Please note: this text may be incomplete. For more information about this OCR, view
About OCR text.
REAL ESTATE
AKD
NEW YORK, JANUARY 13, 1917
PROBLEM OF HOUSING INDUSTRIAL WORKERS
Duty of Employer of Labor to Concern Himself
About Conditions Under Which Workmen Live
By LAWRENCE VEILLER, Secretary National Housing Association
PART ONE.
IT is unnecessary for me to do more
than merely refer to the conditions
that prevail today in many industrial
towns in this country. They are too well
known and have been too often described
to require extended comment. Speaking
generally, it may be said that the great
majority of workers in those towns live
in squalid and sordid surroundings, in
homes that are not beautiful, and many
of which do not have the basic elements
of civilized life.
These conditions are the natural con¬
sequence of our respect in this country
for "laissez faire" principles, for the
rights of the individual, expressed so of¬
ten in the statement that the conditions
in a man's home are no business of his
employer. ~
Until 1916 the average employer of la¬
bor has been reluctant to concern him¬
self with the conditions under which his
workmen live, and, when urged to give
consideration to this question, has gen¬
erally dismissed the subject by saying:
"My business is to make automobiles. I
know nothing about housing workmen,
and I don't want to bother with it. I
do know how to make motors and can¬
not possibly take the time to learn how
to house workingmen. Nor, do I want
the complications in my relations with
labor that are bound to come from such
work. I have troubles enough in that di¬
rection now without having any more."
That, I think, is a fair statement of
what has been the point of view and the
attitude of the average employer of la¬
bor—until this year.
Housing Famine.
But this year has seen a great change.
We have had nearly every manufacturer
in the country who owned a machine shop
have demands made upon his plant that
it could not meet. We have seen com¬
munities suddenly import into their towns
10,000 workers in a single year; we have
even seen one community import as
many as 30,000 workers in a single year.
Of course, there are not houses enough
for this suddenly augmented population.
People naturally are not going to build
10,000 homes in anticipation of a future
population that no one could foresee. So,
it is not at all strange that some commu¬
nities should have been caught unawares,
and that we have housing famine.
The situation for the manufacturers is
serious, however, for they cannot run
their plants unless their workmen have
proper places to live in. And so, whether
they want to or not, many employers of
labor are being forced to take up the
question of housing.
Not Merely More Houses.
Their problem is not, as many of them
seem to think, to get merely a sufficient
number of houses in the shortest pos¬
sible time. Difficult as that may be, it
is a comparatively simple problem com¬
pared with the real problem of provid¬
ing homes of the right kind within the
means of the workingmen and which
shall prove a permanent betterment to
the community, and not a detriment.
It is quite natural that the employer of
labor who finds himself in the situation
just described, and who has put off too
â– *• must be understood that the hous¬
ing problem in general is not being
taken up, but rather one aspect of
it, namely, industrial housing. That
is, the housing of employes at in¬
dustrial plants as distinguished
from the general housing of all the
people of a community.
long the consideration of the housing of
his new workers, should in desperation
be willing to accept any kind of house
that can be put up in the shortest pos¬
sible time and that he can induce work¬
ingmen to live in.
To many employers, confronted with
such a situation, to talk of the right kind
of houses, of good planning, of intelli¬
gent city development, of garden sub¬
urbs, of beauty, of economic construc¬
tion, of studying the future needs of the
community—to talk of any of these
things seems "idealistic" and the man
who suggests them is likely to find him¬
self classed as impractical and a dreamer.
Notwithstanding this, there are many
employers of labor who have had the
vision to realize the vital importance of
these considerations and who have acted
upon that realization. They have seen
clearly that it is bad business for them
and for the community in which they
live, to build houses which are not to be
an influence for good in that community
and which are not going to react favor¬
ably upon the efficiency of their em¬
ployes. '
I am glad to state that there are to¬
day in this country as many as eighty
large employers of labor who have acted
upon this realization and have under¬
taken the housing of their workers.
As soon as the employers of labor
throughout the country realize that it
pays to house their workmen properly,
instead of eighty concerns undertaking
this work, we shall find 8,000.
How Better Housing Pays.
That it does pay in all sorts of ways
is beyond dispute. If anyone doubts it,
let him talk with the employers of labor
engaged in work of this kind and let him
learn from them the advantages to their
industry that have resulted in what may
be termed the by-products of this social
enterprise.
It pays in the greater efficiency of the
worker, in an increased interest in his
work and a higher degree of skill. It
pays in greater continuity of service; it
means less "hiring and firing" of em¬
ployes. It pays in reducing the amount
of days' labor lost through illness and
intemperance. It pays in a more con¬
tented community. It stabilizes labor. It
reduces strikes and labor troubles. For
the man who has a contented home and
is living under nearly ideal conditions
thinks not merely twice, but many times,
before he is willing to sacrifice his home
and put in jeopardy the proper upbring¬
ing of his children and the proper do-
m.estic life of his whole family.
This problem of building houses for
workingmen needs to be considered from
various angles. Different phases of the
problem need to be clearly differentiated
or there is likely to be confusion of
thought and considerable misunderstand¬
ing. There are several problems in¬
volved, not one, and some of them wear
quite different aspects.
For instance, the questions involved in
housing the single worker are totally
different from those that need to be
studied in connection with the housing
of men with families. This is, as a rule,
too often lost sight of, and in discussing
this question it is discussed solely with
reference to the problems of the man
with a family.
The chief problem of industrial hous¬
ing, so far as the type of habitation is
concerned, to my mind, is the problem
of the single man—single, that is, so far
as America is concerned. He may be un¬
married or his wife and family may be
in Europe. The effect is the same in the
consideration of the best method ot
housing him here in America.
Again, we need to differentiate clearly
between the best type of house for the
higher paid skilled mechanic earning $25
a week and more, and the house best
suited to the unskilled day laborer whose
earnings seldom rise above $15 a week.
Also we need to differentiate in both
these classes of dwellings in our plans
for housing the American workingman
as distinguished from the alien. Unless
we clearly distinguish these various con¬
siderations we shall come to grief in our
housing enterprises.
The Skilled Worker.
Considering first the type of house for
the skilled mechanic of American birth
earning $25 a week and more, I believe
there is no real problem. Enough has
been done in this country through a long
period of time to demonstrate conclu¬
sively not only that the best type of
house for this class of worker, but the
one that he demands and is accustorned
to get, is the two-story, single family,
detached house.
There are no serious problems involved
in the development of the plan of a house
of this type, consisting, as a rule, of five
to si.x rooms.
The question of whether its exterior
walls shall be built of wood or of brick
or concrete or hollow tile blocks or con¬
crete slabs, or soine other form of ma¬
terial depends largely upon local con¬
siderations and variations in the cost of
such materials in local markets, as well
as the cost of various kinds of labor. Cli¬
matic conditions also enter into the ques¬
tion to some extent.
Of co.urse, the ideal type of house is
a fireproof one, but the prevailing type
that is used to the largest extent in
America is undoubtedly the frame house.
The time is soon coming when the frame
house will disappear and will be replaced
by a house with fireproof walls and roof,
if not wholly fireproof; as the cost of
lumber goes up and the cost of fireproof
material comes down, the result is bound
to be that the frame house will disap¬
pear and be succeeded by a building of
greater fire-resistive qualities.
The interior arrangement of a house
of this kind presents few problems. The
type is almost universal—a parlor, a
kitchen and three or four bedrooms, with