1942: Housing Developments

The year 1942 saw the completion of a trend well marked in 1941 — the complete conversion of housing activities from peacetime to wartime objectives. By December 1942 no building construction costing more than $200 could be undertaken without specific approval by the War Production Board; none of the critical construction materials could be obtained without a WPB priority rating; 76 million persons were living in 355 defense rental areas where rents had been frozen by the Office of Price Administration; all dwellings constructed with critical materials obtained with priorities had to be made available only to persons certified by the Government as in-migrant war workers.

Nature and Magnitude of War Housing Need.

The war housing problem is the result primarily of an overall housing shortage plus tremendous shifts of population. Practically every urban area in the country entered the prewar defense period with an accumulated housing shortage. Curtailment and final stoppage of normal private housing construction and of public construction of the so-called low-rent or slum clearance type made these shortages worse. On top of this came the greatest internal migration the country has ever seen. The National Housing Agency, in collaboration with the War Manpower Commission has estimated that 1,600,000 workers in vital war industries will move from one employment area to another during the year ending July 1, 1943. These workers coming into new areas are called in-migrant war workers. It is with their accommodation that the country's war housing program is primarily concerned. The task is so great and the currently available resources of the country so small, that there is no prospect of providing adequate housing during 1943 for the millions of families still living in urban and rural slums, even though the workers of these families may be engaged in the most vital war work.

NHA expects that of the 1,600,000 migrant war workers enough families will contain more than one worker to reduce the total number of accommodations to be made available to 1,320,000. Of this number 270,000 are expected to be housed in new privately built family typed dwelling units, 205,000 in publicly built family type units and 195,000 in publicly built units of other types.

New Government Machinery.

Partly as a result of and immediate need for coordinating housing activities and partly as the result of a long-felt need for a new pattern of the Federal Government's peacetime housing activities, the some seventeen Federal agencies engaged in various housing functions were reorganized in February by the use of the President's war powers into one overall organization, the National Housing Agency, with three subsidiary agencies, the Federal Housing Administration, the Federal Home Loan Bank Administration and the Federal Public Housing Authority. The principal functions of the first two of the subsidiary agencies, FHA and FHLBA remained the same as prior to the reorganization, namely: the insurance of mortgages for home construction repair or refinancing; and the provision of a central credit pool for home financing institutions respectively. The third agency, FPHA was an entirely new one. It absorbed and superseded various Federal agencies engaged in finance, construction or operation of publicly-owned non-farm housing. The two major agencies thus absorbed were the United States Housing Authority and the Defense Housing Division of the Federal Works' Agency. The Division of Defense Housing Coordination, the agency responsible during 1941 for determination of war housing need and the programming of provision of such housing was absorbed by the new National Housing Agency. NHA and FPHA each established during the year ten regional offices to which were delegated substantial degrees of administrative authority. FHA and FHLBA had previously developed effective regionalization.

Methods of Attaining War Housing Objectives.

Numerous methods were used to attain the several changes in housing practice deemed necessary for the most effective prosecution of the war.

All housing construction not considered vital to the war effort was prevented by the requirement that all construction involving an expenditure of more than $200 in one year must be approved by the War Production Board before it was undertaken, even though the builder had the necessary materials on hand.

Another reduction in the amount of critical materials used per war worker housed in newly constructed dwellings was sought by the adoption of standards specifying the maximum size of rooms or dwelling units, and the maximum amounts of plumbing and wiring materials etc.; the increasing use of building types other than family units, such as dormitories and war apartments; and a general switch from permanent to demolishable or demountable types of construction. Lumber shortages became so acute in some areas that masonry construction was actually being used in place of frame construction even though the buildings constructed were considered to be temporary, and even though the cost of masonry construction was higher than frame. It seemed likely that during 1943 construction and design standards would be so low as to render the building of further permanent housing both a social and a financial hazard. In publicly-built permanent-type family housing, the quantity of critical metals used per unit was reduced from a 9,700 prewar level to 2,700 pounds.

Distribution of critical materials to approved construction was governed by a system of priorities first put into use in the fall of 1941. By mid-1942 however it was apparent that due to the growing scarcity of critical materials and the practice of issuing increasingly higher priority ratings for materials on Army and Navy contracts and other construction believed to be the most important, priorities became highly inflated and a large portion had to be rescinded and replaced by higher ones in order to be at all effective. By the end of the year it was generally agreed that some system of allocations of actual material in place of the right to try to buy (as represented by a priority rating) would have to be put into effect. During 1942, 150,000 private units and 128,000 public units of all types utilizing preference ratings under the priorities' system were completed.

Rent control as part of the general anti-inflation program was achieved by the same general process used to fix other prices, but it was put into effect area by area as the need appeared rather than being applied to the whole county or to large regions simultaneously. First there was usually a period during which voluntary control was urged. If this failed to work (and it practically always failed) the OPA named a rent administrator and fixed a rent ceiling. The ceiling was the level of rents on a given date (Mar. 1, 1941, for most of the areas). There was usually a lag of several months between the date on which rent control was announced and the date on which the ceiling rent was put into effect. This time was required to set up the administrative machinery in an area and to register and check the ceiling rent for each dwelling.

A greater use of existing dwellings in lieu of new construction was encouraged during the year by an NHA program that included registration of available dwelling space in most of the critical housing areas, the Federal leasing of properties that could be converted by a reasonable amount of alteration or repair into more dwelling units, and the outright purchase by the Government of some properties for the purpose of converting them into more dwelling units. In the fall of 1942 these various activities of NHA aiming to achieve greater utilization of existing dwellings were grouped together in a part of the NHA known as the Homes Use Service. The local centers for carrying out this part of the NHA program were known as War Housing Centers. The Home Owners' Loan Corporation, one of the constituent agencies of the FHLBA, served NHA in its conversion program by acting as agent for leasing, altering, and managing properties suitable for conversion. Both leased and purchased properties that were to be used for dormitory-type housing were handled by FPHA as an agent for NHA.

Measurements and Trends in Housing Production.

The effects of various controls imposed on home building naturally showed clearly in sharp declines in residential construction registered during the year. Estimates based on figures gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor on permits for residential construction in representative urban places of 500 population or over showed that privately-built family units placed under construction during 1942 dropped 51 per cent. Comparable public housing increased 80 per cent during the year. Private construction, since July 1940, has constituted about 70 per cent of all residential work.

Based on an index of 100 for the period 1935-39 construction costs of a typical six-room frame house rose from 118.5 in October 1941 to 124.5 in October 1942.

Increased national income and the almost complete disappearance of vacancies were reflected in the lowest rate of recorded foreclosures on non-farm residential property in the last fifteen years; there being only 36,147 during the first ten months of 1942 as against 49,840 during the same period in 1941.

By the first of October the Federal Government since 1932 had financed directly about 648,000 urban housing units of all types counting developments in all statuses from approval to occupancy. About 77 per cent of these units were war housing — that is financed with war housing appropriations and limited to occupancy by war workers. About 500,000 war workers and numbers of their families were living in public war housing at the end of 1942 and this number was increasing at the rate of about 30,000 per month. With the low-rent non-war public program brought to a complete stop it appeared likely that the total number of units in the public war program would exceed the peacetime program by four or five to one before the end of 1943. The 128,000 public units completed during 1942 were composed of about 63 per cent family dwelling units (permanent and temporary), 6 per cent war apartments for 2-person families, 24 per cent dormitories, for single workers, and 7 per cent trailer homes.

The Home Owners' Loan Corporation, one of the subsidiaries of the Federal Home Loan Bank Administration, had returned by Nov. 1, 1942, about 44 per cent of the funds loaned to over one million distressed owners or residential properties. More than 96 per cent of the corporation's debtors were either paid up to date or less than three months in arrears.

Requirements of speed in construction and greater economy of materials dictated greater use of stop gap housing (such as trailers) and demountable or demolishable types of construction both for family type units and for dormitories and small apartments for couples, sometimes called war apartments. The adoption of these temporary types of construction further discouraged participation in the provision of war housing by private owners.

The interrelations of various Government war activities was clearly demonstrated during the year when it was found that original estimates of the proportion of public war housing to be constituted by accommodations for single workers had to be reduced sharply because the Selective Service was taking more and more of the single men, and the older men who usually had families could not be attracted to vital war jobs unless housing accommodations for their families were available. The dwindling supply of rubber available for transportation necessitated complete reconsideration of plans for war plant and housing project locations. Thus the War Manpower Commission, the Selective Service Administration, the Office of Defense Transportation, and the Plant Site Location Board of WPB were all involved in reaching decisions about the provisions of housing.

Some of the public war housing constituted entirely new towns. A most striking example is the construction of Vanport, Oregon, between Portland and Vancouver. When it reaches its planned population of 40,000 it will be the second largest city in Oregon.

The Federal Housing Administration's activity of insuring loans for home building, repair, and refinancing held up better than did the level of general private construction. During the year construction was started on approximately 195,000 dwelling units with FHA insured mortgages. From the inception of its mortgage insurance program until December 1942 FHA insured loans totalling over $6,301,664,000.

Legislative and Legal Action.

Congress by appropriating an additional $600,000,000 brought to a total of $1,620,000,000 the funds for public war housing. Congress also increased from $300,000,000 to $800,000,000, the authorization for FHA to insure war housing mortgages.

No important state housing legislation was passed, but in Ohio the Supreme Court, on appeal by the Columbus Metropolitan Housing Authority from the Board of Tax Appeals, decided that public housing is not a public use in the meaning of the Ohio Constitution and that properties of local housing authorities cannot be exempt from real property taxes on that grounds. The decision if not revised or altered would result in the forfeiture to the Federal government of title to all locally-owned Federally-aided public housing in Ohio in April 1943.

Little Planning for Post-War Period.

Every major plan put forward during the year for a post-war program called for housing to constitute the largest part of building construction. Some responsible groups point to the need for producing 1¼ million family units a year as compared to less than 900,000 built in 1925, the highest yearly production between the two wars. There was substantial agreement that much of this new housing must replace dwellings now occupying the slums and blighted areas of the cities and that there must be some form of public aid to make some of it available at less than its full normal cost to the occupants. The need for comprehensive city and regional planning as a basis for housing and other construction, and the need for making available at prices much less than present market figures, land in blighted urban areas, both pointed to the likelihood of the federal government being called upon to give financial assistance to local governments for planning and for land subsidies. Only a handful of cities had prepared actual post-war plans for the location and acquisition of sites of large-scale housing developments to be constructed by either public or private enterprise after the war.

1941: Housing Developments

Defense Housing.

The effects of the nation's military and industrial mobilization for defense dominated the 1941 housing scene. Defense housing presented two basic sets of problems: first, means of stepping up the production of dwellings in critical defense areas because of the war emergency, and second, the inter-relating of these accelerated activities with the normal physical and economic patterns in such a way as to cause the minimum current or future dislocation of the housing production facilities.

During 1941, the Government expanded its operations for the direct construction and management of housing for defense purposes. This move was necessary because private enterprise could not produce a supply of new housing at acceptable standards that could be afforded by more than 25 per cent of the families employed in critical defense activity, and because in many locations, regardless of the income of prospective tenants, the probable duration of the need for the defense housing was so limited as to hold no inducement for the profitable investment of funds.

Administrative Activities.

The organizational pattern of Government agencies concerned both with direct housing operations and the extension of aid to private enterprise remain substantially the same as in 1940. However, most of the Federal agencies were granted additional powers or otherwise exercised additional functions directly related to defense. Thus, FHA was authorized by the newly enacted Title VI of the National Housing Act to insure mortgages for low-cost homes in defense areas on much more liberal terms than were available in other parts of its program and a special mortgage insurance fund was set up for this title. To FSA was allocated the responsibility for handling much of the so-called temporary housing in the defense program. This included the provision of trailers, dormitories, and some demountable dwellings of the more conventional type. USHA continued to expend some of its own funds for defense purposes and handled a large amount of the special defense housing funds directly or by the using of local public housing agencies as agents.

The two new agencies first to play exclusive defense housing roles in 1940, the Division of Defense Housing Coordination and the Division of Defense Housing of the Federal Works Agency, continued to hold the center of the stage. Organizational changes included the transfer of the Division of Defense Housing Coordination from the jurisdiction of the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense to the Office for Emergency Management, the establishment of the Mutual Ownership Division in the Federal Works Agency, and the assumption of all management responsibility for the Lanham Act (Public No. 849, 76th Congress) financed defense housing by FWA.

By Dec. 13, 60,357 publicly financed homes of the ordinary type for families of defense workers had been completed or occupied and new homes were being completed at the rate of better than 2,500 per week. In addition, trailer or portable house accommodations for 2,237 families and accommodations for 6,585 single persons had been provided. Federal funds had been allotted for a total of 126,889 such homes.

Administrative Difficulties.

As industrial plants and military posts were established and expanded more rapidly, the task of the Division of Defense Housing Coordination, namely, the determination of need for defense housing, became more difficult. Two major obstacles were still apparent. First was the difficulty of assigning to one agency the responsibility for determining the need for defense housing in terms of location, amount, and rent level or sales price, and the responsibility of suggesting the proper Federal agency to provide the housing and still not granting to this fact-finding agency the power to follow through and supervise the prosecution of its recommendations. The second difficulty was the absence of an overall policy or central administration for the various Federal agencies that were expected to function in the defense housing program.

The introduction of new non-housing agencies like the Army, the Navy, the Maritime Commission, and the Public Buildings Administration, into the business of building and operating housing served to complicate an already unsatisfactory administrative pattern. Charges and countercharges among administrative officials of defense housing agencies led to two moves toward an analysis of the Federal Government's housing activities. The Buildings and Grounds Committee of the House of Representatives made a special nationwide investigation of defense housing for the purpose of determining the advisability of an appropriation of $300,000,000 for defense housing in addition to the $150,000,000 that had been appropriated in 1940 and the $150,000,000 that had been appropriated in early 1941 under the Lanham Act. As a result of the recommendations of the Committee, the House of Representatives passed in early December a bill amending the Lanham Act in such a way as to entrust virtually all further construction of defense housing to the Public Buildings Administration and to otherwise distinguish the defense housing program from the large scale nondefense Federally-aided housing program. The Senate amended the House bill to eliminate most of the proposed changes and at the close of the year some compromise was yet to be reached between House and Senate versions.

In the meantime, Congress passed an additional appropriation of $300,000,000 for temporary housing for defense purposes.

Judge Samuel Rosenman was requested by President Roosevelt to make a study of Federal housing agencies and recommendations for their most effective organization or reorganization.

During 1941 the Division of Defense Housing Coordination inaugurated two new activities; namely, the establishment of homes registration offices to discover and list all available housing accommodations in defense areas, and the stimulation through these offices of a program of repair and alteration of existing residential buildings to make available additional rooms or dwelling units.

The Division sets certain standards and procedures for the operation of homes registration offices but the personnel and funds for the operation of the offices must be supplied locally. By December 1941, about 200 of these offices had been established.

Repair and alteration work is carried out by the owners of buildings getting in touch either with the local homes registration office or the Division of Defense Housing Coordination in Washington. The Home Owners' Loan Corporation is enabled by a special fund of $100,000 to send a technical inspector to look over the property in question. If the inspector's report is favorable, the owner is granted a priority rating for critical construction materials involved and he proceeds to make his own contracts and carry out the work.

Priorities.

By the spring of 1941 it became apparent that housing construction would have to be curtailed because of the shortages of critical materials (especially metal) needed for direct defense production. The market for critical materials had already become very tight by the middle of September both through genuine shortages and through hoarding engaged in because of the uncertainty of Federal policies. On Sept. 22, a broad plan to grant priority assistance for the construction of 200,000 privately financed defense housing units became effective. The basic policies are determined by the Supply Priorities and Allocations Board (SPAB). The plan is administered by the Priorities Division of the Office of Production Management.

A plan for priorities on public defense housing construction became effective Oct. 24.

With the declaration of war in December and the immediate speeding up of all defense production schedules, it became apparent that practically all private or public residential construction of nondefense housing using critical materials would be brought to a full stop by mid-1942.

Rent Control.

The general rise in price levels, the slowing down of residential construction, and the migration of defense workers caused acute problems of high rents in many areas during the year. The Federal Government, having been unsuccessful in its attempt to stimulate the adoption of state rent control legislation, set up a rent section in the Price Division of the Office of Price Administration to stimulate the establishment and operation of local fair rent committees. By mid-October, 82 of these committees had been established in 23 states. These bodies, set up on a voluntary basis, depend solely upon public under standing and the force of public opinion to control rents. In December, Congress passed Public Act 337, 77th Congress, establishing machinery for rent control in the District of Columbia and pegging rents at the Jan. 1, 1941, level. At the end of the year, Congress had still under consideration the emergency price control bill of 1941 (H.R. 5479) containing a section on rent control that proposes the designation of defense rental areas and Federal regulation of rentals within these areas.

Non-Defense Housing.

In spite of the marked changes in housing activity brought about in 1941 by war conditions, significant progress was made in both public and private production of dwellings. Outstanding in the public field was the work of the United States Housing Authority that reported in December, some four years and one month after its establishment, that 137,064 homes were either under construction or occupied. The average rent per family unit available for occupancy is $12.56 per month for shelter only or $17.67 for shelter plus water, light, heat, cooking fuel, and refrigeration, wherever the latter is provided.

The average cost of a dwelling unit including inside mechanical equipment and its share of administrative expenses was $3,320.

The total USHA local program possible with existing funds comprises 701 projects in 477 localities.

As of Sept. 30, 1941, 6,399 farm homes had been approved for development by local public housing agencies with USHA financial assistance. Of this number, 346 were under construction or occupied.

The passage of state enabling legislation for public housing by New Hampshire left only Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming without such laws.

FHA Program.

Figures for the mortgage insurance program of the Federal Housing Administration for the first half of 1941 showed about 100,000 new homes started or an increase of more than 25 per cent over the first six months of 1940. Since the inception of its program, FHA had insured mortgages in an amount exceeding $4,614,000,000. The average annual income of borrowers purchasing new single family homes with FHA insured mortgages declined consistently from $3,387 in 1936 to $2,665 in 1940. During the period from June 1940 until June 1941, new FHA insured dwellings represented about 40 per cent of the total urban privately financed single family homes construction in the country.

The object of Title VI of the National Housing Act adopted on March 28, 1941, was to stimulate an additional volume of privately financed construction of low-cost housing in areas where national defense activities were creating urgent needs for additional housing facilities and where there was reasonable expectation of continued need for that additional housing after the termination of the emergency. By far the most housing produced under this Title has been offered for sale rather than rent. An FHA survey as of June 13, 1941, indicated that 30 per cent of the Title VI properties for sale were valued by FHA at less than $3,500 including land, utilities, and all improvements. A house sold at this price under the financing plan of Title VI would require monthly payments of $32.14 not including operating costs or maintenance and repair. The same survey showed that rental housing produced under Title VI was leasing from $30 to $60 per dwelling per month. It appeared, therefore, that the bulk of Title VI housing was for a market considerably above that being reached by the public defense housing program.

Farm Security Administration.

The Farm Security Administration's non-defense housing activities are, in general, part of its program for the rehabilitation of rural families rather than an independent activity. FSA has built or repaired over 30,000 dwelling units plus more than 12,000 migratory shelters in its nondefense program. Of its 151 homestead projects, 92 are of the community type. Eighteen homestead projects have been transferred to private ownership; usually represented by homestead associations.

The agency has been called upon extensively in the defense program. It has assisted in the accumulation of large tracts of land in rural areas for the establishment of defense industries or military posts, the relocation of its own clients and other farm families displaced by such activity, the construction of new permanent rural homes to be used temporarily in areas where there is an influx of defense workers and to be transferred later to use by farm families, and the handling of Lanham Act funds designated for stopgap or temporary housing. FSA is using trailers, dormitories, and some demountable family type dwellings in this stopgap program. See also AGRICULTURE.

Home Loan Bank Board.

Increased home construction and financing activity during 1941 was reflected in the first nine months operation figures of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Savings and loan associations belonging to the Federal Home Loan Bank system made about 85 per cent of the estimated $1,045,000,000 worth of new home mortgages made by all savings and loan associations through September 1941. At the end of October the Federal Home Loan Bank had outstanding to its regional banks advances in the amount of $184,311,000. The Board's subsidiary, The Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, by the end of September had extended insurance to the accounts of over 3,037,000 investors in member and non-member local savings and loan associations.

The Home Owners' Loan Corporation, another subsidiary of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, continued its servicing and liquidation of loans made to distressed home owners. By the end of October it retained 40,000 of the some 160,000 it had taken over from the owners on foreclosure. HOLC had made about 1,000,000 'rescue' loans to home owners before the termination of loan activity in 1936.

General Factors.

The records of building permits issued for construction of residential buildings in all urban areas showed 387,000 dwelling units put under construction during the first ten months of 1941. Of these, about 16 per cent represented the public defense or nondefense housing program. Trends in house production for the first six months of the year indicated that the record of 890,000 units produced in urban areas in 1925 might be approached in 1941. However, by October, largely as the result of the curtailment of critical materials for building construction, the production of dwellings had fallen to the lowest point reached in the previous sixteen months and it was expected that more striking declines would be recorded for November and December.

By the end of October 1941, the cost of producing a standard six-room house used as a measurement by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board had risen to a point 16 per cent above the base cost established for the 1935-1939 period. This rise represented a 12 per cent increase over October 1940.

The National Industrial Conference Board rent index based on 100 for the period 1935-39 increased 2.1 per cent to 109.3 during the twelve months ending October 1941.

Significant General Trends.

Several trends noted during the year were of great importance because they foretold certain changes in housing practice and policy in the future. After repeated attempts New York, Michigan, and Illinois, passed legislation seeking to establish a pattern for the redevelopment of blighted urban areas by private corporations. The New York law is generally conceded to be the most workable.

The redevelopment of blighted urban areas received continued or new study from quite a few national agencies. A number of the proposals include the financing and in some cases the subsidizing of local planning and land acquisition activity by the Federal Government.

The pressure for speed and economy in defense housing together with the favorable attitude of the CIO building construction workers union toward new construction methods gave considerable impetus to various new forms of housing design and prefabrication methods. The increasing proportion of demountable houses being utilized in the defense housing program was especially notable.

Also, partly as a result of the housing needs of defense workers, certain forms of home tenure like cooperative housing and the mutual ownership plan being promoted by the Mutual Ownership Division of the Federal Works Agency were being developed during 1941 to bridge the gap between housing for sale and housing for rent.

The formulation of plans for the post-war period holds promise that not only will some of the war efforts be so directed as to produce improvements that can be integrated with a post-war plan, but that post-war plans will be sufficiently well defined to permit the transfer of some of the nation's productive capacity from war to peace efforts without such severe dislocations as we have witnessed following previous wars. The backlog of projects being assembled by the Public Work Reserve will undoubtedly include much housing both as part of the rebuilding of urban areas and the building of new communities or the extension of present ones to take care of our chronic housing deficiencies. See also ARCHITECTURE; CIVIL ENGINEERING.

1940: Housing Developments

Housing for Defense Workers.

As 1939 drew to a close, a steadily growing group of citizens interested in comprehensive rehousing and rehabilitation efforts, both rural and urban, saw public housing programs as a significant contribution of a vital democracy to the maintenance of the American way of life. In 1940, however, under the lengthening shadows of war holding grave dangers for the American continent, public policy affecting housing found an abrupt re-orientation. By mid-year industrial expansion in aircraft, shipbuilding, military weapons and related industries focussed attention on dangerous housing shortages and highlighted the problem of hopelessly inadequate housing conditions. By the year's end the greatest emphasis lay on the production of homes for emergency defense workers.

On June 28 President Roosevelt approved the first defense housing measure—Title II of Public No. 671, 76th Congress. It authorized the United States Housing Authority to participate in the provision of 'necessary . . . housing for persons engaged in national defense activities.' A Housing Coordinator, acting under the direction of the Advisory Commission to the Council of National Defense was appointed July 21. The Coordinator became directly responsible to the Advisory Commission for expediting all housing developments in connection with defense activities, particularly where industrial expansion was creating an urgent need for additional housing facilities. A staff was quickly organized to make the most effective use of existing governmental and private facilities. In a first public address on Oct. 5 the Coordinator stated that the need for 200,000 additional family units in 216 communities was already evident and that the funds provided by the Congress enabled various agencies of the Federal Government to construct or aid in the construction of considerably less than half of these.

A bill approved on Sept. 9 appropriated $100,000,000 to provide housing for civilian and enlisted personnel and workers in industries essential to the military and naval national defense programs. This resulted almost immediately in the planning of a program for at least 12,600 units for the Navy and approximately 14,000 for the Army, all units to be used exclusively for low-income civilian and enlisted personnel connected with military and naval establishments. An additional 700 units were to be constructed for shipyard workers under the supervision of the Maritime Commission. These plans envisaged the use of some $95,000,000 of the $100,000,000 appropriation.

The United States Housing Authority, out of its dwindling funds, made available slightly over $31,000,000 to provide homes for 8,133 defense workers, again almost exclusively civilian and enlisted personnel of the Army and Navy. More than $24,000,000 of this sum was covered by loan contracts with local housing authorities, covering 6,408 homes in 21 projects (although later consolidations resulted in an official total of 19), sprawled over the map from Hartford, Conn., to Jacksonville, Fla.; from Newport, R. I., to Seattle, Wash. By the close of 1940, 17 of the 19 projects were under construction and a number complete. USHA had also allocated $7,225,000 to the Army and Navy for 4 projects providing 1,725 new units in localities such as Anchorage, Alaska and the Panama Canal Zone areas, where development by local housing authorities was not possible.

On Oct. 14 the Lanham Act (Public No. 849, 76th Congress) authorized $150,000,000 for the use of the Federal Works Administrator to provide still further housing for defense workers in the three categories already described. This Act permitted the Federal Works Administrator to utilize other Federal agencies and to cooperate with any local public agency. In late November the first projects were assigned in accordance with the Lanham Act: three to the Public Buildings Administration; six to the United States Housing Authority, to be developed on the basis of arrangements made with the local housing authorities; one to the Navy Department; and one to be handled directly by the Administrator's office. Meanwhile the War Department, which preferred to be free to concentrate on construction of a direct military nature, asked the Public Buildings Administrator to undertake the construction of the housing units it needed. By the end of 1940 the Federal Works Agency had announced approval of 18,932 dwelling units in 91 projects (excluding the six Lanham Act projects assigned to the USHA). Twenty-one of these projects, involving an estimated cost of $20,332,000 and providing 6,845 dwelling units, had been placed under construction contract.

The precedent of housing construction by Federal agencies had been established in the World War of 1914-18. Then the Congress was more cautious and slow in understanding the urgent necessity for housing construction. Considerably less argument was heard in 1940. The existence of hundreds of local housing authorities, many of whom had several years' experience in analyzing local housing needs and perfecting procedures for designing, constructing and managing housing units in their communities, gave promise of a sound defense housing program. A significant new element was a clearly marked tendency to keep on stressing long-term problems in the hope that carefully matured plans would make possible an expanded housing program that would be a strong bulwark against post-war depression.

USHA Record.

In the hurly-burly of defense legislation, a bill to provide an additional $800,000,000 for USHA's normal slum-clearance and rehousing program quickly died for lack of favorable action by the House of Representatives. In celebrating its third anniversary on Nov. 1, 1940, however, the USHA could point to a praiseworthy record. On Dec. 1, 1940, 480 USHA-aided projects had been placed under loan and annual contributions contracts. The projects had a total estimated development cost of $747,208,000 and provided for 156,692 dwelling units, in 218 different localities in 37 states and several territories. Of these 480 projects, 330 involving a total estimated development cost of $51,627,000 had been placed under construction or completed; 114 had been opened for occupancy and 32,866 dwelling units in 75 localities of 22 states and territories were occupied.

Most important, construction costs, rentals charged and subsidies required decreased as the USHA and the local housing authorities gained experience during 1940. The average estimated net construction cost per unit had been reduced to $2,585 during the last half of 1940 and was $2,717 for the total contemplated program. The average monthly shelter rent for projects with rental schedules set up and approved was $12.78 per unit and the average family income anticipated for tenants in these projects was $799 a year. During 1940 the average subsidy anticipated was about 20 per cent less than the legal maximum. Though the assumption was rather generally made a few years ago that maximum subsidies should be utilized in all projects to achieve low rents, the principle of varying subsidies in accordance with local conditions was rather widely accepted by the end of 1940.

A modest program of rural housing was initiated by USHA during the year. A careful beginning made by six county housing authorities provided for 1,300 farm homes at a total estimated development cost of $2,805,000. The first of these farm homes was completed and occupied during 1940 and the USHA was sufficiently encouraged to consider further commitments from its remaining funds for rural projects.

Genuine civic improvement was likewise recorded in concrete terms as the construction activities under the USHA-aided program advanced. Not only did the new developments represent community assets, but slum elimination activities in connection with 173 projects accounted for a total of 44,137 unsafe and unsanitary dwellings torn down, compulsorily closed or adequately repaired by Dec. 1, 1940. A sizeable contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem is indicated by USHA's 1940 estimate that 115,000 man-years of direct employment for building trades employees would result from the construction of the projects included in its total program. Additional indirect employment away from project sites was estimated at 170,000 man-years.

The plan of short-term borrowings from private sources to provide funds during the construction period, initiated in 1939 to achieve reductions in debt service, was widely used during 1940. By Dec. 31, net USHA advances to local housing authorities totaled $76,750,536.22, in addition to short-term borrowings of local authorities totaling $246,476,000. Bonds in the total amount of $18,604,000, providing local participation in the capital costs of projects, had likewise been sold to private investors. In accordance with the agreements to purchase long-term local securities contained in local contracts, USHA had accepted long-term bonds of the local housing authorities in the total amount of $99,801,000. Revision of many loan contracts during the latter half of the year, designed to take advantage of a reduction in the Federal going rate of interest, will eventually result in further reductions in debt service.

The number of local housing authorities rose to more than 500 in the 38 states with legislation enabling the creation of such agencies. No new state 'enabling' laws could be passed during the year because the legislatures of the states lacking such laws—Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming—did not convene. There are, however, indications of the passage of housing 'enabling' laws by the legislatures of Iowa, Minnesota, and Utah during 1941. Indicative of the legal base of the decentralized housing program was the fact that, as of the end of 1940, 43 decisions on public housing legislation, all of them favorable, had been handed down by the highest courts of 27 states.

Federal Housing Administration.

Increased activities continued to be reported by the Federal Housing Administration. Total FHA insurance reached a figure of $4,076,264,676 by Dec. 31, 1940, an increase of slightly over $1,000,000,000 during the year. The greatest part of the funds provided by the FHA to approved lending institutions was used for buying, building and modernizing small homes. More than 634,000 premium-paying home mortgages accounted for $2,706,352,739 of the total FHA insurance.

In line with the growing recognition of the importance of homes for lower income families, FHA continued last year to place special emphasis on livable small homes. At the end of eleven months it was reported that at least one-half of the new homes financed by FHA-insured loans were being purchased by families with annual incomes ranging from $1,000 to $2,500.

A slow but steady decline in the average amount of new-home mortgage loans accepted for insurance was also noted. The average at the end of ten months' experience in 1940 was $4,417—as compared with an average of $4,824 in 1935 and $4,638 in 1937. Since February 1938, however, FHA has been authorized to insure loans of up to 90 per cent of property valuation rather than 80 per cent, as formerly. And the higher proportion of valuation must be borne in mind in evaluating the significance of the declining averages. The higher percentage mortgage loans so far have not entailed excessive losses. The experience is not yet conclusive, but a record of 186 acquired after foreclosure, out of nearly 250,000 properties with mortgages exceeding 80 per cent of valuation, seems to represent a favorable credit experience and justify further governmental efforts to facilitate home ownership for families of modest means.

During the fiscal year 1940-41 operations of FHA are to become self-supporting and an additional $9,000,000 transferred to insurance reserves out of current revenues. About two-thirds of operating expenses were paid out of revenues during the preceding fiscal year in addition to some increases to reserves. More than 8,000 lending institutions had FHA-insured mortgages in their portfolios at the end of 1940. Approximately 3,000 institutions were participating in property improvement loans under Title 1 of the National Housing Act.

Farm Security Administration.

While not primarily a housing agency, the Farm Security Administration (FSA) announced in its report for the fiscal year 1939-40 the construction of 2,056 new homes, built at an average cost of $1,313. During the year arrangements were made by FSA to open unused portions of the land in its three greenbelt community projects to further development by private builders. Greenbelt, Maryland, Greenhills, Ohio, and Greendale, Wisconsin, as completed by FSA, contained 2,133 suburban homes in 1940. Under the 1940 plan, new houses in the projects may be sold or rented without income restrictions on the residents. To preserve the character and general plan of the original communities, FSA reserved the right to pass upon proposed plans and specifications for any additional houses.

A notable development was the intensive use of camps as part of the FSA program to provide shelter and sanitary facilities for migrant farm labor families. The problems of migratory labor aroused such serious concern during the year that the House of Representatives adopted a resolution calling for a comprehensive survey. As a result, FSA concentrated its major attack on stopping migration at its source, particularly in Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Missouri and California. A report for the fiscal year 1939-40 indicated that 56 FSA camps, capable of accommodating a total of 13,205 families at any one time, were either complete or under construction in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, California, Arizona, Texas and Florida. Of the 56 camps, 16 provided mobile facilities—tents, power plant, etc.—that can be hauled from place to place by trucks and trailers. All in all, temporary FSA shelters and tent platforms provided accommodations for 11,476 families. Some 1,729 permanent units, inexpensive houses with small garden plots, provided homes for rural low-income families.

Another new development in FSA may be cited as evidence of increasing general concern during 1940 about the relationship between housing and health. Because poor health was observed to be one of the gravest handicaps of low-income farm families, FSA began to develop a medical care program for its rehabilitation borrowers. County medical plans, worked out in close cooperation with state medical associations and local medical societies, were established in 634 counties in 31 states. More than 80,000 families have joined in these plans. Plans were organized in 245 new counties during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1940.

Health Problems.

Within the year much publicity was given to the findings of the National Health Survey. Staff members of the U. S. Public Health Service were assigned to act in an advisory capacity to housing agencies. Municipal health officers began to work closely with local housing authorities, sometimes establishing clinics in new public housing projects. Nutrition advisers, pediatricians, and nurses were detailed for part-time service in the nursery schools in these projects. Professional associations of health officers and nurses gave increasing attention to the relationship between good housing and good health in their national and state conferences. Many American officials and publications called attention to the vast improvement in the health of the English people as indicated by the medical examinations made under the British Military Training Act. The explanation assigned was extensive governmental investment in social services, particularly better housing, during the 1920's and 1930's.

Future Outlook.

The radical changes likely to occur in the housing pattern of most American industrial cities under the impact of the defense program will depend to a considerable extent upon housing data collected in the course of the decennial census during 1940. It is interesting to note that certain trends suspected by experts seemed to be verified by figures released by the Bureau of the Census. Although the growth of population had slowed down to 7 per cent, the number of private households had increased from 29,904,663 to 34,772,673—approximately 16.3 per cent. This trend prevailed even in cities of static or declining population. As the national birthrate declined, the average number of persons per family fell from 4.1 in 1930 to 3.8 in 1940. For the first time in our history the residential units in existence, both in city and country, were counted. The total turned out to be 37,211,463. The 1940 census also indicated that suburban areas were growing faster than the cities adjacent to them, giving point to the warnings of housing officials that rehabilitation rather than further subdividing must be encouraged, lest parasitic suburban growth destroy the parent city.

Although attention was being given to a host of new problems at the close of 1940, progress had been made along more conventional lines: in the understanding of the economics of housing problems, in survey and planning techniques, in house design and construction, in realizing the need for effective enforcement of sanitation and occupancy standards, and in the professionalizing of housing management. The problems of rural housing were still without generally accepted solutions. Construction costs, including both labor and materials, began to rise. Most indexes showed costs only slightly below 1929 levels.

The total construction of new, non-farm housing accommodations for 1940 was estimated at 545,000 dwellings by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U. S. Labor Department. This is the highest figure for a 12-year period and compares with 465,000 units in 1939 and 509,000 in 1929. Building of boom proportions seemed not unlikely for 1941, inevitably carrying with it the temptation to relax housing standards. To a noticeable extent, however, public officials continued to be mindful of the period when the high tide created by defense orders must recede and national energies can be creatively expended in producing a more adequate physical environment. See also ARCHITECTURE and CIVIL ENGINEERING.

1939: Housing Developments

The year 1939 may well be considered one of the most significant in the contemporary social history of the United States. For in that year the slums of the nation began to decrease as the principles of public housing were transformed into the reality of projects.

Results of the USHA.

As a result of the completion of the first 12 decentralized public housing projects, more than 30,000 slum dwellers were offered decent housing at low rents by the end of the year 1939. Of the 5,916 dwelling units in these projects already available for occupancy at that time, 5,463 were tenanted. The projects were constructed with the aid of the United States Housing Authority by housing authorities in Florida, Michigan, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas at a total development cost of $40,711,000. Moreover, local housing authorities throughout the country placed under construction 150 USHA-aided projects providing 54,941 additional dwelling units.

Simultaneously with the construction and completion of public housing projects during the year there began the elimination of the slums which have been the shame of our cities since the turn of the century and longer. As of Dec. 31, 1939, approximately 12,000 substandard structures had been eliminated in 35 of the 155 communities participating in the slum clearance and low-rent housing program. These 12,000 structures were closed to human habitation or made habitable as a result of local programs involving 48 low-rent housing projects. A large additional number of substandard dwellings were being eliminated late in 1939 in connection with the construction on more than 125 low-rent housing projects then under way. Under the terms of the United States Housing Act making Federal loans available, substandard dwellings equivalent to the number of dwellings made possible by USHA aid must be demolished or adequately repaired.

In its efforts to aid the low-rent housing and slum clearance program, the USHA by the end of 1939 had committed $666,808,000 of its funds for the construction of housing projects by 167 local housing authorities — $581,776,000 for loan contracts and the remaining $85,032,000 for earmarkings. Upon completion of the program made possible through these funds 640,000 persons will have been moved from insanitary dwellings to healthful homes; 160,000 low-rent dwelling units will have been built and an equal number of slum dwellings eliminated; a year's work will have been given 300,000 men; $225,000,000 will have been paid in wages to labor on project sites and additional millions of dollars to off-site workers, and $280,000,000 will have been spent in private industry for materials and equipment.

National Legislation.

Efforts to expand the program were initiated in the summer of 1939 when the Senate unanimously passed legislation authorizing an additional $800,000,000 in loans and $45,000,000 in annual grants to local housing authorities. It is estimated that the funds authorized through this legislation would provide 303,000,000 man-hours of labor on project sites, 452,000,000 man-hours in industries supplying materials, and 40,000,000 man-hours of labor for persons engaged in administration, land acquisition, demolition, architecture and engineering. Approval of the legislation awaited further Congressional action early in 1940. (For Steagall National Housing Act, see UNITED STATES: Housing)

Urban and Rural Housing Developments.

In their determination to clear their slums and provide decent homes, 68 communities entered the public housing movement in 1939 through the creation of local housing authorities designed to realize that objective. These new agencies brought the total number of local housing authorities up to 289 — an impressive figure when compared to the 46 housing authorities which existed when the decentralized housing program was launched in November 1937. It is estimated that 100 additional authorities may be created in 1940.

Participation of smaller cities and towns in the public housing program increased rapidly during the year. The number of communities with populations of less than 25,000 rose from 24 in 1938 to 48 in 1939. These 48 communities represented more than 27 per cent of all the cities with USHA commitments. Among the smaller localities were 30 with populations of 10,000 or less; eight of the communities in this group had USHA earmarkings or loan contracts.

Late in the year, efforts to rehouse rural families living in unfit structures were launched by the county housing authorities of more than a dozen states. Impetus was given these efforts through the initiation of projects by four county housing authorities in Indiana, Illinois, Mississippi, and Georgia. Established along lines similar to those of the urban public housing program, the rural program is designed principally for small farm owners, tenant farmers, share-croppers and rural wage workers. Extension of the program is dependent upon adequate funds. Legislation authorizing that $200,000,000 be set aside for loans for rural projects by USHA was overwhelmingly passed by the Senate in 1939, but held over for consideration of the House of Representatives in 1940. The pending legislation makes it possible to provide decent new homes for 100,000 ill-housed farm families at charges within their means and permits the long-term leasing or sale of these homes to the farmers.

State Legislation.

The passage during the year of 25 original or amendatory housing acts by state legislatures indicated a continued determination of the states to improve housing conditions. Through the passage of housing enabling legislation, five states (Arizona, Idaho, Missouri, New Mexico, and Washington) entered the public housing movement and became eligible to participate in the nation's public housing program. With this action the number of states with housing enabling legislation increased to 38. It is expected that most of the remaining 10 states will consider enabling bills at their 1940 and 1941 legislative sessions. Perfecting amendments designed to facilitate housing action were enacted in the states of Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and in Puerto Rico and the Territory of Hawaii.

The constitutional validity of public housing action was upheld by the courts of last resort through decisions rendered in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

Successful Reduction of Costs.

Since in the final analysis the success of the public housing program depends upon whether it can provide decent homes for low income families at rents they can afford to pay, it is significant to note that the rents in the projects opened in 1939 were below the average rent of slum dwellings in the communities in which these projects were located.

Whereas in 1938 estimates indicated that the rents would be low, in 1939 facts proved that they were even lower than had been anticipated. The average monthly shelter rent actually fixed in 1939 in connection with 17 projects were, on the average, 21 per cent lower than the rents for these projects estimated in 1938. Whereas, for example, the 1938 estimate for the Sunset Homes Project in Augusta, Ga., was $13.25 a dwelling per month, the average actual rent in 1939 was $8.99 per month. In the case of the Red Hook project in New York City, the comparable figures were $20.50 in 1938 and $16.64 in 1939.

Costs of every phase of public housing were continually clipped during the year. The over-all cost — i.e., the cost of land, dwelling, and non-dwelling facilities was reduced considerably, reaching as low as $2,754 per dwelling unit in Miami. The average over-all cost was $519 less than the average over-all cost of dwelling units in private large scale rental projects. These low figures are especially significant in view of the fact that the public housing projects are designed to last at least 60 years and are built by workers paid prevailing wages.

In keeping down dwelling facilities costs the local housing authorities did more than merely comply with the limitations stipulated by the United States Housing Act. In cities under 500,000 population, the average dwelling facilities cost per dwelling unit was $667 less than the $4,000 statutory maximum, and the average dwelling facilities cost per room was $199 less than the $1,000 statutory maximum. In the larger cities, the average dwelling facilities cost per dwelling unit was $1,359 less than the $5,000 statutory maximum, and the average dwelling facilities cost per room was $373 less than the $1,250 statutory maximum.

The estimated net land cost (including the cost of slum buildings to be torn down) for the 346 USHA projects covered by loan contracts as of Dec. 31, 1939, averaged 29 cents per square foot. In a number of cases the costs were as low as 10 and 15 cents. In connection with the 163 projects for which main construction awards had been approved, the land costs (excluding the cost of slum buildings to be torn down but including the cost of acquisition and overhead) were estimated to average $362 per dwelling unit. Considering that 52 per cent of the projects are to be located on costly slum sites rather than on vacant land, these figures are believed to be reasonably low.

The average net construction cost per dwelling under construction by December 1939 was $2,821; the average amount shown by building permits for private homes built recently in the same localities was $3,448 per dwelling unit. In a number of cases the average net construction cost per unit of USHA projects was as low as $2,000 and in several cases even lower. The average net construction cost per dwelling unit was $627 less than the building permit figures for private residential construction of all types.

New Method of Financing.

A new plan set in operation in September made it possible for the local housing authorities to obtain funds through the construction period at a small fraction of the rate which USHA is required to charge. Under this new plan, requisitions for advances, after being approved by USHA, were forwarded to the Federal Reserve Bank of the district in which the authority is located with the authorization to pay to the authority the amount of the loan advance on a specific date. These commitments permitted the housing authorities to issue short-term notes to bidders offering the lowest rate of interest. The first offering of the notes was made on Nov. 8 by eleven housing authorities. Despite the European war situation, the $50,000,000 worth of notes offered by these authorities were sold in a few days at an interest rate of six-tenths of one per cent plus a slight premium which reduced the actual interest cost to the local authorities to approximately less than six-tenths of one per cent. The use of this plan of short-term borrowing from private sources during the construction period is believed to make possible a savings in total project development costs of at least 2 per cent. Moreover, this reduction of debt service has meant a reduction in the amount of annual contributions necessary to achieve low rents.

FHA Program.

As a direct result of the efforts of the Federal Housing Administration to encourage the flow of private capital into the construction of homes for families with enough income to have credit standing, 153,496 dwelling units were constructed during 1939. In addition, 512,849 old properties were improved under the modernization program of the FHA.

The 153,496 new dwellings constructed under the FHA program during the year compared with 118,601 in 1938, an increase of 30 per cent. Total home-financing insurance written by the agency amounted to $954,000,000 as compared with $693,500,000 during 1938, an increase of 37.5 per cent. Small home premium-paying mortgages, including those insured on properties already constructed, numbered 153,700 valued at $669,400,000, as compared with 109,279 valued at $473,246,124 in 1938, an increase of 42 per cent. Notes insured under the FHA modernization program numbered 512,849 and totaled $233,100,000, as compared with 382,325 totaling $172,750,000 in 1938, an increase of 35 per cent. It should be noted, however, that the program was in effect in 1938 only 10 months instead of the entire year. On the other hand, this type of financing during the last half of 1939 for the first time has been on a premium-paying basis, lending institutions being required to pay a fee for FHA insurance. Loans closed on large-scale rental projects amounted to $51,436,625 in 1939, as compared with $47,493,150 in 1938, an increase of 8 per cent.

Increase in Construction.

During the first eleven months of 1939, according to building permit data of almost all cities with populations of 1,000 or more, 286,154 dwelling units were constructed as compared to 215,953 units during the same months of 1938 — an increase of 32.5 per cent. The value of the 1939 units, $1,042,314,511, was 32.6 per cent higher than $786,035,755 valuation for 1938. Approximately 59 per cent of the 1939 units were in one-family dwellings, 4.4 per cent in two-family dwellings, and 36.6 per cent in apartment houses. These figures cover almost all urban residential construction, including not only regular private construction but also private construction encouraged by the Federal Housing Administration and local government construction aided by the United States Housing Authority.

During the fiscal year 1938-39, private contractors built 2,784 low-cost farm homes for the Farm Security Administration. In all, more than 20,000 rural families at the end of 1939 were enjoying better homes as result of this agency's construction and repair activities in recent years.

Experiments in Rural and Suburban Housing.

The first important Federal efforts in the low-income rural housing field started in 1934 when the Federal Government began to set up homestead projects or resettlement communities to provide a new start for farmers, miners and lumbermen in stranded areas. Since then, more than 150 rural communities have been developed. In the construction of these communities a great many experiments were tried out. The Farm Security Administration, and its predecessor agencies, built houses of conventional frame construction; houses of steel, houses of mud, known as rammed earth buildings; adobe houses; and even, more recently, a cotton house.

Most of these more unusual types of houses were built in small numbers, purely as experiments. They are all now being lived in. But no final appraisal of their value will be possible until their performance under actual living conditions has been studied over a period of years. Considerable experience in house construction was obtained in the building of three suburban projects, known as the 'greenbelt' towns. These three towns are located near Washington, D. C., Milwaukee, Wis., and Cincinnati, O. Housing for 2,129 families is provided in these communities, which combine many of the advantages of rural and urban life. In each of these towns multiple dwellings, duplexes, and single houses were built on large tracts of land, surrounded by encircling belts of parks and gardens. They were constructed for low-income city workers and built by relief labor.

In the summer of 1939 the newly created Division of Industrial Economics of the United States Department of Commerce was assigned to draw up a plan to induce private capital to enter the 'no-man's land' of residential construction and to build homes for families with annual incomes averaging between $1,200 and $2,000. Such a plan was considered necessary because practically all private construction is designed for families earning over $1,750 annually and the public housing program is intended for families with annual incomes averaging below $1,200 — thus leaving untouched the housing needs of the $1,200 to $1,750 income group.

Housing Census.

As a result of legislation introduced by Senator Robert F. Wagner and enacted in the waning hours of the second session of the 76th Congress, census enumerators of the Department of Commerce will in 1940 count houses as well as noses in their regular decennial population checkup. For the first time in history every house in the United States will be counted and classified according to type, facilities, age, state of repair, number of occupants, value, rental and mortgages status. The resultant data are expected to provide the first nation-wide information this country has had to guide both public and private housing activity.

Effect of the European War.

With the outbreak of war in September, the direct and indirect influences upon housing construction activity in the United States became a matter of deepest concern to private enterprise as well as to Government. The general consensus of opinion was perhaps most aptly expressed by Harold S. Buttenheim, editor of The American City and president of the Citizens' Housing Council of New York City, when he stated: 'Whatever may be the present dangers to the United States from abroad, the major peril at home is the fertile soil of our city slums for the propagation of ideas hostile to our free institutions. And our most burdensome public costs are those resulting from idle man-power, idle machinery, and idle money. The result we can least afford is that of failing to build and maintain the virile citizenship and the good life that our abundant resources make possible. . . . The movement for better housing and neighborhood conditions must go forward.' See also ARCHITECTURE: Apartments and Housing.