WOOD OR CONCRETE?

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 85, 10 April 1926, Page 6

WOOD OR CONCRETE?

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —I wish to reply to the statement contained in a letter published in the "Evening Post" of 7th April, entitled "The Housing Problem," which, among others, contains the following paragraph: —"You can be quite sure that it is the ultimate coat and not the first cost of the house which governs the price of rent." This statement is mathematically wrong, and hereunder I beg to prove it. > .

Before one gets to the ultimate cost, one has got to" start from- the first cost, and by dohrj so one comes straight to the conclusion that to build a wooden house costs as a iub 2s (3d less per square foot than a brick or concrete house.

A ready-cut wood house, however, costs at least 2s 6d less than the trdinary wood house, which means to say that the average five-roomed ready-cut house of 1200 square feet approximate overall floor space, would cost' to the buyer the trifling^(l) sum of £300----less than the concrete or brici house of same space. Now, this £300, in 40 i years, would become, when compounded at 6 per cent, per annum £3085 14s 4d. The life of an ordinary wooden, house is accepted to be not less than 40 years, so that for our present purpose I will stick to this figure of 40 years. The upkeep of the ready-cut wooden house is figured as follows during; a period of 40 years:— £ s. a. Insurance charges, compounded at 6 per cent. 274 17 7 Painting charges, . com- ■ pounded at 6 per cent. 396 16 4 Eepairing charges, compounded at 6 per cent 418 19 5 Total ■ charges ... ... £1090 13 4 The upkeep of a concrete or brick house is figured as follows for the same ...period of time:'— £ s. a. Insurance charges, compounded at 6 per cent. ■ 138 19 3 Painting charges, compounded at 6 per cent. 132- 5 8 Eepairing charges, compounded at 6 per cent. 290 15 0 Total charges 561 19 11

The above will show that the upkeep of a ready-cut wood, house would cost £528 13s 5d more than the upkeep of a concrete or brick house, whereas the saving on the initial cost would become £3085 14s 4d at.the end of 40 years in favour of the owner of the ready-cut house. ' If we 'deduct from £3085 14s 4d the extra cost of the upkeep, viz.: £528 13a sd, then we get £2557 0s lid that the owner of the ready-cut wood house will have to the good in the bank at the end of 40 years. ' , ,

Now as to permanency, I will grant that the ready-cut wood house has & life of 40 years only, and also will grant that the concrete or brick house has a life of 120 years. Let us, therefore, see the situation in which both the owner of the ready-cut wood house and the owner, of a concrete or brick house will'find himself at the end of .120 years. At the end of 40 years the owner of tho ready-cut wood house has no house, but instead has a cash amount in the bank amounting to £2557 0s lid. Ho will then buy a new house and pay for it, £700; and thus hi 3 cash will be reduced to £1857. 0s lid. This sum, compounded at 6 per cent, for the next 40 years, 'will become £19,101 12s 3d. Deduct from this the extra expenses for the upkeep as compared to the upkeep of concrete or brick houses, viz.: £528 13s sd; and the owner remains with a cash balance in the bank at the end of the 80th year of £18,572 .183 10a. At the end of that period he will again buy a new house and pay £700 for it, thus reducing his cash to £17,87.2 18s lOd, which, compounded .at 6 per cent, for the subsequent 40 years, will become £183,841 Is 3d, from which we will have to deduct the extra cost of upkeep, viz.: £528 13s sd, leaving a net cash balance in the bank of £183,312 7s lOd. Which goes to show that whereas the owner of a ready-cut wood house and his descendants have, through the saving in the first cost been able to live in three new houses, and save the huge sum of £183,312 7s lOd by merely saving £300 120 years before the owner or the descendants of the concrete or brick houso will have to enjoy the decay of the house built by his or grandfather and 'ultimately get out of it as the house will either go into ruins or will be uninhabitable anyway. I do not want to take more of your valuable space by going into further details, as it would be an easy matter to destroy every single point against wooden houses raised in said article; but wish to emphasise the fact that if this country, like many others, has gone into the building of wood houses (and practically 95 per cent, of the existing houses are wood) there is a deep-rooted economical reason for it and I have shown it. , Besides there arc a good many moro advantages which it would be idle to enumerate. On one point I can fully agree with the author of the article, and it is this:. The solution of the housing problem lies in constructing in quantities.

And in this respect I may state that there is no other known and proven system to have quantity production than the ready-cut house system, which solves the problem from the point of view of quantity, quality, speed, and price.—l am, etc., ' ' VAHAN DILSIZIAN. 9th Ai>ril.