View report page

90
The cause of this has been that a certain number of persons
displaced, either by clearances or the substitution of business
premises for dwelling-houses, required to be in or near the same
locality where they resided previously, on account of their work.
It will be found on careful examination that this number is not so
large as many persons imagine, yet it must always be the case that
there are some in this position. From this follows the necessity for
re-housing, as far as possible on or near the site of clearance. Further,
such re-housing should, if possible, be at a rental within the means
of those who are displaced. It is the infringement of this latter
principle which has led in the past to the erection of dwelling houses
which, however excellent in structure and maintenance, have not
housed the displaced, because the rent was too high. The new
buildings have provided for wealthier tenants, who are either thus
drawn into already congested districts, or induced to remain in
Central London instead of moving out. The displaced population
not being able to afford the higher rents crowd into the old houses
in the neighbourhood. It may, however, be said that the better
accommodation which is provided is occupied by persons, who
themselves vacate premises which in turn may be occupied by
persons displaced by a scheme. Broadly speaking, there is in
such cases a general raising of the standard in which all share.
But it may be accepted as a right principle that the whole case for
re-housing on a large scale in an insanitary district disappears if that
portion of the displaced population who must remain on account
of their livelihood is not accommodated.
It is idle to ignore the fact that Central London inevitably tends
to become like the City—namely, a place for business development
and commercial premises. It is an inevitable change, which it is
in the main impossible to prevent. Bather is it desirable to meet
the change, and recognise it as an increasing factor in the future.
Insanitary areas or unhealthy dwellings must be cleared away. On
that point there is no difference of opinion. But such clearances in
Finsbury and the provision of new dwelling-houses on the same site
ought to be considered as separate questions. That is to say, the former
ought not to be neglected because of the difficulties surrounding the