View report page

63
It will be unnecessary to enter into a description of what takes place when new
buildings are erected upon an Area, as it is well known that only a very small
percentage of the persons displaced ever enter the new buildings, and of those that
do enter still fewer remain long, as the class that inhabit Insanitary Areas are
those that resent restraint most, and are the least inclined to adapt themselves to
orderly and sanitary conditions.
If, as suggested, new buildings are erected outside of Ward 8, and at some
distance from the condemned Areas, it may safely be said that the percentage of
persons displaced who will enter the new buildings will further decrease until it
reaches a vanishing point, and may be disregarded.
If, therefore, the object is merely to provide new buildings, whether the persons
displaced from the Area enter them or not, it does not matter so much where
the buildings are situated, and as St. Pancras contains more one and two-roomed
dwellings than any other District in the Metropolis, and may be said to be one of
the most crowded with houses, the causes and reasons are all present for erecting
the buildings at some distance, access thereto being facilitated. But it will then
be a question of whether public or private enterprise should provide such
buildings.
In carrying out the schemes one Area should be demolished and rebuilt upon
before the other Area would be dealt with, this would reduce the immediate displacement
and increase the facilities for rehousing.
The only reasonable conclusion that can be come to with regard to rehousing
after demolition is, that it should be made incumbent upon an Authority to utilize
the space to the best advantage, and to the fullest extent permitted by the London
Building Act, with regard to working-class houses.
On the 4th December last, the Local Government Board replied, saying that the
Vestry had misunderstood the Board, that they were not satisfied that the
additional sites mentioned by them are unsuitable, and that they found nothing
to lead them to modify their views, which were that they must require the Vestry
to submit proposals for the rehousing of a greater number of persons than the
number for which the present schemes provide.
The question of the number to be rehoused should be settled first, as it is
impossible to consider other points until this is fixed.
Your Vestry have not asked that no accommodation should be provided, but have
endeavoured to provide the maximum amount of accommodation under the circumstances
of (a) diminished square space for construction due to the widening of
thoroughfares, and (b) increased cubic space per head estimated for new dwellings,
leading to the conclusion that under these improved conditions accommodation for
a greater proportion of the number of persons displaced could not be provided for
except by adopting a lower standard of cubic space per head.
The schemes not only provide for the demolition of old houses and the creation
of new, but also embrace street improvements, considerable allowance for which
must be made in estimating; the square space available, and cubic dwelling space
to be provided, for if the schemes were carried out as street improvements no
rehousing would be required; but naturally every effort would be made to utilize
the space to the best advantage, and to the fullest extent permitted bv the London
Building Act provisions with regard to dwellings for the working class.