Page:Industrial Housing.djvu/47

 allowed, since that would have meant increased cost and higher rentals. Such relentless "boiling out" of wasted volume is imperative in housing design. A long, tedious process it is, and its great value can be demonstrated only by a thorough statistical analysis comparing the Bayonne plan with that used by the average speculator. It should be understood that every cubic foot of volume cut out of a building means a saving of 30 cents or more in construction cost, as well as an additional saving thereafter of 2½ to 3 cents each year in carrying charges and in upkeep.

A discussion of the type of housing chosen for Bayonne should include a comparison of its economy with that of the other types of very small houses. This comparison is desirable because there is a school of housing experts in the United States and England which is fixed in its opposition to the apartment, preferring the single-family and row housing types or their variations. Recently, however, this school has begun to turn away from the single-family house as a result of the discovery that it is too expensive in land and in municipal utilities. The report of the New York State Commission of Housing and Regional Planning for 1925 is explicit on this point. It cites the experience of the United States Housing Corporation (p. 57) to the effect that the average cost of a lot of 4,200 sq. ft. in housing built for 21,000 wage-earners' families during the World War just about equalled the cost of a room in the house itself. The New York report refers to the little houses which are now being built on unpaved streets in the outskirts of New York cities, and adds, (p. 60): "It is doubtful if these areas, as free standing single-family neighborhoods, can ever be served with modern utilities unless they are subsidized in part from the general taxes paid by the more intensively used sections." In other words, the single-family house, because of its higher cost in land and public utilities and also because of its greater construction cost, is becoming uneconomic for the average wage-earner in most localities.

The single-family house having proved impracticable, the opponents of the apartment house are now pinning their faith on the row house, generally of the Philadelphia type. They assert that the row house is more economical of land and public