View report page

60
scarcely touched the fringe of this the most difficult of sanitary problems; the principal result of
the operations of those bodies having been the eviction of the indigent poor by the pulling down of
their wretched abodes to provide space for the building of more or less elaborate " Dwellings,"
let at rents beyond the means of the previous inhabitants. The most ambitious of the schemes
carried out so far by the Council—"The Boundary Street Scheme"—was referred to, on completion,
in the third monthly report (March 28th, page 35). At the time of its inception in 1890,
in the eleventh monthly report (Nov. 3rd, page 118), I gave some account of this scheme, stating
that it dealt with an area partly in Shoreditch, but mainly in Bethnal Green, having originated in an
"official representation" of the slum as an " unhealthy area" by the medical officer of health of
the latter district. The annual rate of mortality in the streets dealt with in the four years, 1886—9,
had been 4.0 per 1,000; the zymotic death rate 8.6 per 1,000; the rate of infantile mortality being
also high. The area—15 acres in extent—comprised 20 streets, ranging in width from 20 to 28 feet.
There were also many small courts of a bad class. The houses were 730 in number, of which 652
were occupied, wholly or partly, by persons of the working classes. The population, exclusive of
persons in two registered lodging houses, was 5,566 (= 373 per acre); viz., 3,370 adults and 2,196
children, who were in occupation of 2,545 rooms. Including those in the common lodginghouses,
the number of persons of the labouring classes displaced was 5,719; comprised in about
860 families. The estimated nett cost of the scheme was £300,000, of which about one-eighth part,
it was stated, would fall on the City, one-sixteenth part on Kensington, and one-eightieth part on
the parish mainly benefited.
The scheme, carried to completion last year, was described in a pamphlet prepared by the
Housing Committee of the County Council, prior to the opening ceremony by H.R.H. the Prince
of Wales, to the following effect: The area is approached by an avenue 60 feet wide, leading
direct from Shoreditch High-street to a central open space; streets 50 feet wide, planted with
trees, radiate from this centre to the limits of the area, these streets being connected with the
streets bounding the area by branch streets 40 feet wide, whilst the four streets bounding the
area have been widened to 40 feet. Upon the building sites created, blocks of dwellings are
so arranged that the living-room of every tenement receives the benefit of sunlight at some time
during the day. Twenty-three blocks of dwellings provide accommodation for 5,380 persons, in
flats—15 of one room, 533 of two rooms, 388 of three rooms, 98 of four rooms, 7 of five rooms,
and 3 of six rooms—in all 925 tenements, in lieu of the 730 houses formerly existing. A central
laundry was provided (which, however, is little used); the laundry building containing baths
and two good-sized club-rooms. Baths, with hot and cold supply of water, are provided in
one of the blocks of buildings. Between the various blocks of buildings there are large paved
yards which form playgrounds for the children, and one of these is laid out as an ornamental
garden. There is a central open space, circular in shape, formed in terraces, and provided with
seats, shrubs being planted on its slopes. There are 77 workshops, and 18 shops for the use of
the occupants of the buildings; a central workshop was also fitted for the execution of works of
repairs on the estate. The aim of the Council was that the dwellings, while let at rents not
exceeding those ruling in the neighbourhood, should be so designed as to be self-supporting.
The rents are sufficient to pay all out-goings, including interest on the capital expended on
land (at its value for housing purposes, £63,010), and buildings, and to provide a sinking fund
for the repayment of the capital within a period of sixty years.
Obviously, a great local improvement has been effected, and comfortable homes provided
for nearly as many persons as were evicted. But none of these unfortunates are to be found
amongst the occupants of the flats. What has become of them? One asks in vain. But it
may safely be assumed that many have gone to increase overcrowding in other already overcrowded
slums. It is always so. The late Metropolitan Board of Works carried out some 22
schemes of a similar sort; 59 acres of land were acquired and cleared, on which accommodation
was provided for upwards of 38,000 persons. The amount expended exceeded a million and a
half sterling (about £40 per head), this amount being irrespective of the outlay on model
dwellings erected on some of the cleared sites by bodies like the Peabody Trustees. The Board,
after taking steps for giving effect to eight additional schemes, stayed proceedings on account
of the tremendous cost to the ratepayers that would have been involved in carrying them into
effect. It was alleged that a third part of the cost of acquiring sites was due to excessive
valuation of property so bad that demolition was the only possible remedy for the evils to which
it gave occasion.
When referring to the Boundary-street scheme in 1890, I said it was to be feared that
the cost would be even greater, relatively, than that of the aggregate of schemes carried through
by the Metropolitan Board. It now appears that the cost of purchasing the slum properties,
including the land, was £333,000, or about £20 per head of the displaced population (5,566).
The families turned out were 860; the expenditure on properties and land was therefore equal to
£387 per household. For a smaller outlay, as I remarked in 1890, "freehold cottages and
gardens might be provided, a little way out of London, and handed over, free of cost, to the
dispossessed people, whose travelling expenses to and fro would amount to less than they now
pay in rent for the dens in which they rot, and will have to pay for the
rent of rooms in the new 'Dwellings' — should they ever set foot therein." But,
as already said, the old tenants do not return. The scheme is admirable in