The Press MONDAY, JUNE 15, 1959. Housing Improvement

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28921, 15 June 1959, Page 10

The Press MONDAY, JUNE 15, 1959. Housing Improvement

The Christchurch City Council should be encouraged by the support of a representative meeting to make a determined eflfort to improve decayed housing areas in the city. Possibly the most difficult part of the job will be to persuade the Government that it must (in Cr. M. R. Carter’s words) “accept a high “ degree of responsibility ”. Actually this responsibility, though not then so clear, was freely accepted by the 1945 Labour Government and written into the Housing Improvement Act, which specifically provides for Government contributions towards reclamation costs. Indeed, as the Parliamentary debate showed, the emphasis then was on the need to get local body co-operation. The City Council is doing its part in ridding the city of slums as fast as the law will allow. If the Government now refuses its promised help it will be guilty of false pretences, as well as short-sightedness. The interest of Christchurch retailers, among other groups, in the housing committee’s reclamation project is welcome evidence that the pressing reasons for redevelopment in the heart of the city are now better understood. Individually, retailers naturally want the centre of the city to retain its place in business and commerce; but in this their interests are the interests of the whole community. If business is driven to the suburbs the central shops will become less and less able to supply urban facilities, their massive contribution to city rate revenue will decline, and the whole character of the city will be changed to a collection of villages. Dwellers in the most remote suburb would regret that as much as any business man. The plain common sense of making the best and most remunerative use of the most valuable land in the city (and saving farm land for farming) is too often obscured by faulty economics. The ratepayers, it is reasonably said, should not have to subsidise any individual’s housing. In fact they are doing just that—twice. They do it first as taxpayers in subsidies to State housing, suspensory loans.

and now uneconomic interest rates. They do it again as ratepayers in paying to take sewers, bus services, water, streets, electricity, and other amenities to distant suburbs when existing facilities are not fully used. The policy of successive Governments in pushing housing away from the centre results in subsidies that may amount to as much as £4 a week on a house. Long ago. the Government and local authorities should have united in preserving urban values. If they have any money for subsidies it should be spent in the cities; if they have no money for subsidies high-density housing in the cities will hold its own with rural sub-divisions. Reclamation projects appear so expensive only because bunga-low-building is made to appear so much cheaper than it really is. The Government, having largely caused the present problem, should help to solve it. Large-scale reclamation was not the only useful idea aired at the meeting called by the housing committee. Attention was drawn to the need for factory and commercial sites, and to the need for land for offstreet parking. Perhaps more important, ways of making better use of existing city houses were advanced. It should be easier for the owners of older houses to get loans for making desirable improvements and renovations. The State Advances Corgpration should be moved from its ridiculous refusal to lend money for buying an older house, probably, often enough, better security than the new one on which it is prepared to lend. New life for the centre of the city means very much more than economical housing, the efficient use of municipal services, and the preservation of urban amenities. It has become fashionable for local authorities to offer inducements for the establishment of new industries. The best inducement of all is evidence of a progressive community spirit; and that can be given effectively by a flourishing city with handsome and useful public buildings and adequate, convenient, and attractive housing. The City Council and the people of Christchurch have good reasons to welcome the housing committee’s initiative.