generally occurs in cities where fac
tories and ofiice buildings and the
more wealthy families contribute
through higher taxes to maintain
the community services required by
the average family. For many years
/ have been opposed to the subsidy
idea, such as practiced by USHA.
because of the total volume of sub
sidy necessary to provide homes for
everyone in the country requiring
subsidy is so large that I did not
consider it would be practical to
subsidize on the scale needed.
Studies I have made indicate
that If house and lot were to cost on
an average of $4,000 (Which is the
top figure used by USHA), that te
provide homes for everyone on this
basis by subsidizing to the point al
which they could rent such home
would require $4,000, ,000, 900, ano
that due to the cost of community
services, 1t would only be practica
to build these buildings in district.
where there would also be a hidder
(See HOUSING, Page B-3D