TIME AND MATERIALS: WHAT CAN BE SAVED?

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24905, 19 June 1946, Page 6

TIME AND MATERIALS: WHAT CAN BE SAVED?

HOUSING

(By

LAURENCE GRAND in the "Observer."]

(Published by Arrangement.)

The February housing return showed tew new tendencies. The labour force rose 2 per cent., but the output of completed dwellings still reflects the locust months of last autumn. The number of men per permanent house under construction has gone up from 15 to 19, which is a move in the wrong direction, and seems to indicate either that not enough work is being released or that the material situation is getting worse. This latter conclusion is reinforced by the figures for approved tenders, which rose by 12,000 (45,294 to 57,137), whilst houses under construction rose by only 6000 (17,117 to 23,300). Probably, therefore, builders are overloading existing jobs with men rather than start work for which there is no material. The bomb damage figures of output are worse. ’The number of jobs completed fell from 5834 to 3730, and labour was reduced from 198,000 to 185,000; but the number of manmonths per completed job of repair or reconstruction rose from 34.2 to 49.7. This is a very bad figure. Possibly to some extent it also reflects a shortage of supplies, and since the labour force is rising the supply of materials now seems to be the critical point Simple Arithmetic

White Papers and statistics are dull things, so let us examine the material question not on the lines of percentages and unimpassioned dots but rather as a nice, simple pieee of arithmetic. Let us recall the fascinating articles of 30 years ago which showed us that if all the bus tickets issued in one day were piled on top of -one another they would make a heap higher than Nelson’s Column, and treat the problem of housing materials on the same lines.

We have been told that we need 5,000,000 houses. This would be a great undertaking at any time, but at a moment when we are struggling to rebuild our exports and to restore a little of our pre-war comfort it is nothing short of heroic, if we understand its magnitude, and a happy dream if we don’t. We are short of everything, including the money to buy commodities abroad, commodities which embrace many of the essentials of housebuilding. Hence the distance we shall be able to go in the housing business will depend on the amount of waste we can eliminate: and the waste that must be eliminated is vast and affects every department of our national life. For instance, almost all houses use a quantity of cement in their construction, foundations, nossibly floors, walls, and sometimes roofs. Cement comes in paper bags. 20 to the ton. I wonder if there has ever been a job on which half a bag wasn’t wasted. I don’t think so. On 5.000.000 houses that half bag represents 125.000 tons of cement, which in turn calls for 50.000 tons of coal in its manufacture. By the time it is delivered on to the sites probably another 10,000 tons of coal have been used by the railways and ,50.000 gallons of petrol on lorries. How Thick Should Floors Be?

Or take timber. The normal floor specification is tin tongued and grooved boarding. Sometimes it is specified as fin, but rarely in between, and never thinner than Jin of soft wood. Why lin or Jin? Because it always has been thus and this thickness works and has proved satisfactory. Now assume the houses average 800 so ft of floor area, may be rather low. On the five million programme the lin represents 1,666,000 tons of timber extra that must be imported—a somewhat staggering figure Maybe it would be worth saving Hn on all the floors. Maybe it would be even

i more worth while for one of the ? tific research establishments to : a little time in calculating py . what is tne essential thichnete • t floor and the most economical dwT 4 If anyone should say that lin « i are obsolete, then the argument S’ i holds. By saving l-32nd 01 an toiuT? [ should save 200,000 tons of ; why shouldn’t floors be 23-&in ; and not Jin? I do not know nor Ji* . anyone else, as hitherto it hasn’t 2? tered. But to-day it does matter , it must be gone into and a true’iS? , nomical design of floor determineti s Plumbing is another field lor aiiih metic. The number of joims <5? • plumbing of a small house runs ■ 20 to 30. The vast majority areTE ' wiped joint, an effective, old-fashion'2 method of joining two pieces o 4 ] S by means of a large joint of plum£S! metal, which is about 30 per cent 6.? These joints take about five to lib iJ metal when done efficiently, builder may allow 3Alb of metal £ joints done on the job and if diffleuk of access. But joints do exist will take about loz of metal, sav is to 11b. Now, shouldn’t we save plumber’s metal? Taking 25 jZ each, a house reauires 51b of metal« five joints to lib. Or under 21b m metal, using one of the economieii types of joint. This saving works oat at about 6700 tons of plumber's wftV of which 2000 tons is tin. That of course, has to be imported (mSfe ships and oil), and refined (using coal) and moved (using coal and petrol). And so we can go on. If the overhang on eaves is liin less we save a square mile of roofing on 5,000000 houses. If we save 10ft of pipe a house, which is not much, as where there is cold water there is usually hot, we save 9600 miles, which is * lot of metal, and a lot of coal and a lot of man-hours. If we waste 11b of paint on a house, which is very lltfl* we squander 2000 tons. , T* No Guesses J Where does ail this lead? Surely the first conclusion is that we cannot af> ford to have one unknown, one guess in our housing programme. Designs that “ought to be all right” cannot be permitted, and the only way to remove the unknown is research. Before the war the Building Research Station (which comes under the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research) got £70.000 a year, which was a farce, and worked with practically no direction, which was a governmental stupidity. This must be corrected. We should levy at least £2 a hbuse for research and direct the various government establishments to step up their pace and activities with a view to the scientific elimination of all waste from house building. We cannot afford to do anything else. Second, the research establishments should be directed to consider that vulgar thing, money, which, after all, is basically a measure of man-hours and materials. Hitherto money has not been their concern, the scientiac facts being the limit of their purview. They must now consider costs and methods of reducing costs. Mr Churchill saw the problem wh«n he said that the housing programme must be dealt with as a military operation. Elaborate this, and the need for a top-level general staff for housing becomes essential—a staff charge! with every aspect of the problem, and .therefore a staff on which the Treasury, the Dominions, the Colonial Office. and the Board of Trade will be represented. Let the Government demand speed and. above all, wide vision. for only by taking the widest possible view will there be a hope of achieving our purpose.