BRITISH HOUSING SCHEMES

Southland Times, Issue 23229, 18 June 1937, Page 8

BRITISH HOUSING SCHEMES

Comparison With New Zealand BIG DIFFERENCE IN COSTS Comparisons between the New Zealand housing scheme and British schemes, while interesting, are decidedly misleading. Where all the factors are taken into consideration New Zealand fares not so badly (says a statement issued by Mr J. A. Lee, Under-Secretary for Housing). I have been examining the rentals of various houses and the size of various houses under British schemes to see what sort of house is available for £390. The low rents in Great Britain are made possible by subsidies from the Consolidated Fund which have the effect of reducing the net interest rate to a little in excess of one per cent., the three per cent, and three and a-quarter per cent, or three and a-half per cent, at which the money is raised being guaranteed from the public revenues. Actually the interest charged in New Zealand is so low that our houses on the average compare more than favourably with similar houses in Great Britain when the amount of wages paid to the worker in Great Britain as against New Zealand is taken into consideration.

The Downham scheme, London, has the following rental basis:—Two-room-ed-flats, from 10/4 to 12/4; three-room-ed flats, from 10/10 to 12/9; threeroomed cottages, from 12/4 to 15/5. This last is the type of two-house units which we will make available in New Zealand for 17/6, which comparison certainly favours us, having regard to the fact that our wage scale is between 60 per cent, and 75 per cent, above the British wage scale. The four-room flat in the Downham scheme is available at from 12/9, to 14/5, parlour cottage from 15/2, to 18/5. Our parlour cottage would have additional floor space that would make up the rental difference, so that actually the Downham scheme is not superior. Four-roomed non-parlour cottages are available at from 13/9 to 17/1. Here again, wage for wage, the comparison is favourable to New Zealand. The five-roomed cottages run from 16/1 to £1 a week. Since the flat accommodation is built in huge barracks and is a repetition of the same design a large number of times, our rents are as good, value for value. Notwithstanding that State subsidies keep the interest basis chargeable to the tenant very little in excess of one per cent, the rents work out at 29 per cent, of the usual unskilled worker’s wage.

UNSUITABLE FOR NEW ZEALAND The China Walk Lambeth scheme rents are:—Two-roomed flats, from 7/10 to 12/1; three-roomed flats, from 10/3 to 14/8; four-roomed flats, from 12/7 to 17/4; five-roomed flats, from 15/- to 19/-. These dwellings are in blocks of four and five stories high, absolutely unsuitable to New Zealand where they would be accounted slums. None of these houses is of the cottage, but all are of the barrack, type. The rental is 25 per cent, of the usual unskilled worker’s wage. New Zealand would object to the erection of the China Walk type of house. At the New Quay House block erected in Kennington in 1932, the three-roomed rent works out at 14/9, to 18/2, so that our two-house unit in New Zealand is actually cheaper, despite the higher cost of New Zealand labour. Four rooms are from 17/8, five rooms from 19/4, to 20/1. Eyery house is one of a barrack, wholly unsuitable to New Zealand. The rental rates are 33 per cent, of the usual unskilled wage. The Wilcove Place block was erected in 1935. Not a single house is of cottage type. Eighty-two per cent, of the dwellings are repeat units. The block is four and five stories high. The rents are:—Two rooms, from 7/7 to 9/3; three rooms, from 9/6 to 13/9; four rooms, from 14/6 to 17/3; five rooms, from 19/6 to 20/6, or 22 per cent, of the usual unskilled wage. Not only are the houses of an undesirable barrack type, but many of the five-roomed flats do not exceed 786 feet, which is insufficient for a New Zealand home. The Magdalen Park scheme was built in 1934. Rents are:—Three rooms, 15/4; four rooms, 18/-. Average rent, 32 per cent, of usual unskilled worker’s wage. The footage area would be 691 feet for a three-roomed flat. Space for space and rent for rent the New Zealand scheme is cheaper. The four rooms are 841 to 852 square feet. Judged by Magdalen Park we are holding our own in New Zealand. OTHER BRITISH SCHEMES The Chapman house scheme was erected in 1934. The rent of two rooms is 16/-, and the two rooms are only 464 feet; three rooms, 17/6 to 20/-, and the three rooms are of a maximum of 643 feet. The rents are 35 per cent, of the unskilled wage. Extraordinary though it may seem, our scheme in New Zealand, despite the 40-hour week and our wage costs, provides a house as against a barrack of better quality at a lower rent. The Kent House scheme was erected in 1935, and the house is barrack type. The rents are: —Two rooms, from 11/-; three rooms, from 16/6; four rooms, from 22/-. It is interesting to appreciate that the Labour Government will have some four-roomed houses available at 22/6, houses, not flats of 735 feet, • or repetition units in a barrack. Rentals represent 35 per cent, of the unskilled wage. Here again the comparison on a space, wage and material cost basis is all in the favour of the New Zealand scheme. In Birmingham 41,000 houses have been built. The Weoley Cottage scheme supplies three rooms for from 6/5, to 9/-, four rooms from 9/2 to 11/8 and five rooms from 14/3 to 16/3 — 27 per cent. of the Birmingham unskilled worker’s wage. The house area does not exceed 808 feet and the standard unit is repeated indefinitely. Liverpool has built about 24,000 houses. In the Dovecote Housing scheme of two-storied houses the rents are: —One room, 4/-; two rooms, 5/9- three rooms, 8/-; four rooms, from 8/6’to 14/6. The scheme is standardized and the dimensions of the houses would not compare with our own. The scheme is one of the cheapest in Great Britain and costs 22 per cent, of the unskilled worker’s wage, but the conveniences in some instances serve many houses. Speke Road Gardens has a fourroomed house available for 9/lld, but the maximum dimensions are 762 square feet. The houses are the barrack type running four and five stories high with a very severe finish. No government could build the Speke type house in New Zealand and live. dominion wages higher The wages being paid to workers in Britain bear no comparison with New Zealand rates, and our rents are, proportionate to income, generally lower. Bricks are about £2/10/- a thousand, Portland cement about £l/19/- a ton, and the same standardized house is produced monotonously. The New Zealand Government’s housing scheme can hold its own in fair comparison. The £390 house is generally only two rooms in a barrack.

The figures I have quoted are extracted from “Housing, A European Survey by the Building Centre Committee” published in 1936, and I have gone through the publication taking every scheme seriatum. What is the fair New Zealand comparison? Surely we are entitled to compare the Labour Government with the past Government schemes. Between 1926 and 1935 in New Zealand there were 20,401 building pennits issued— were issued to recipients of State Advances who received about £14,000,000 in Government money. If we add the -deposit and the cost of laying out the section to the average State Advance it is reasonable to assume that the average cost was £llOO Now let us see what the average conditions pertaining to the 15,441 houses erected by the past governments were as compared with the houses erected by us. I am loading the tenant’s deposit and preparation of his section with the same interest loading that applies to the loan. The figures are:—

RENTS COMPARED Tlie house was not of high quality. A very small percentage of them were on concrete foundations. The house did not contain the conveniences associated with our house. True, the tenant owned the house at the end of 30 years if he paid 16/6 a week more than we are charging. If the owner of the property had been letting the house he would have been compelled to add about 1/- in the pound to the rent for management and collection, and probably another 1/- for tenancy voids, which would have made his rent £2/1/6. Because of the high rent State Advances lost millions when wages were slashed. Our rent in 1937 for a better house is £l/5/-. If a house with land costs £7O0 — and nobody could build a city house with land at cost of £7OO today—under the system adopted between 1926 and 1932 that house would cost as much in rent as a Labour Government house at £l2OO.

We could build huge barracks in New Zealand and install community laundries, but this type of house would be foreign to our best interests. There is a field for activity in the building of multiple houses for elderly couples, but I think it would be undesirable for us to have more than four or five of these in each unit except that we want to create slum conditions. Good new housing of cottage type has never been available at one day’s pay. I cannot find a single scheme of high grade housing anywhere that has been available at that figure.

For one day’s pay from the whole community, which is a different matter, housing could be provided. There will be no difficulty in securing tenants for the houses that the Labour Government is building. We can secure 20 tenants for every house likely to be available this year. Applications . are streaming in at a greater rate since the announcement of our rents.

At the point at which we can overtake the housing shortage, a difficult date to prophesy, 75 per cent, of the 330,000 existing dwellings in New Zealand should be available at 75 per cent, of our rent having regard to the poorer type of houses and lower standard of any conveniences, and since it would take 50 or 60 years to rebuild any country with the highest grade housing possible, these hundreds of thousands of houses will have to be lived in for a long time to come, except those slum areas which we hope at a later date to demolish. I can find no record of any scheme in the world, except where the houses were created out of revenue and given rent free to the dwellers where cottage housing has been supplied at less than the day’s wage paid to the builder. Generally it is vexy much in excess of the day’s wage with a lower standard of housing than ours, and despite the fact that the rate of interest charged on British schemes is practically little over 1 per cent. COMPARATIVE COSTS Recent advice from England tells of a considerable advance in building costs because of rearmament; advances similar to those which have occurred here. I append a comparative statement of costs.

£ s d Repayment of interest and principal. £1100 at G'iP-c. less rebate 80 0 6 Rates 12 3 0 Maintenance (as for a wooden house—the overwhelming majority were wood) I'/jp.c. on £900 13 10 0 Insurance 2 9 0 108 2 G

<v 75 . fi i RS 75 0) u p C5 *8 d ft ’8 C £ o-G o 75 -§ £ no .Sa H <1) § O > £. s. d. £. s. d. Portland Cement a ton 1 19/5 4/6 Bricks —first quality a 1000 4 11/6 2/6 Bricks—second quality a 1000 4 2/6 5 17/6 Bricks—Leeds a 1000 2 12/6 5 17/6 Flooring, one inch 100 feet sup. (deal) 1 2/2 18/6 Matchlining, g inch 100 feet sup. (deal) 14/1 13/6 Rough boards 100 feet sup, (deal) 18/1 8/6 Lead-milled a cwt 2 4/6 2 16/White lead a cwt 3 9 /9 4 3/6 Linseed oil a gallon 3/5/3 Boiled oil . a gallon 3/6 5/6 Ready mixed paint a gallon 13/6 1 2/6 Reinforcing a cwt. 3 inch 10/6 1 3/6 J inch 10/3 1 1/3 g inch 10/1 0/6 WAGES a M . > § S c •3 S no c CJ C q .2 a iS wi a £.s £« 75 r-. "a S3 fl RJ Q, fig. W Carpenter an hour i/8 y 2 2/61/a Brick layer an hour 2/9 (According to demand) Plumber an hour 1/81/3 2/6 Painter an hour 1/71,!. 2/6 Labourer an hour 1/3 >/3 2/0‘/ 4