HOUSING REFORM

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 160, 2 April 1921, Page 12

HOUSING REFORM

BADLY DESIGNED DWELLINGS.

Sir, —It is gratifying to see a publicspirited body such as the Wellington Central Progress League taking an interest in our housing condemns. In replying to the letter of their energetic secretary, Colonel G. Mitchell, M.P-, in The Dominion of March 10, it is indeed hard to suggest a remedy for the bad conditions upon which he lays stress. When however, such glaring cases are brought under notice it seems opportune to point out and suggest a means of remedying the evil, at tho same time o taking ?teps in the direction of civic impi-ovement. One cannot too strongly harp on the urgent necessity which confronts the City’ Council to prepare a definite scheme for' the future development of Greater ■Wellington. What is being done? Are have not even taken the first step to 'prepare a contoured plan of the whole district. This, however, does not prevent us from taking timely action with regard to other necessary measures. It is obvious to anv one that almost the whole of Te Aro will be a business area of the town; and, further, that for such purpose it is most unsuitably laid out. It is suggested that such dwellings as are. unfit, and as they become unfit for habitation, in this area, should be condemned bv the Health Department, and that the City Council should give notice of their intention to acquire them under the Public Works Act for the purpose of civic improvement; and that ns far as possible the compensation should be by way of allotment of an equivalent value of suburban property with assistance in the erection of new houses. The city land so acquired should lie either developed by the council in accordance with the improvement scheme, or sold to private individuals or companies to develop according to their requirements, but strictly within the limits of tho improvement scheme.

The existing evil is not the only one with which we are confronted. The housing problem of to-day is not merely one of shortage of dwellings. We are allowing the whole housing question to drift in a haphazard and unseientifio wav —in a way which will bring us untold trouble in the future, when some of the houses now being erected come by lapse of time to the condition of those brought to notice by Colonel Mitchell.

But, it will be urged, we hare by-laws to regulate these matters. We have, but they only lay down a small maximum or minimum requirement, and in many cases defeat the very objects for which they were enacted, and in other eases have become 'a standard to work io (though a low one). Our natural independence of thought and living naturally chafe under tho constraint of inelastic bv-laws. but our individuality and self-determination aro also leading us into other mistakes which are unsound from the point of view of true citizenship. Every man desires an individual dwelling, and very frequently obtains.it at tho expense of some of the most essential requrremente of a good house.

Between these two tendencies with their want of a broader civic outlook, the designer of the smaller houses (whether architect or speculative builder) is frequently hedged. The land has the minimum frontage required by the city bylaws, and the prospective owner and his wife desire the usual one-floored wooden house to which they have. been accustomed: there are houses on either side within four feet of the boundary; the owner wants a "front garden" and' a “back yard”; the "best" rooms must face the street (irrespective of the aspect); (he dining-room must be near the kitchen. Sdch is the case as it presents itself Io the designer, with tho result that if tiio owner’s prejudices are not overcome tho drawing room and best bedroom face the street, regardless of aspect, and the din-ing-room, in which the family spend most of their time, opens on to a narrow passage between the houses not more than eight feet wide divided by a fence, and possibly facing the neighliours’ windows. Not a. room for a broad civic outlook. But the house complies with the by-laws.’, and the owner has exerted his individuality and so have the adjoining owners. That this is not an isolated case may be proved bv anyone who wishes by olwerving at about 8 p.m. in which rooms of the houses in n closely-populated quarter tho lights nro alight. We can alter our by-laws to nvo d these tendencies, but can wo influence the public mind so that it will not run in the old groove but be •susceptible to better ideals. Our by-laws can be amended by regelating the subdivision of land for dwellings bv area rather than bv road frontage. In most cases of property which is' divided into 40ft. frontages or less, two sections should be united and resubdivided into a front section and a rear section, the latter having n sufficient frontage (say 7ft.) for access, from the road. The by-law regarding air space should be amended to prohibit any space less than 6ft. wide except, on a public road or open space bring counted as portion of the minimum air space. ' Where the property fronts a public road. on one or more sides or adjoins a public open

space tho additional facility for the circulation of air and exposure io the sun should be considered equal to 20 per cent, of tho required air space for each side so exposed. Where over a third of the required air space is on the southern aspect the value of this should be divided by two, as the value of air space is infinitely’ greater when flooded with sunshine. No house should be erected on which the sun when at an angle of over 45 degrees doos not shine. No rooms used as living and sleeping rooms should open on to an air space less than 12ft. wide. These conditions may wem ideal, but with due regard to existing land subdivision they’ need not lio made too harshly retrospective. Tho subdividing of large wooden houses into unsuitable and often insanitary nparlmcnt houses and flats, should Ire prohibited. But the by-laws should bo altered to stini’iLitc tho erection of properly-appointed fats in suitable districts, which they at present practically prohibit. . fi ho use of wooden framing for the walls <f l ouses should be discouraged by stimulating building in brick and concrete and widening the "brick” area. Government valuers should set more value on the more permanent structures than they here been accustomed to do. As for the general public, a more observant and critical attitude towards housing in genetai will bring forth good results. To obtain more durable, com fortable, and pleasant houses •■•e must pull together. Every encouragement should be given to the erection <f houses in blocks of two, three, or four luilt in brick or concrete. The larger types to be of two stories. Such groups if properly designed are capable of producing a far better general architectural effect than the heterogeneous collection of houses of varying types that give our suburban streets that want of repose and harmony to-dav.

It will be urged “that public opinion is opposed to the idea of living in a house which is not entirely eepfirate from its neighbours; and this argument is usually on tho score of privacy. It is maintained that there is far more actual privacy in n 'brick party wall than is produced in ‘ the houses of wooden walls six feet apart, with tho windows of dwelling rooms facing each other. Furthermore, if properly planned without any excrescences of outbuildings protecting from the rectangular block, such houses can have a proportionately wider frontage to face the open spaces of the street and the back garden, and correspondingly less depth on account of the non-requirement of six or seven feet otherwise occupied in side passages. In tho case of blocks of three or more houses, a common right-of-way should serve for tradesmen’s entrances to the rear. The difficulty of stairs, will be advanced as an argument against twostory houses, but the prejudice against stairs is largely due to the stairs for the most part being badly designed steep, and uncomfortable, and the height of the ground floor Tooms being needlessly "rent. The advantages to be gained by building two storys are that less ground is thereby occupied, and that bedrooms on upper floors aro healthier to sleep in, and also only half tho amount of roof is necessary. ; . For really economic housing it Is essential that our public opinion must favour such undertakings. Such schemes have been undertaken in England, the Continental countries, find in America, among all classes of tho community, with the greatest success. Tho best results seem to have come from co-partnership housing schemes carried out by tlie cooperation of the persons who are> to live the houses, from the designs of skilled architects. To increase tho number and qimlitv of our houses for the general body of the community, we must not rely on the Government and municipal hoiisa ng schemes. Private enterprise, m which the funds of persons requiring houses are invested,'will- have infinitely more effect. The Government. aro willing to help, for during last session I* o ’'®* ires granted in the Housing Amendment Act 1920, section 13, authorising loans 75 nor cent, of the capital value to bo grac'd to public utility societies for the carrying out of housing. y p noting such schemes wo shall bo far more likely to obtain the houses so much “’it’irgratifying to see that the P®turn. ed Soldiers’ Association is th- first the field to consider the question, 1 for success in these public ventures it 1 essential to have public opinion boh nd them, whether expressed by the P™™ •r,a>vidual or by municipalities. Is -t ward-, modern developments in tins max ter and in civic improvement generally. t n,m. etc.. F E. GREENISH F.N.Z.1.A., A.R-I-B.A.