HOUSING IN BRITAIN

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 55, Issue 117, 27 February 1935, Page 8

HOUSING IN BRITAIN

SCOPE OF NEW POLICY. DECENT ACCOMMODATION FOR ALL. Perhaps the most interesting feature Of the British Government's housing policy is that improvement is not to be confined to abolishing the last of slums and human rookeries throughout the United Kingdom. The Government aims at housing every family of the land in conditions of at least an elementary decency.

Writing in a special supplement of the ''Daily Telegraph" London, Sir Hilton Young, Minister of Health, says definitely that everybody ought to have H house fit to live in, this being necessary not only for the householder, but for the health and welfare of the community. "Nothing," he adds, "makes so much difference to happiness as one's house. The rooms we live in, the staircase we go up and down, the window we look through, make up ** much of our days. If they are bad, pur lives cannot be good. A fit home is outfirst need for health and happines;. As for the slums of England, Sir Hilton Young believes that for any person to keep decent in them is a triumph of character. Under the Government's new scheme it is planned to remove 280,000 unlit houses within five years and to rehouse no fewer than a million and a quarter people. Even now the rate of slum clearance is at least thirty times faster than it has been oyer the last sixty years. It is admitted frankly by the British Minister of Health that for the first fifteen years after the war the national housing policy was marked by many mistakes. "We built 1,193,000 houses and they arq costing: us sixteen million pounds a year in subsidies," the Minister says, adding, "and all that effort has left the slums and overcrowding as bad as ever."

Views of Experts. In the same newspaper on November 26 last, the problem of housing, particularly as regards providing the amenities of the modern home 3 is discussed by no fewer than twenty-three experts, whose views in many directions are applicable to New Zealand cities. It is urged, for example, that though individual, house ownership has probably reached a higher level in Great Britain than in any other country in the world, thousands of houses are kept unnecessarily dull in appearance. Drabness of houses and streets is condemned, both for the psychelogical effect on the community in adding to depression and for decreasing property values. As one expert puts it: "Think of the many streets now totally uninviting in appearance which could be effectively and pleasantly altered by a little imagination and the expenditure of a little money , • . No person has any moral right to permit his property to degenerate to such an extent that its own value is steadily reduced, that the value of neighbouring properties is lowered, and th<3 whole tone of a street or district spoilt." Needless to say, that expert suggests a more frequent use of paint. He envies the sunny countries where bright paints and colours are die order. Building Societies' Work. It? is claimed that building societies iii Great Britain have been .vigorous and potent housing agencies dining the past ten years. During that period they have lent more than £690,000,0U0 and have helped in the erection of more than 1,250,000 houses. In order to prove that good types of nouses can be built for a rent of about 10s a week, an exceptional colony was established at Hipperholme, Yorkshire. It consisted of forty-four semidetached houses at a density of less than twelve to the acre, each contain a living room, two bedrooms, Ijatiiroom, scullery and larder, some for letting at 10s weekly and others at lis. Every house was let liefore its construction! was completed. Some interesting information is given as to the cost of British building societies' mortgages. Including principal and interest, with the amount of repayment spread oyer twenty years, the borrower pays 9s 4d a week for a mortgage of £300; los 6d a week for £500; £1 Is 8d for £700; £1 7s lid for £900; and £1 14s Id for £llOO. Dislike oif Tenements. As in New Zealand, there is a considerable difference of opinion on the question of housing people in big tenement flats. Several of the leading British architects urge that cottage liomes are better than flats, and that cottage dwellings should not exceed twelve to the acre. It is pointed out that English people generally dislike the herd life and the herd mind which tenement existence is liable to foster. Sir Raymond Unwin, past president of the Royal Institute of British Architects argues that lack of space cannot be put forward as a reason for crowding people into tenements or Continental blocks of flats. He explains that every family in the world could be housed in a cottage dwelling at ten to the acre in the single island of. Great Britain. "The difficulty to-day,' he says, "arises from foolish crowding, disorderly building and the absence of reasonable planning." On the other band, several experts contend that life in a modern flat can be better than living in a self-contain-ed cottage. They emphasise the economy of construction, and point out that group houses can be built without Sacrificing the amenities of seli-con-tained homes.