it is worth while to re-erect a good type of house where the original building is falling into decay, is, no doubt, a contributory cause. But probably the main reason is that the schemes of the London County Council profess to be economically sound. As a consequence, a far higher rate of rent has to be charged if the cost of re-housing is to be met without recourse to the rates, and this rent the original dweller is not in a position to pay. It cannot be said that London has yet solved its problem, but the London County Council is, nevertheless, pursuing a consistent policy in dealing with those special problems, of the solution of which it is no doubt the best judge. It has attacked the difficulty in two more or less distinct methods. So far as the central slums are concerned, in the worst area it is undoubtedly re-housing on that area a lesser number of workers of a superior status to the original slum dwellers. This change of domicile has naturally left vacant in the neighbourhood a large number of houses which, if not all that can be desired, are at least superior to the original slum houses destroyed. This is known as a policy of levelling up, and obviously leaves the district affected with the general improvement in the sum total of these housing conditions. The second method is with the carrying out of voluntary schemes under Part III on the outskirts of the metropolis, and here the Council has been of late years increasingly and successfully active. Better transport facilities now enable the worker to live at a greater distance from his factory or workshop, and the Council has consequently been able to carry out eight large building schemes. The Metropolitan Board of Works-which preceded the London County Council as the authority controlling London outside the boundaries of the City Corporation-expended £1,318,890 of public money on sixteen slum clearance schemes and left to the London County Council for completion six other schemes involving an expenditure of £276,823-in all £1,595,713. This was, however, the net cost-for the gross cost of the land and property was £1,946,821. There was a recoupment by sale or lease of the land equal to £351,108, making the net cost £1,595,713 as stated above.1 As these schemes only involve fifty-six acres of land in all, the cost to 1 London County Council, Housing of the Working Classes in London, pp. 23 and 146. the community of bad planning may be regarded as upwards of £30,000 an acre. It is true that the primary reason for the clearance was the need for sweeping away rookeries and worn out shells of houses of the vilest description, and it is also true that owing to ineffective housing legislation great sums were paid for worthless property. But the fact remains that the areas dealt with by local authorities under clearance schemes are almost without exception such badly planned areas that only action of the "root and branch" kind is found to be effective. The Boundary Street Scheme.-Fifteen acres of slums were cleared at a cost of £282,655 between the years 1893 and 1897; affecting 5,719 inhabitants, who were thereby temporarily displaced. Of this population no less than 2,118 lived in 752 singleroomed tenements, and the death rate of this terribly insanitary area was over forty per 1,000, in contrast to about eighteen per 1,000 for London generally! In 1900 the new buildings, with streets laid out on radial lines, were opened by the Prince of Wales, and in place of the slums there were found well-planned roads, 50 ft. in width, planted with trees, leading to an open space, and twenty-three blocks of tenements of one to six rooms, capable of accommodating 5,524 persons (or only 195 less than the number displaced, and 824 more than the scheme required), so constructed as to secure the maximum light and air space with the minimum of discomfort. There are also baths, a laundry, and one or two club-rooms on the premises; the average weekly rent per room before the war was 2s. 10d. The general death rate and the infant mortality have been reduced by about 50 per cent. The Tabard Street (Southwark) Scheme.-This slum area of 17 acres contained 649 houses, with a population of 4,552 persons. The death rate for a period of four years was 36-8 per 1,000. The character of the houses may be gathered from the fact that of thirty-two streets no fewer than thirteen were culs de sac. The houses were completely worn out: the walls of many of the groundfloor rooms were damp: the height of some rooms varied from 6 to 7 ft.; and the ground floor was frequently below the street level. The epidemic disease rate was 6.07 per 1,000 over a period of four years, as compared with 1.71 for all London. The estimated gross cost of acquisition was £366,000. As there were 649 houses the average cost for houses and land was more than £563, and the price to be Slum Clearance paid by the community for the privilege of destroying houses which apart from the land they stand on were worthless if any real standard of hygiene be applied, works out at more than £100 per head for each man, woman, and child throughout the area. The expenditure on the clearance of this South London area is only a small item compared to the total sum expended by local authorities in slum clearance throughout Great Britain. Now, though there can be no question that these schemes have certainly benefited the areas which they have affected-the reduction of the death rate in the case of the Bethnal Disadvantages of Green area is sufficient proof of this yet there Schemes. are many arguments which may be used against this somewhat obvious remedy of our housing evils. The first of these objections is the almost prohibitive costof large improvement schemes of this sort. Only such a large body as the London County Council could undertake successfully a scheme like that of the Boundary Street area, involving enormous expense owing to the huge price paid for the land, compensation to the slum owners, and high working expenses. About £32,000 per acre had been paid on an average for the land alone. The clearing of the Bethnal Green area cost considerably more than a quarter of a million. This latter sum will, of course, be gradually repaid by the rents, but the former was charged to the rates. Such enormous cost in most cases precludes any clearance of large slum areas, and, even when such clearances are decided upon, causes much discussion, dispute and consequent delay. Strictly speaking, the schemes are not economic, since in nearly every case the value of the land on which the new dwellings are built has been written down to what is called "housing value," i.e., the price which it might be expected to fetch if sold subject to the condition that it could only be used for working-class dwellings. This is always very much less (amounting to a reduction of 50 per cent. in some cases) than the full or commercial value at which it was acquired under the scheme; hence there is invariably a heavy loss to the ratepayer. Another objection to the clearance of slum areas is that, though the areas cleared are immensely improved, the general result is the driving of slum dwellers into other quarters of the same town and the possible creation of a new slum. It is a wellknown fact that when slums have been replaced by good, healthy L dwellings the new population is quite different from that which formerly inhabited the area. In the case of the Boundary Street clearance it was estimated that only 5 per cent. of the original tenants returned to occupy the new quarters supplied. One reason for this was that such very poor people could not afford to pay the high rents which the new building scheme inevitably entailed. It is also true to some extent that such tenants do not really desire better accommodation; they are, and have always been, slum dwellers, and prefer to remain so. As one report of an investigator in Mr. Charles Booth's work says, "They don't want such (i.e., new) accommodation, and would not take it if offered, and, if they did, it would only end in the new buildings being spoiled." Thus the legal provisions which exist for re-housing tenants displaced by building schemes (especially in connection with railway extension, etc.), are largely ineffective. Most of the slum dwellers very much dislike having their dwellings, miserably unhealthy and overcrowded as they may be, interfered with; and this is also a serious bar to rebuilding schemes. Still, it must be remembered after this objection has been given its full force, that whatever, in such schemes, benefits any one section of the working-classes, is likely to benefit indirectly all other grades. Yet another objection to such clearances is the high value which they indirectly set upon other insanitary areas. As we have seen, most of the displaced slum dwellers remove to other slums, thus forcing the already too high rents up to a higher figure still. These fresh accessions to already over-crowded districts increase the value of this property to the owners, and the purchase price (especially the compensation price, in the case of compulsory purchase) rises in proportion. This method of dealing with slums has encouraged the development of a new industry, viz., the buying up of property in insanitary areas in order to reap a rich harvest of compensation from the municipal pocket. The truth is that the slum dwelling is a malignant social disease, and its poisonous roots lie deeper in the body politic than is generally recognized. We cannot cure this disease by merely removing some of its deadly plague spots. The cure must be altogether more comprehensive, wider in scope, and broader in its application. 1 Life and Labour of the People in London. Final Vol., p. 175. CHAPTER VII RECONSTRUCTION SCHEMES PART II of the 1890 Act has been considerably modified and improved by the Housing and Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909. Under it, as amended, local authorities are required Reconstruction (a) To deal with dwellings unfit for habitation. They must from time to time make inspections through their medical officer of health, or other officer, to ascertain what dwelling-houses are in a state so dangerous or injurious to health as to be unfit for human habitation. Where a medical officer of health, or other officer of the local authority, finds it his duty to make a representation to the Council, and it appears to the Council that the representation is correct, they must (not may) issue a closing order. If the dwelling-house thus made the subject of a closing order is rendered fit for habitation, the order may be determined; if it cannot be, or is not made fit, the local authority must order its demolition, if its continuance is a nuisance, or dangerous, or injurious to the health of the public or the inhabitants of neighbouring houses. (b) To deal with obstructive buildings. Often buildings which are structurally quite satisfactory are built so closely together, or planned in such a way, as to render others unfit. The medical officer is to make a representation to the local authority when he considers that a building, owing to its proximity to, or contact with, other buildings, renders the latter unfit for habitation. If 'the local authority is satisfied that the building is obstructive, it can acquire the land and building, and destroy the latter, paying compensation to the owner. (c) To enforce a condition implied in the letting of all dwellinghouses under a certain rental (varying in accordance with the population of the town or district), that the dwelling-house is, at the commencement of the holding, in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation, and, in contracts made subsequently to the passing of the Act of 1909, shall be so kept by the landlord during the tenancy, |