 Page 2
Senator RIBICOFF. I want to thank you very much. I think this was a very valuable statement. Your entire statement will go into the record as read. (The statement referred to follows:)
STATEMENT OF LEON N. WEINER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is Leon N. Weiner. I am a home builder from the city of Wilmington, Delaware. I appear here this morning as President of the National Association of Home Builders. With me today are Dr. Nathaniel H. Rogg, Executive Vice President of our Association, and Herbert S. Colton, General Counsel. We also have available Joseph B. McGrath, Staff Vice President and Legislative Counsel, M. Ray Niblack, Staff Vice President and National Housing Center Director, and our economist, Dr. Michael Sumichrast. I wish to express to you our appreciation for this opportunity to testify in your hearings on the relationship of the home building industry to the Federal role in urban affairs.
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS
For an understanding of the changing character of the home building industry, an industry which has changed more in the past 20 years than in the previous 50, let me briefly tell you about our trade association. It is a trade association that is barely 25 years old. It has grown from a one-man, one-office operation to a staff of over 150, headquartered in Washington at the National Housing Center at 1625 L Street, N.W. In addition, in nearby Rockville, Maryland, we have a Construction Research Laboratory which is staffed by some 20 engineers and other personnel. In the past 10 years, about 15 million housing units have been built in the United States. In the past 20 years, a total of about 32 million units have been constructed. We estimate that our membership, which currently is at a level of slightly over 45,000 builders and associates, accounted for the construction of about 70 percent of that housing. And, in these figures, I must stress that we encompass the builders of apartments as well as single family houses. Our staff includes professionals not only in construction technology, but in land planning, in design, in economics, in zoning, in codes, in taxes, in the ebb and flow of the market place--and in paramount problem of our times—the environment of man and how to better it. I am here primarily to discuss the housing of our people, some of the history and some of the problems and prospects as we look ahead. There are many myths and many misconceptions about these matters. Very large population growth is anticipated in the next twenty years. Most of the studies clearly indicate that most of this population growth will have to be accommodated in structures built on land not now used for housing. In short, it will be suburban rather than central city. From 1950 to 1960, according to the Bureau of the Census, there was a 24,000,000 increase in metropolitan population. Over 95 percent of this increase took place in the suburban areas beyond the city limits. Between 1960 and 1980 it is expected that 80 percent of the total increase in population will again take place in suburban areas rather than central cities. This emphasizes a very serious aspect of the problem. While we must, of course, be concerned with the central cores of our cities and the need for rebuilding them so that they are fit places to live, we must also be concerned with the immense problem of housing the great masses of our people in the years ahead in areas outside the central cores. Production and the cost of new housing in the United States, of course, is relevant to the current problem of the central cities and to future urban growth. The home building industry, as it is now constituted and as it is likely to expand, is an integral factor in planning that future. Page 3
environment with desirable facilities and open green space. It is to the everlasting credit of the communities and their farsighted planning and zoning boards that this has been allowed to happen. The obverse is also applicable. The impact of increased volume on land will be less a matter of technology than a matter of gaining the understanding and agreement of planning and zoning boards to allow higher overall densities while still providing desirable living environments. It is a sad, but true, fact that all too many communities when zoning vacant residential land, preclude the construction of for-sale housing for middle or lower income families either on purpose or accidentally. Good housing and environment can be built on much less land per dwelling unit than is required by many zoning jurisdictions. We have the knowledge, at least partially, to help offset rising land costs—the real problem is, “What actions need we take as a Nation to allow the knowledge to be applied ?". Land development costs have probably risen as rapidly as land prices. Technology can have an impact on reducing land development costs. The largest factors, however, in reducing land development costs would be the acceptance by planning and zoning boards of higher densities and planned unit developments. While some better methods are known for lowering land development costs, all too frequently they are not allowed. In part, this is a question of what improvements are required for land development, i.e., type of drainage, sidewalks, curbs, etc., and, in part, a question of research to establish the needed level of standard. i.e., street widths, pavement thicknesses, etc., and research to develop new and more efficient methods. Thus, technology can be expected to have an impact on land and its development that will tend to lower unit land costs, in terms of constant dollars and constant land prices, providing the industry is allowed to use what it now knows and what will be learned in the future. No doubt this will be disguished by rising prices. More research is needed on more efficient land utilization, including sociological studies in relation to the living environment. However, acceptance of existing advantageous methods of land use and development could probably have a far greater impact on land in the decade ahead than research to devise new methods of land use and development. More such research probably will be necessary, though, just to document the facts so the industry will be allowed to use what is now known. PRODUCTS AND MATERIALS In previous years, as the building industry's rate of production approached one and a half million dwelling units per year, there were materials shortages. Whether this will happen when production exceeds two million units probably depends more on our foresight, ability and courage to invest in production and raw materials facilities than on the availability of natural resources. This subject deserves careful research and study. I will not hazard predictions about the presence or absence of shortages, but if production facilities are not increased, we may expect shortages to develop in some materials and products long before we reach two million dwelling units per year. In the past, shortages of boxcars and other transportation facilities in times of high housing production have hampered the flow of building materials. Research on our capacity to produce the materials and products should include studies of the resources to transport them to the site. As currently organized, the distribution system for materials may or may not be adequate to absorb a 35 or 40 percent increase from the previous all-time high in production. This subject, too, merits study. More efficient methods of producing building materials are constantly being developed. Techonolgy may be expected to continue to contribute to the more efficient production of building products and materials, but at a considerably higher capital investment in production equipment per unit of product produced. Technology can be expected to reduce the (constant size) per dwelling unit demand for materials four ways: First, by improvement in the performance of products and by the development of more multiple-function products; second, by development and application of more scientific principles of materials use, such as cost-effective engineering design and better architectural planning; third, by determination, through research, of more data on the performance of dwelling structures as a whole; and fourth, by the development of more efficient materials use methods through industrial engineering research at the site. On the other hand, the demand for more space per dwelling unit, more garages, carports, patios, fencing and supplementary structures will tend to increase materials demand. Page 4
Frankly, I foresee no major breakthroughs in materials, products, systems or costs in the next decade. The concept of breakthroughs—say, 50 percent price reductions are more myth and fancy than fact, anyway. Seventy-five to 80 percent of the house price consists of land and direct costs for labor and materials. Direct labor and materials costs alone account for about 55-60 percent of total price, so the only way to cut costs in half is to not build the house. All "other" costs—financing, sales, indirect and overhead costs and profitaccount for the remaining 20-25 percent of the price. While all costs are important, it makes sense to tackle the big ticket items first. In addition, close study will reveal that these "other" costs are relatively fixed by forces mostly beyond the control of the industry. However through researchand if we are allowed to use the results—there is reason to believe we can do something about direct construction costs. Land costs will be discussed later. Materials costs are made up of two parts—their price and the amount used, wasted and scrapped. It is unlikely that prices will decline for obvious reasons. Therefore, the more efficient use of materials is the only way to reduce their in-place costs. To do this requires considerably more research both in the laboratory and at the site. Laboratory research will be necessary to determine what performance is needed and how it can be achieved. Industrial engineering research at the site will be needed to determine how to use the materials most efficiently. Labor costs consist of the price per hour and productivity. It is hard to imagine any one getting elected on a platform that advocates lower wage rates. Opportunities to reduce labor costs then become a matter of more efficient utilization of labor to improve productivity-working smarter, not harder. This is mostly a function of management to provide the work plan, the supervision, schedules, methods, materials and the tools and equipment to allow the highest productivity. Application of the results of industrial and production engineering research at the job site is the known way to improve productivity without impos ing an edict to work harder. Will we have a problem of rising direct construction costs? Will materials prices and labor rates trend upward? The inescapable answer seems to be “Yes”. We will have then an increasing problem in trying to build better value and lower cost housing. The primary solution is research to develop more efficient utilization of materials and manpower and to seek systems and knowledge that will show how to accomplish this. The question is, “Should we establish as a National Housing Goal the cost reduction and value improvement of housing and the pursuit of the research necessary to achieve it?" Problem No. 2: Development of a basic science of building and documentation The sub-panel on housing of the President's Panel on Civilian Technology states “that the building industry has the absence of a scientific tradition, scientific literature or a recognized profession in housing technology". Compared to medicine, physics or chemistry, this statement has some relevance. Although it appears doubtful, in view of the increasing need for professional specialization, that a housing technologist profession would emerge. We do have an increasing body of scientific knowledge, literature and data in the technological field. It is increasing, but not by leaps and bounds, and scientific facts are being obtained to counteract the myriads of opinions. It is fundamental to innovation, progress, growth, improvement in productivity and improvement in value of any product to develop a body of scientific knowledge and to have it documented and available for practical use and application. This is as true for housing as in other fields. Basically, this is a matter of funding by the entire industry of the research necessary to obtain the knowledge and to produce the literature for documentation. A corollary benefit would be the stimulation of interest in home building among university students in the sciences and professions. Some manufacturers have conducted a great amount of research aimed at new product development. Some organizations, however, have channeled research into studies to protect existing markets. Home builders have funded considerable housing research; some has been funded by government, universities and private foundations, but there are some large segments of the housing industry that have abstained almost completely from funding technological research. The two most important objectives for technological research, perhaps, are: First, to establish the necessary performance standards for the house as a unit Page 5
or system. He is authorized to exercise the police power to protect health and safety, and, in the absence of mathematical documenation of the level of performance required, he cannot really be expected to go too far in accepting assemblies that apparently have a lower level of performance. To be more specific, if the code requires 2 x 4's 16-inches on center, it is obvious that 2 x 3's 16-inches on center or 2 x 4's 24-inches on center have less structural capacity. The real problem is whether they are adequate and acceptable. The answer lies in a definition of the level of performance really needed. 2. Without performance standards, it will be exceedingly difficult to develop new systems, products and materials that can be expected to lower costs and improve value. This is a fundamental research need that is inherently large and time-consuming, because new methods of tests and evaluations must be devised for the most part. With the aid of NAHB and seven industry sponsors, the NAHB Research Foundation, Inc., has made a start in attacking this problem by conducting research to develop interior wall performance standards. Performance standards themselves are not enough. They must be promulgated along with their appropriate test methods by recognized bodies such as United States of American Standards Institute and ASTM, and become, by reference, an acceptable alternate in the codes and standards of the various regulatory agencies. The question of design life is interrelated to the question of codes and standards. By implication, codes and standards assume or, at least, tend to establish a design life. Residential appraisals are made on a 60-year basis. Yet, we have products that are required to be included in the residence, such as extra heavy cast iron pipe that, under normal conditions, might well last a thousand years. We know that design life can be affected to a major extent by the kind of use and the degree of maintenance provided for the product or material. This is a complicated problem that merits research and study if we are to improve value. If the industry is required to include materials that will last, without any maintenance, for periods of 60, 100 or a thousand years, it will be difficult to improve value. History has shown that some neighborhoods do not maintain their residential character for 60 years let alone a 100 or more years and that good planning would dictate other uses for that land. Does it make sense to require a design life for a material or product that will substantially exceed the expected residential life character of the land ? Does it make sense to require on the one hand products and materials that may be expected to last several hundred or a thousand years even without maintenance, while allowing other products and materials to be used (because of tradition) that have, relatively speaking, very short design lives without due maintenance ? Of course, it does make good sense to expect structural elements and certain other items (that would be very costly to repair or replace) to have a reasonable design life, but some of the extremes are absurd. One might say casually that the extra cost is worth it. But, is it? One hundred dollars in extra cost compounded annually at even 4 percent represents $5,051 in 100 years. Is that reasonable or justifiable? These and many more questions compound the subject of codes and standards and how they will be applied, established and enforced. The question is, “Should a National Housing Goal be established that calls for research, study and action to establish performance standards and design life that will facilitate progress, inovation and improvement in housing value?" Problem No.9: Controls and permits The subject of controls and permits keeps recurring when experts discuss technology and its problems, and how to fill the gaps in the decade ahead. It is well known that the housing industry is one of the most, if not the most, overregulated and over-controlled industries in this country. Building controls date from the 2000 B.C. Hammurabi code to the crude regulation of light, ventilation and sanitation in the Middle Ages in Europe to the major conflagrations in the early history of this country. Formerly, building, plumbing and, later, electrical codes represented the extent of the controls. Then, planning, zoning, subdivision and Federal controls came into being. Voluntary standards by many industry associations were established and, in many instances, given the full effect of law by referencing in mandatory documents of Federal, state and local governments. More recently, metropolitan, multi-county and multi-state planning commissions have been exercising controls or pressures on building and development. Even more recently, conservation commissions for preserving natural features are applying pressures or controls on building and development. Page 6
BUILDING RESEARCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF Dr. A. Allan Bates, Chief Henry E. Robinson, Chief Building Research Division Environmental Engineering Section, A. B. Ohio Wesleyan U. 1923 BRD of N.Y. 1933–37 Portland Cement Assn. 1946 60 Joined NBS 1937 Director, Univ. Valley Project, N.Y. Dr. William W. Walton, Chief Univ. 1960-62. Joined NBS 1982 Materials and Composites Section, BRD President ASTM, 1960-61 President ACI, 1965-66 B.S. Penn State U., 1927 M.S. Physical Chemistry, 1941, U. of Paul Reece Achenbach, Deputy Chief, Md. BRD Ph.D. Organic Chemistry, 1947, U. of U.S. Treasury Dept. 1927-29 Joined NBS 1929 Fellow, ASHRAD Past Pres. of American Chemical So- Dr. James R. Wright, Asst. to Chief, ciety (1959) BRD Past Pres. Washington Academy of Sciences M.S., 1949 and Ph.D., 1951, U. of Dela- Member, American Association for Adware vancement of Science Dr. Bruce E. Foster, Chief Codes and Standards Section, BRD A.B., Colorado College 1927 Dr. Edward O. Pfrang, Chief M.A., U. of Oregon, 1929 Ph.D., Stanford Univ. 1935 U. of Oregon, 1927-29 1952 Stanford University, 1929-34 Joined NBS 1935 Robert W. Blake, General Eng. Joined NBS 1966 Institute for Applied Technology Dr. Alex F. Robertson, Chief B.S., Engr.-Geology, M.I.T. 1941 Grad. work, U. of Calif. Construction Engineer, Industry, 1946-59 Office Civil Defense, 1959-62 Naval Ordnance Lab. 1941-46 Defense Communications Agency 1962-65 Joined NBS 1965 Joined NBS 1950
PATTERNS AND PROBLEMS OF TECHNICAL INNOVATION IN AMERICAN INDUSTRY Report to National Science Foundation, September, 1963 (C-65344)
The following report is submitted to the National Science Foundation in accordance with the Arthur D. Little, Inc. proposal of December 10, 1962 later embodied in contract number 65344. This proposal outlined a pilot study of problems of technical innovation which would draw on the experience of Arthur D. Little, Inc. in specific U.S. industries. The goals of the program were described as follows: One of ADL's main resources for work on these problems is its experience in recent decades, with hundreds of specific cases involving different aspects of technical innovation. This work has covered all major industrial areas. It has been in the nature of product and process development, research, research planning, and the conversion of research results to new products. Most significantly for this study, it includes, in the last 15 years, our 100 Technical Audits—that is, work with companies on problems in building and using research and development capabilities. What we propose here is : Page 7
problem is one of surplus production capacity and its consequences, rather than one of the need for greater productivity. -How adequate is GNP as an index of economic growth? -To what extent is it established that technical innovation leads to eco nomic growth? Are all types of technical innovation equally important for economic growth? What kinds of technical innovation count most for economic growth? This study is not aimed at answering these questions. It will either assume answers to them or leave them open. Nevertheless, it is appropriate at the be. ginning to raise some of these issues and to state the assumptions which will be made. That economic growth is important and that technical innovation contributes to it, will be assumed, not for the discussion of patterns and problems of innovation but for the discussion of directions of change with which this report concludes. Here it will be of some importance how this assumption is defended and what sorts of technical innovation are thought to be most important for economic growth. It is sometimes claimed that technical innovation "must", analytically, lead to economic growth, since it either reduces cost, increases productivity, stimulates purchase, or-so the hypothesis goes—it would not be undertaken. This hypothesis leaves aside irrational or simply mistaken business behavior, in which innovations are pursued which do not pay off in any of these sense (most current innovations, in fact); and the vicious circles of minor innovation in which many consumer products companies are caught where major companies in an industry engage in frequent changes of product with the effect, not of increasing total market, but of maintaining market share. It leaves aside, as well, the question of the cost of innovation cost, here, primarily in the sense of companies and workers displaced—which may or may not balance the gain in productivity or in consumer spending. A more convincing argument is the empirical one (referred to by Nelson in his introduction to The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1962) in which it is suggested that increased capital expenditure alone cannot explain the increase in output per worker which has been characteristic of the history of the American economy and that the concept of technical innovation is required. It remains then to associate increase in productivity with economic growth. This argument, focussing on productivity, fits well with certain arguments recently put forward urging that innovations which increase productivity carbide tools, numerical controls, pressure dyeing, for example--are the ones most conducive to economic growth. For these, it is claimed, reduce product cost and stimulate further spending; as opposed to those product innovations which shuffle disposable consumer income about, causing it to be spent for this rather than for that but not causing more to be spent overall. A detailed examination of these and related arguments is beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless, in the mature industries with which we will be primarily concerned, a more operational approach is available. These industries are troubled with the threat of foreign competition. We are able to perceive quite directly the economic benefit to these industries of innovations which permit cost reduction or render product more attractive to users, thereby gaining or preserving market. When we come to discuss directions and models of change, we will be concerned with the growth of areas of industry rather than of the economy as a whole and with innovation to meet the very concrete threat of foreign invasion of U.S. markets. The Building Industry
A. BACKGROUND The building industry is difficult to study because it is not an "industry" in the sense in which the traditional textile and machine tool industries are. The assembly of groups devoted to the building tasks contains no one group of companies traditionally responsible for "building” as the old-line machine tool companies have been responsible for making machine tools or the old-line textile mills have been responsible for making cloth. Page 8
As useful as plastics have been, they represent less than 2% of the construction materials dollar. In addition, on a pound-for-pound basis, they cost (in 1957) three times more than steel, ten times more than asphalt, and over ten times more than concrete. Their more effective penetration of the building industry will depend on cost reduction. High strength concrete In recent years, the use of high strength concrete has been increasing. The strength of concrete has risen from a high of 2000-3000 psi 30 years ago to 9-10,000 psi today. Improvements have been made in cement, but the greatest factors in increased strength have been better selection of aggregate and better control of mixing and placement. High strength concrete has enabled industry to build taller structures of reinforced concrete and has permitted economies through the use of constant elements of size in design. Prior to 1940, 16 stories seemed to be the economic and structural limit of reinforced concrete structures. Today, we have the 40 story Executive Hotel in Chicago and the 54-story Place Victoria Towers in Montreal. The rise in structure height cannot be attributed to high strength concrete alone. Lightweight concrete, introduced by Stephen J. Hoyde in 1917, has permitted a reduction in building weight which may have been just as useful. Its volume application became economic in the postwar period when designers developed renewed interest in improving the efficiency of material use. The volume of lightweight concrete production has been estimated by the National Ready Mix Concrete Association at 1.83% of total ready mix production in 1959, 2.20% in 1960, and 2.43% in 1961. Prestressed concrete While prestressed concrete was originally conceived in the U.S. by Jackson of California around 1886, it was not until 1928 when Freyssinet in France developed a reliable stress retention system that prestressing was applied successfully to beams. Europe is said to have used the system much more extensively than the U.S. It was not until 1950 that a prestressed flexural application was made in this country and then almost by accident. The Walnut Lane Bridge, in Philadelphia, was originally designed as a concrete arch. A design review committee felt the large areas of exposed concrete were offensive and recommended a stone facing. The facing raised the cost of the structure from $400,000 to $1 million, which was beyond the available budget. A fabricator of prestressed tanks suggested a prestressed bridge, with an estimated cost of $800,000. The funds were raised and the project proceeded. The resulting structure, although less costly than the stone-faced arch, cost $200,00 more than the proposed concrete span. 205 companies were in operation in 1959 producing prestressed products using about 1.2 million cubic yards of concrete (180 of the ready mix production for 1959 according to the National Ready Mix Concrete Association). About one half of that production went to the building industry and the remainder to bridges. Again in 1959, where the age of prestressed concrete plant was known, 8% of the plants had been in operation seven years or more, 78% were less than five years old, and 54% less than three years old. This growth represents, in part, a displacement of steel, but is more directly related to rise in prefabrication. Plynoood Plywood had its origin in the U.S. in 1865 when patents were issued to John Mayo. His aim was the development of an improved material for the furniture industry. The term "plywood" was not used until about the first World War and it was not until the 1930's that a reliable waterproof glue was available so that plywood could be used as an exterior material. The adhesive, phenolformaldehyde, was developed in Germany and it was not until 1937 that a domestic source was available. Plywood production has grown at a rate above that of dollar expenditure for building, as seen on the graph below. Lumber production, one the other hand, has remained fairly constant since 1950. Plywood's growth has been at the expense of lumber, in applications like sheathing, subflooring, and concrete forms. Plywood production's sharp departure from the growth rate of the building industry in the early 50's may be attributed to increased concern for labor costs and to increase in prefabrication. Page 9
Improved structural analysis Substantial changes have occurred in the structural frames of buildings which have required improved analytical techniques for designers. These improvements have come from three considerations : first, changes in user needs such as for large clear area structures for aircraft maintenance; second, changes in architectural style such as the domed and suspended roof structures at several airports, field houses and auditoriums built since 1950; third, industry's desire for greater efficiency in the use of materials, which has resulted in more composite and continuous structures and, in recent years, new approaches to plastic design. The analytical procedures required by these causes have been available for over fifty years. The first thin shell was built in Germany in 1931 following developments in that country during the 1920's. A method of solution (Moment Distribution) which greatly simplified the analysis of continuous structures was devised in 1932 by Professor Hardy Cross at Yale. Plastic design procedures for concrete adapted in 1956 are in a sense a return to the analytical and model procedures used before 1900. Sandwich panels adapted from the aircraft industry are believed to have first been made for housing by Junkers Aircraft in Germany in the early 1930's. (It should be noted that much of the simplification of design and analysis now practised in the building industry stems from the aircraft industry here and abroad. Prestressed concrete and more extensive precasting of larger components have created new design problems, again forcing the engineer to improve his skills. No measure is available for the economic impact of these methods of analysis and design. It is, however, apparent that many important new structures would have been grossly uneconomical or technically impossible without the improvement of analytical techniques. Prefabrication and off-site preparation Prefabrication, as a concept, is old. In "The Prefabrication of Houses" Burnham Kelly reports that the English brought a panelized house to Cape Ann in 1624 and the first metal prefabricated house was built in England before 1830. He notes that the first pre-cut homes were made about 1900 and story-height precast reinforced concrete panels in the 1920's. But the widespread use of prefabrication, particularly component prefabrication, is new to the last 30 years. It came in part from the government's desire to stimulate the depression economy through lower cost housing and later, from a need for rapid construction to satisfy war mobilization requirements. During the 1930's, several government agencies picked up work done by Bemis Industries, Inc., during the 1920's but never commercialized. Within government, only certain agencies selected prefabrication as a means of solving their particular problems. The Farm Security Administration and TVA both designed and built prefabricated dwellings. TVA built the first demountable sectionalized house in 1940. The Farm Security Administration built 100 prefab units in 1938 and by 1940 had completed 26,000 structures. The PWA and U.S. Housing Authority did not use prefabricated structures at all. A major restraint on the use of prefabricaton during this period seems to have been the materials manufacturer. Although the manufacturers wanted lower cost housing stimulated, they resisted prefabrication because in many instances the prefab structure did not use their particular material. Building codes did not seem to affect prefabrication because the government was behind its use in most of its applications, and the Bureau of Standards and FHA were developing standards and approvals for low cost buildings. The quality of prefabricated structures during the war left much to be desired so that the whole concept suffered a setback in the post-war era. The graph comparing the value of shipments for selected prefabricated buildings with total building activity shows rates of growth for the prefabricated build. ings which parallel industry growth since 1940. The prefabricated component (metal doors, sash, and trim) presented on the graph has a rate of growth well above that of the industry. Several sources have also estimated that prefabricated houses made up less than 5 percent of the residential market (in units) in 1950 and now account for about 20 percent. The use of prefabrication as shown by SIC classification is one of the few innovations whose growth can be measured. Many other innovations are substitutes and their growth of necessity corresponds to that of the industry. Page 10
was greatly increased, and product quality became subject to the same sorts of criticism leveled at the mass-produced product in industry. Along with these changes in management and methods came a series of building techniques, components and materials which adapted themselves to the concept of building as manufacturing process—to the idea of the house or building as a product. Many of these were old inventions which had not become appropriate until the trend in question here. These included the actual movement of segments of building operation into the factory : premanufactured houses, premanufactured components, and off-site preparation of materials. New materials and components were invented, adapted, or simply taken off the shelf, in order to fit into these trends toward premanufacture and pre-preparation of plywood, pre stressed concrete, new thin-walled light-weight structures with new insulating and structural materials. Much of the building operation was moved off-site into the factory itself; on-site activity was made as much like factory work as possible. New power tools and equipment were adapted, both on-site and infactory, to replace previous craft operations. The great appeal of many new components (gypsum board, for example, or plastic floor coverings) was the extent to which they appeared to eliminate craft-based labor on the site. Specific industries, like the aircraft industry, contributed much to new building activity in terms of methods of structural analysis, models of construction, and specific components (such as sandwich panels). During the past 30 years, building activity has been discovering itself as an industry, building a class of large-scale building entrepreneurs who are largescale manufacturers of building product, and fighting the traditional industry battle against high-labor craft-based operations and mentality. Those technical changes in technique, components and materials have been most successful and most economically important which fit into this overall process of change. The process of change is still very much underway, as witness continuing complaints of contractors about high ratios of labor to materials, the continued development of new labor-saving components, and the initiation of new management methods (like the very recent TAMAP time and motion study sponsored by the NAHB). Along with this major trend, which is something quite special to building, there are a number of themes familiar to us from consideration of textiles and machine tools: —the invasion of a traditional activity by new materials developed by technically advanced industries (in this case, primarily plastics; but also highstrength steel ; new insulating materials, etc.) and new techniques of design and assembly to suit the potential of the new materials. —the role of World War II, stimulating needs for new materials, providing new massive building projects requiring new methods and bringing new managers into being and new models of the building process. -the role of European innovations, such as waterproof glues for plywood, prestressed concrete, hardboard and particle board, tower cranes, etc. -the continuing importance of independent inventors and entrepreneurs. Each of the industries considered so far has involved a characteristically different social process of innovation. Textiles have involved interaction among fiber producer, mill, convertor, garmentmaker, designer, retailer. Machine tools have involved special interactions between machine tool company and usercompany. Similarly, building involves interaction among architect, planner and designer, concerned with meeting end-use functions, pursuing styles, and getting designs implemented ; contractor-developers concerned with building as a business, cost-centered, aiming at deriving maximum profit opportunities from new mass-construction; materials suppliers concerned with finding markets for new materials or retaining markets for old ones—and all of these with labor, and with government, state, federal and local (for innovation in building is a political activity in ways that differentiate it from machine tools and textiles). Certainly these interactions in building have had pronounced effects on innovations over the last 30 years—but the job of tracing and analyzing them is too ambitious for the study undertaken here.
D. PROBLEMS OF INNOVATION
The problems of innovation in the building industry are, at least in part, the problems of continued industrialization of building activity. The building industry is now pursuing a course pretty well completed by most major U.S. industriesa course which has taken them from decentralized to centralized operation, from Page 11
What has brought me here, despite this reluctance, is merely a sense of duty as an American citizen, one who has actively promoted regional development and "urban renewal"--Heaven help me, I invented the word !-and yet is sufficiently detached from the responsibilities of office and the restrictive discipline of specialized research to be free to bring before you certain fundamental issues that as yet have scarcely been opened up, much less defined, discussed, and debated. Do not, I beg, misread my occupational qualifications. By profession, I am a writer-not an architect, an engineer, or a city planner; and though I have been a professor of city and regional planning at the University of Pennsylvania I have no wish to appear before you as an urban specialist, an expert, an authority. But please do not read any false humility into this statement. All the colossal mistakes that have been made during the last quarter century in urban renewal, highway building, transportation, land use, and recreation, have been made by highly qualified experts and specialists—and as regards planning, I should blush to be found in their company.
While I have prudently reminded you of my limitations, I nevertheless have one genuine qualification, unfortunately still a rare one, that of a generalist, equally at home in many different areas of life and thought. My specialty is that of bringing the scattered specialisms together, to form an overall pattern that the specialist, precisely because of his overconcentration on one small section of existence, fatally overlooks or deliberately ignores. Emerson described his ideal of the American scholar as "man thinking"; and it is only insofar as I have been a scholar in this special sense, dedicated to seeing life steadily and seeing it whole, that I venture to appear before you. I shall not waste time listing any other qualifications I may have; for what they are worth, you will find them in any "Who's Who” or biographical dictionary, But I must lay the ground for the constructive criticism I shall eventually make by briefly summarizing the experience that has led me to my present views. While still at college-in fact, when only 18–I came under the influence of the Scots thinker, Prof. Patrick Geddes, who shares with Ebenezer Howard, Raymond Unwin, and our own Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr., the distinction not merely of reviving the art of town planning, but of awakening fresh interest in the nature and function of cities. Though there are now scores of books and college courses available on every aspect or urbanism, half a century ago you could almost count them on the fingers of one hand. As a disciple of Geddes, I learned to study cities and regions at first hand, living in them, working in them, not least surveying every part of them on foot: not only my native city, New York, but many others, large and small-Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Boston, London, Edinburgh, Honolulu, Berkeley, Geneva—not to speak of smaller places like Palo Alto, Middletown, Hanover, and the Dutchess County hamlet of a dozen houses where I find the seclusion necessary for the writing of my books. More than five-sevenths of my life has been spent in cities, mostly in great metropolises; and when in “The Culture of Cities,” in 1938, I painted a picture of the prospective disintegration of megalopolis, my experience and my historic researches enabled me to anticipate by 30 years the conditions that you are now belatedly trying to cope with; for the formidable disorders I described in detail were already visible elsewhere, in London and Paris since the 18th century, and had become chronic in every congested urban center for the whole last century. No small part of this ugly urban barbarization has been due to sheer physical congestion: a diagnosis now confirmed by scientific experiments with rats—for, when they are placed in equally congested quarters, they exhibit the same symptoms of stress, alienation, hostility, sexual perversion, parental incompetence, and rabid violence that we now find in megalopolis. Page 12
Now, the main point to observe is that there is a deep-seated antagonism between a mechanistic, power-centered economy and the far older organic, life-centered economy; for a life economy seeks continuity, variety, orderly, and purposeful growth. Such an economy is cut to the human measure, and it respects the human scale, so that every organism, every community, every human being, shall have the variety of goods and experiences necessary for the fulfillment of his own individual life course, from birth to death. The mark of a lífe economy is a respect for organic limits, it seeks not the greatest possible quantity of any particular good, but the right quantity, of the right quality, at the right place, and the right time for the right purpose. Too much of any one thing is as fatal to living organisms as too little. In contrast, a power economy is designed for the continuous and compulsory expansion of a limited number of uniform goods—those specially adapted to quantity production and remote control. Apart from enlarging the province of mechanization and automation, the chief goal of this system is to produce the greatest amount of power, prestige, or profit for the distant controllers of the megamachine. Though these modern systems produce a fantastic output of highly specialized products-motor cars, refrigerators, washing machines, rockets, nuclear bombs—they cannot, on their own terms, do justice to the far more complex and varied needs of human life, for these needs cannot be mechanized and automated, still less controlled and suppressed, without killing something essential to the life of the organism or to the self-respect of the human personality.
LIABILITIES OF OVERPRODUCTION
For the last century, we Americans have been systematically indoctrinated, with our own far from reluctant cooperation, in the virtues of mass production and have accepted, with unction, the plethora of goods offered, in which even those on public relief now participate. But we have been carefully trained to look only at the plus side of the equation, and to close our eyes to the appalling defects and failures that issue from the very success of the megamachine. No sound public policy in housing and urban renewal can be formulated till we have reckoned with these liabilities. The overproduction of motor cars has not only wrecked our once-efficient and well-balanced transportation system, and turned our big cities into hollow shells, exploding with violence; but it has polluted the air with lethal carbon monoxide, and even, through the use of lead in gasoline, dangerously poisoned our water and food. The chemical industry, in its undiscíplined effort to sell a maximum amount of its products, has poisoned our soils and our foods with DDT, malathion, and other deadly compounds, while heedlessly befouling our water supply with detergents. So, too, with the pharmaceutical industry, the rocket industry, the television industry, the pornography and narcotics industries. All have become immensely dynamic and profitable enterprises, automatically expanding, and by their compulsive expansion callously disregarding human health, safety, and welfare, while wiping out every trace of organic variety and human choice. As a result, the forces of life, if they break out at all, now must do so in the negative form of violence, crime, and psychotic disturbances. What we have unthinkingly accepted as brilliant technical progress has too often resulted in biological or social regression. Page 13
been much shown on any public level-Federal, State, or local-or in the private sector. There are some philosophers, some planners, such as yourself. You write books, you have ideas, you write articles, you debate. But how do we translate these ideas into realities? Mr. MUMFORD. Well, a certain amount of seepage of ideas goes on, so that after a while even practical people test out the things that the thinkers provided a generation before.
NEW TOWNS MUST BE BALANCED COMMUNITIES
This is perfectly normal. You have the idea of the new town coming up spontaneously now after 50 years of thinking and propaganda, begun by Ebenezer Howard in 1898; and here in America today there are all sorts of projects for so-called new towns. They don't give promise yet as being balanced communities, because it is natural for people to do the easy things first. The difficult thing is to move industry and business out into the places that need it, and to provide them with housing. We have many big corporations, for example, leaving New York City now. IBM, for example, recently became a neighbor of mine in Poughkeepsie, but this has been done without any planning on the part of the State to see that other coordinated industries and coordinate workers' housing is being done in this neighborhood. The result is a large part of the people who work in IBM are scattered over the countryside, when they should be put in a better kind of city. Ponchlepnsie itself should be renovated very heavily, in order to make this possible. Senator RIBICOFF. Poughkeepsie is probably in as poor a position as any small community in the United States today. Mr. MUMFORD. Yes, it has been a low-grade industrial community for a century. Senator RIBICOFF. This is the problem. Anthony Downs was here yesterday. He has done a lot of thinking on the subject of new towns, both philosophically and practically. He made the statement that the whole new-town concept just won't go unless there is some planning to get jobs for people who live there. Take the town of Columbia, which James Rouse is developing with financing by Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. I believe Connecticut General has now put up about $25 million. I have great faith in Connecticut General. But there is great difficulty in getting Columbia going, even though Columbia supposedly is a self-contained community with job opportunities and people of mixed social and economic backgrounds living together. If you don't have the help from Government how do get a new town going? It would be wonderful if Government didn't have to give a dime. But how do we do it?
FEDERAL AID FOR NEW TOWNS
Mr. MUMFORD. May I suggest that you have misunderstood me? I am not averse to Government help. I am averse to authorizing vast sums of Government money before the State and local authorities have done the necessary preparatory work. First they should know what ought to be done and where it should be done. This is a long-term program, it can't be arranged overnight, much as we would like to do it, but once the basic study has been made and the first stage of renewal has been outlined then Federal help would be immensely useful—indeed, indispensable. Page 14
The enormous urban populations that we don't know what to do with in the cities could have highly useful social tasks worth economic support, if they were relocated in the rural districts from which they came, and we would probably give them a much happier life than they will ever have on relief. Senator RIBICOFF. While that may be true, how do you get them back to the farm, "once they have seen Paree"? The Negro is drawn to the city for many reasons. While the Negro came from a rural background, he now is a city person. I don't hear or see or know of any desire of the Negro to go back to the farm. They are in the city to stay. This is a condition we face. Ninety percent of the schoolchildren in Washington are Negro. Chicago and Detroit go beyond 50 percent. Baltimore and St. Louis have an elementary school population that is more than 60 percent Negro. What do we do? A democratic society isn't going to pick people up and send them places. This is what I am concerned with, with the immediacy of a deep social and economic problem that our society faces.
REASONS FOR MIGRATION TO CITIES
Mr. MUMFORD. Let's analyze, though, how this migration into the big cities came about. It came about because the large mass of Negroes in the South were living under degraded, barely human conditions. They had nothing that could be called a decent livelihood. They had only the companionship of their poor neighbors. They had a kind of local life of their own, but at the very lowest possible level, economically or educationally. So during the war, when there were jobs in the North that offered even the Negro some opportunity, there was a wholesale migration into the North, and that has continued to increase, because conditions in the Deep South haven't become any more favorable to the Negro. If you ask the Negro to go back to the places that he has escaped from, you would be asking for something which is humanly impossible and shouldn't be even suggested. But on the other hand, we haven't given the Negro an opportunity to make any decision, any real choices. We haven't said: Do you want to live in these foul slums, where family life has become impossible, and where everybody lives in fear of each other?—or would you like, under the conditions that we can make possible, by building communities in other parts of the country to use a large percentage of the Negro population in the more rural areas, where these horrible features of metropolitan congestion don't exist. We don't know what the Negro really wants. We can't possibly know until we give him an alternative. He has no alternative today. Senator RIBICOFF. But the entire farm population has been reduced by some in a decade. The whites are moving from the farm as well. It would be wonderful if we could reverse this trend. But we can't. What do we do with the condition that we are in? Page 15
USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO PRODUCE A BETTER LIFE
Now, if these analyses of your thoughts are accurate, may I put this question. Do you agree, however, that the demonstrable methods of modern accelerative technology are a legitimate and a proper additional tool in determining how we best produce this new life, this more humanized life, a more orderly and more attractive life system that we all seek, and that technology itself is not antagonistic to humanity and to the human quality of existence, but rather that they go hand in hand and intelligently apply both modern technology and humanistic spirit can work side by side to produce a better life do you agree with this? Mr. MUMFORD. First of all, thank you for the summary. It is a better summary of my thought than I could give myself. Second, let me say that I have no abstract bias against large organizations, because large organizations are sometimes the only ones that are possible. I don't want to see a small A.T. & T., for example. I think the ideal organization for A.T. & T. is one which extends over the entire country and has a monopoly of the telephone service. I am full of admiration for the kind of planning such an organization does. It does an enormous amount of social thinking before it even locates the next telephone exchange. So it isn't a question of bias. On the other hand, all these large organizations are governed by a money ideology. They are interested in all the problems of humanity, as long as they are sure of a guaranteed return of at least 8 percent, but hopefully much more. They will rapidly enter any field that promises more than 8 percent. If 15 is promised, they will rush in with eagerness, almost violence. And on the other hand, if you were to say, “We appreciate your services to the community, we need your technology, we need all the skills you have assembled, but in order to balance up with other things, we guarantee only that you will get 31/2 or 4 percent. But you must not expect inordinate profits and you must not be tempted by them, we want you to go into phases of industry on a small scale where the profits will be small too”—this would be heresy, of course, from our present standpoint, and very unacceptable as you all know. Senator BAKER. I think it probably isn't heresy today, Mr. Mumford. As a matter of fact, I am attracted to the notion that now, today, after our population gets above the minimum starvation level, the American society is really meaning-oriented, or quality of life oriented, rather than economic or money oriented, and that is a pretty radical statement I suppose, but I believe that to be the case. Mr. MUMFORD. I hope you are right.
URGENT PROBLEMS FACE CITIES
Senator BAKER. I hope so, too. Let me ask you one other question that the chairman touched on, and which I think is most pertinent to a practical consideration of the spectrum and variety of ills that our urban and rural centers suffer from. We really have two problems. We have the problem of our current dilemma in the urban sprawl, in the impacted city areas. We have this as an immediate urgent human consideration. What do we do about this disadvantaged generation ? Page 16
and more an industrial corporation for promoting the Port of New York Authority, and this would be a bad precedent in actual fact. But this combination of two or three States, creating a special authority to deal with their common regional problems I think is perfectly possible under the treaty relationships between States, and could be extended to other things besides transportation or the development of a port. It could be extended to the location of population. For example, the whole metropolitan area of New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut is a unified area, industrially speaking, all the more because of the reckless highway building that is being done. But this a pattern that might be developed further on socially more beneficial lines. Again, I can't speak as one who has given sufficient attention to this problem. I spread myself pretty wide as it is, and I don't like to venture without preparation on ground that is from my standpoint very thin and infirm. Senator RIBICOFF. I am very grateful to you, Mr. Mumford, and so is the entire subcommittee. We needed your philosophical point of view. I think your perspective is very important. I think it has made all of us, all who are involved with this problem, do some hard thinking. We are grateful to you. The next meeting of the subcommittee will take place on April 26, when Secretary Weaver will testify. It will not be held in room 3302 as announced, but will be held in this room. Thank you very much. I am very grateful and I do appreciate your giving up the day to speak to us. Mr. MUMFORD. Thank you. (Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned until Wednesday, April 26, 1967, at 10 a.m.) Page 17
WITNESS Development, accompanied by Hon. Robert C. Wood, Under Secretary,
243. Table showing the movement of whites from cities to suburbs, from 1950 to 1966, based on SMSA's, submitted for the record by the 3628 244. Article from Urban Land, “Future Growth of Major U.S. Cities,” by Jerome P. Pickard, Research Director, Urban Land Institute, Feb- 3629 245. "The Center of Our_Society-The American City, an address by President Lyndon B. Johnson at Syracuse, N.Y., August 19, 1966. - 3647 246. Article from the New York Times, “President Seeks to Mesh Slum Aid," by Robert B. Semple, Jr., March 26, 1967. 3659 247. Report on the pilot program for multipurpose neighborhood centers. submitted for the record by the Department of Housing and 3662 248. Report on the progress in residential rehabilitation, June 30, 1967, submitted for the record by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 3670 249. Summary tables showing estimated total expenditures and sources of funds for the model cities program, submitted for the record by 3679 250. Summary table showing results of HUD programs for housing for low- and moderate-income families by public or private ownership 3689 251. Table from the Department of Housing and Urban Development showing the localities in which neighborhood facilities projects were in the planning or execution stage as of March 1, 1967 - 3714 252. Article from the Wall Street Journal, "'Creative Federalism'-A Big Administrative Mess," by Jonathan Spivak, March 24, 1967.- 3716 253. Article from the AIA Journal, "Yesterday's Lessons and Tomorrow's Hopes,” by Philip M. Klutznick, managing partner of KLC Ven- 3722 254. “The 1967 Economy and the Outlook for Homebuilding,” an address by Dr. William H. Shaw, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 3728 255. Article from the Washington Post, “Rising Costs Seen as Bar to Housing Recovery,” April 15, 1967- 3732 256. Article from the Scientific American, “The Social Power of the Negro, by James P. Comer, M.D., psychiatrist, Center for Studies of 3732 257. Statement submitted for the record by Hon. Joseph T. Resnick, a Congressman from New York, “The Urban-Rural Balance."'. 3739 258. "Agriculture/2000,” a series of addresses made by Hon. Orville Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture, January 20 to March 23, 1967 - 3742 259. Report of the study of the Watts riot, made by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs of the University of California, 3806 Page 18
FEDERAL ROLE IN URBAN AFFAIRS
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 1967 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EXECUTIVE REORGANIZATION, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in room 1114, New Senate Office Building, Senator Abraham Ribicoff (chairman) presiding Present: Senators Ribicoff, Kennedy (New York), Harris, Javits, and Baker. Also present: Paul Danaceau, staff director; Robert Wager, general counsel; Richard Bowen, professional staff member; and Esther Newberg, chief clerk. Senator RIBICOFF. The subcommittee will be in order. We are very honored to have Secretary Weaver with us today, and we look forward to your testimony. Before you begin, I would like to place in the record some materials that might serve as a statistical basis for some of our discussions as well as those of others interested in the problems we have been raising in these hearings. The first is a table prepared for the subcommittee by your Department that shows the changes in white and nonwhite population in our metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas from 1950 to 1966. The second is a report from the February 1967 issue of Urban Land magazine entitled "Future Growth of Major U.S. Urban Regions.
POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES BY METROPOLITAN AND NONMETROPOLITAN RESIDENCE AND COLOR, 1950, 1960, AND 1966 (BASED ON SMSA'S) [Numbers in thousands. Minus sign (-) denotes decrease]
Future Growth of Major U.S. Urban Regions
by Jerome P. Pickard, Research Director Urban Land Institute
This article contains the first published projections from the study "Dimensions of Metropolitanism" conducted by the Urban Land Institute under sponsorship of a Ford Foundation grant. A complete set of metropolitan area and urbanized area data from 1920 to 1960, and projections to 1970, 1980, and 2000 will be published in a research monograph in the spring of 1967. The author was assisted in the analysis of urban regions by the following project associates : John E. Westfall, who programmed and ran through the computer national, regional, urban region, and metropoli
tan area projections using the author's formulae; and Mrs. Virginia H. Moryadas, who assisted with maps and data. The Population and Geography Divisions of the U.S. Bureau of the Census assisted in providing unpublished data and information for this analysis, as well as in verifying U.S. population projection data. Responsibility for the projections are the author's. Earlier studies on urban regions by Dr. Pickard were published in Urban Land in April 1962 and May 1966.
The most recent population projec- perienced through 1965. Current U.S. tions for the United States were pub population projections are lower than lished by the Bureau of the Census in most of those developed in the past 1966, and reflect a somewhat lower decade. All regional projections in this fertility trend than the earlier pro- study are related to the assumed U.S. jections. The B Series of this projec- total; hence their validity depends uption has been used as the basic frame- on the fulfillment of the total U.S. work for projecting U.S. population to population and the maintenance of 1970, 1980, and 2000. For the period past relative growth trends for each 1980-2000, a lower fertility assump- used as projections, rather than as tion was made using the mean value firm predictions. for population change between the B The three major urban region zones Series and C Series. This procedure in the United States—the Metropoliyielded U.S. population total, which tan Belt, the California region, and was then adjusted by subtraction of the Floridian region-are projected to armed forces overseas and the popu increase their total population from lations of Alaska and Hawaii to pro 82.2 million in 1960 to 100.4 million in vide the following population projec- 1970, 131.2 million in 1980, and 187.3 tions for the conterminous United million in 2000. The proportion of States (48 states plus the District of conterminous U.S. population included Columbia): in these three urban regional zones is 1970-204.6 million to increase from 46 per cent in 1960 1980_238.8 million to 49 per cent in 1970, 55 per cent in 2000–311.8 million 1980, and 60 per cent in 2000. Ac companying this population growth The revised Census Bureau projec will be an expansion of approximately tions reflect lowered fertility rates ex 55 per cent in the land area encom passed within these three great urban TU. S. Bureau of the Census, Popula regional zones. tion Estimates (Series P-25, No. 329, March 10, 1966), "Revised Projections The outlying urban regions in the of the Population of the United States by year 2000 will number 13, and in addi. Age and Sex to 1985." 8 pages. tion there will be six free-standing
metropolitan areas with populations of one million or more each, of which the largest will be St. Louis.2 The total population of these 19 outlying urban regions and metropolises will be 52 million, bringing the total population of 16 urban regions and six freestanding metropolises to 239 million persons in 2000—77 per cent of the total population of the 48 states contained in 11 per cent of its land area. In addition to these mainland metropolises, one outlying metropolitan area, Honolulu, which constitutes the Island of Oahu, is also projected to sur ss one million inhabitants by the end of the century. Table 1 presents detailed data and projections for the major urban regions of the Atlantic Seaboard, Lower
2 Urban Regions: Carolina Piedmont, North Central Georgia, North Central Alabama, Central Gulf Coast, TexasLouisiana Gulf Coast, North Central Texas, South Central Texas, MissouriKaw Valley, Salt Lake Valley, Colorado Piedmont, Puget Sound, Willamette Valley, Metropolitan Arizona. Metropolitan Areas: Saint Louis, Louisville, Memphis, Oklahoma City, Twin Cities, Albuquerque.
TABLE 1. Major Urban Regions: Growth and Projection, 1940-2000
1,491 1,542 3,125 1,728 4,009 6,021 1,930 2,438
580 334 245 484 565 259 317 224
1,491 1,156 7752 2,007 644 3215 Merge with Virginta Urban Zone 3,125 829 265 3,125 907 290 Added to Region Added to Lower Great Lakes Region 4,009 2,687 670 Added to Lower Great Lakes Region 6,430 1,857 289 8,785 2,654 302 Added to Region 1,930 722 374 Added to Detroit Toledo Zone Added to Chicagoland Zone
Florida East Coast Zone Central Florida Zone Florida West Coast Zone
Page 19
This continuous "ecumenopolis" as eastern half of the Southern Ontario described by one writer : will not enUrban Region in Canada, the Missis. guif the entire nation—in fact, the sauga Zone, which had a population outstanding characteristic of proof 3.05 million in 1961, and covered jected urban regional growth is its 4,750 square miles of land area. concentration--leaving large areas of In 1970, the Central New York Zone the nation open for agricultural, recwill have completed its southward reational, and mineral use--but there links, and five counties will be added, will be, at the end of the century. two bringing its area to 6,100 square additional enormous megalopolis conmiles; an additional county is to be centrations: one in California with added by 1980, making the total area over 44 million persons, and one in 6,650 square miles with 1.7 million Florida of nearly 14 million. population. Syracuse occupies the The Floridian Urban Region nodal location in this zone, which is The three major metropolises of projected to grow to two million pop Florida--Miami, Tampa-St. Petersulation by 2000. burg, and Jacksonville--are widely The Niagara Frontier will add one separated. Although they have all enclaved county by 1980, thus occupy shared in the phenomenal growth of ing 5,650 square miles; its population this subtropical region, Jacksonville, will increase to 3.1 million in 1980 and the largest in earlier periods, has 3.8 million by the end of the century. grown least rapidly and has now been surpassed by both of the others. East Central Indiana FIGURE 3. THE FLORIDIAN URBAN In 1940 an urban region in Florida East central Indiana evolved a de- REGION. Newly emergent in 1960, this did not exist; the Southeast Floridian centralized urban pattern of small region is projected to experience rapid Urban Zone from Palm Beach to cities in the "gas boom" of the late long-term growth, reaching 8 million Miami had a population of 368,000 and 1880's and 1890's, based on natural gas population by 1980 and 13.9 by 2000. Ma. the Tampa Bay Urban Zone, 272,000 discoveries, and industries lured in by areas northward along the Florida East (see Figure 3). By 1950, urban zones cheap and clean fuels. Its strategic Coast to include Jacksonville, and south along the Florida East Coast and Florlocation just south of the Great Lakes ward along the Florida West Coast be- ida West Coast were evolving into ur. metropolises, and the growth of the yond Naples, as well as inland through ban regions; by 1960 the link through automobile industry later made an im- the citrus belt to include Gainesville, Its central Florida was sufficiently depact on central Indiana. A cluster of area will nearly double-from 11,300 veloped, though of relatively low cities forming a small urban zone square miles in 1960 to 20,300 square density (135 persons per square mile) linked up with Indianapolis by 1940, miles in 2000—while, at the same time, to make possible the delineation of a forming the Central Indiana Urban average population density is projected Floridian Urban Region of 11,300 Region of 3,300 square miles and a to increase to 682 per square mile in 2000, square miles, and a population of population of 0.9 million. By 1960 the Green Bay and Saginaw Bay to the 3,344.000. region had expanded to add seven Ohio River. Topographic factors have strongly more counties, covering 6,000 square Even though so far-fung, the Lower influenced the settlement of Florida. miles, with a population of 1.6 million. Great Lakes Urban Region will cover The sandy southern peninsular coasts, Further growth is projected, with only 94,500 square miles, with a popu- rising above the Everglades, furthe region extending northeastward lation of 61 million persons in an area nished natural ridges for the extenthrough the upper Wabash Valley to equivalent to the states of Illinois and sion of railroads and highways from link with Fort Wayne by 1980, cover- Ohio. This immense urban region of the north, and the attraction of Atlan. ing 8,800 square miles, with 2.7 mil- 2000 will contain every major metrop- tic and Gulf Coast beaches has led to lion population. By 1980 the Central olis in the northeastern quarter of the a fantastic urban shoreline developIndiana Urban Region will touch the nation with the exception of St. Louis ment. The Everglades are, and will Great Lakes Urban Region southeast and Louisville—the latter separated continue to be, an island in the south of South Bend and also, via the Miami by a tier only one county in width, peninsula almost devoid of fixed huValley-Columbus Zone, at the Ohio- and doubtless in the process of "an- man habitation. The lake region of Indiana state line. However, it ap- nexation." Thus the emergent system Central Florida with its rich soils furpears that its full integration into of urban regions will culminate by the nished a natural bridge between the the Great Lakes Urban Region is end of this century in a vast mega- two coasts and has the greatest conlikely to occur by 2000—at this time lopolis of 129 million-the heartland centration of citrus groves. it will have merged completely with of the United States-occupying 542 *C. A. Doxiadis, "Ecumenopolis: Tothe other zones into a vast region ex- per cent of its land area in a con ward a Universal City," Ekistics, Vol. tending from the Rock Valley to the tinuous zone of urban and metropol- ume XIII, No. 75, (January 1962), pages upper Susquehanna Valley and from itan dominance, 3-18. Page 20
the keys. In Philadelphia, 500 newly rehabilitated row houses are now occupied by large low-income families; another 500 will be completed shortly; and an additional 5,000-unit program will get under way this summer under another "turnkey” plan in which homebuilders and labor unions are closely cooperating. In many places privately owned substandard houses and apartments are being rehabilitated and converted under the public housing leasing program to house low-income families in a private setting. More than three-fourths of the public housing projects are served by social, recreational, health, legal or educational community programs. This, then, is a low-rent housing program that differs vastly from the conventional program as we knew it a few short years ago. These examples illustrate basic trends in the present policies of HUD. It is not accidental that many of them involve rehabilitation. In every way possible, the Department's overall urban renewal effort is being oriented to place emphasis on rehabilitation so as to make the best use of our existing housing stock and to minimize the problems of dislocation.
In the approximately 8 months since we last appeared before this subcommittee, the tempo of the Department's activities has accelerated. In this short period, we have announced 149 new urban renewal projects with Federal contributions of over $450 million reserved; 62,500 additional low-rent public housing units reserved in 395 projects; 18,300 additional units covered by rent supplement reservations in 266 projects (since this was prepared, we have a more recent figure showing some $22.5 million of reservations for this program); 4,000 additional units of housing approved in 29 projects for senior citizens and the handicapped, costing over $50 million ; 26,396 additional moderate-income housing units under the below market interest rate program of FHA, involving allocations of some $367 million of FNMA special assistance funds; 82 additional neighborhood facility grants reserved in the amount of $17 million; 177 water and sewer grants given preliminary approval for $69 million ; 17 additional urban mass transportation grants approved for $81 million; and 34 new code enforcement projects with fund reservations totaling $39 million.
VARIETY OF STRATEGIES IS NEEDED
All this is only a sampling of the ways in which we are directing the Department's efforts to meet human needs. They illustrate that there is no single strategy which can achieve our diverse, though interrelated, goals. Rather, there must be a multitude of strategies to deal with many problems. The character of our programs must be innovative and coordinated. We must look for results in cumulative terms. I have no doubt that we will need to revise our approaches and reallocate our resources as we learn from our successes and our failures. The rent supplement program, first funded only last year, is designed to enlist private sponsors and private credit resources in producing private housing for low-income families. At the same time, the new “turnkey” method enlists private enterprise for producing public housing. The public housing program is also leasing existing housing units from private owners for the use of low-income families. Page 21
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFORTS IN HUD
To do our job effectively, we have needed to reorient our organization as well as our program. In general terms, our organization efforts have had three thrusts: To establish a cohesive policymaking group for the Department as a whole; To structure our operating units on the broad basis of problem solving; and To decentralize day-by-day decisionmaking closer to the cities themselves. With the creation of the Department, the Secretary was given the responsibility for aiding the President in coordinating Federal activities having a major effect on urban, suburban, and metropolitan development. Pulling together and meshing the operations of the many Federal programs to better meet the needs and aspirations of communities and their people is no simple chore.
HUD'S ROLE AS COORDINATING AGENCY EXPANDED
Last August the President amplified the Department's coordinating responsibilities by giving the Secretary the authority to convene representatives of several agencies that are concerned with the most urgent problems of urban development. The spirit of this convener order is perhaps as important as the formal use of the authority. In carrying out our role, we attempt to view the needs for Federal programs through the eyes of local officials and individual citizens, and to represent their needs. As one phase of this concern, the first six of the metropolitan expediters, authorized in last year's legislation, are now being appointed. We have not erased the differences in approach among agencies and among levels of government-nor is that our goal. Old ways of doing things need to be reexamined. There are fences that need tearing down and fences that should remain; and it is not always clear which is which. However, much progress has been made in a relatively short period of time. As one example, this Department is exercising leadership responsibility assigned by the President to the task of developing distinctive multipurpose neighborhood centers in 14 pilot cities. In this effort we are working jointly with four other departments and agencies—HEW, Labor, OEO, and the Bureau of the Budget—in order to concentrate the widest variety of programs into the local centers. But for all of our beginnings, in expanded programs, in new kinds of policy, in improved organization, we are still largely operating with serious gaps in our knowledge of the complexities of urban life. Solutions to broad and difficult problems both in industry and in Government today require large-scale, organized team effort. Such efforts begin with research into conditions and needs; proceed toward development of practical solutions; move next into experimental application; and finally end with fully operational activities. Page 22
rectly and indirectly, with labor unions involved in our rehabilitation program. For example, in New York City, when we did this instant rehabilition which I spoke of here, there was a question of prefabrication of the bathroom and kitchen units. Obviously this could not be done without the cooperation of labor. My people and the local sponsor met, at my direction, with the Plumbers Union, the union which was primarily involved, and worked out an agreement on what would be done by union labor offsite. When the discussions bogged down, I talked to their international representative here in Washington to get it straightened out.
HUD ENCOURAGES MINORITY GROUP PARTICIPATION IN UNIONS
We are also constantly in touch with labor on another and most difficult matter. That is the permission for nonwhites and other minority groups to get into labor unions, opening up the apprenticeship programs to them. Therefore I am delighted to see that they want more consultation. I can guarantee we will have it. Senator HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator RIBICOFF. What bothers me—and let me say this to you, Mr. Secretary, most respectfully-basically you still have got the bricks and mortar job. As you know, I have felt right along that to make HUD a meaningful Department, the executive branch and the Congress, has to give you a lot more authority. What bothers me is this: You talk about long-range approaches to many of our problems. That is correct. You are not going to be able to do it tomorrow or the day after. There is no panacea in one single answer.
PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP NEEDED IN CITY CRISIS
Now, it seems to me that there is a great responsibility on the President of the United States. The President of the United States deserves the sympathy of all of us with the great load he is carrying. The problems of Vietnam certainly occupy a lot of his time. The President does not hesitate to rally public opinion for his point of view. Bringing General Westmoreland to this country to address a special session of Congress on Friday indicates the President's concern and the need to have the country understand the President's position. And yet, can we as a nation overlook the burning turmoil, and the problems in the cities of America! In the final analysis, while all of us—the members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the press, leaders, the rank and file of citizens—have responsibility for the problems of the city, the only individual who can supply the leadership is the President of the United States. To my memory, the last major speech the President made on the cities was last August, at Syracuse. He did not send up a special message on cities. The problems of the cities were covered in his general message on urban and rural poverty. At this point I would like to place the President's Syracuse speech in the record. (The speech referred to follows:)
Remarks of President Lyndon B. Johnson at Syracuse, N.Y., August 19, 1966, published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
want to talk to you today about the center of our society-the I American city. Over 70 percent of our population live in urban areas. Half a century from now 320 million of our 400 million Americans will live in cities, with our larger cities receiving the greatest impact of this growth
For almost three years my Administration has been concerned with the question: What do we want our cities to become?
For you and your children, the question is: What kind of place will Syracuse be fifty years from now?
A city must be more than a collection of shops and buildings; more than an assortment of goods and services; more than a place to
A city must be a community where our lives are enriched. It must be a place where every man can satisfy his highest aspiration. It must be an instrument to advance the hopes of all its citizens. That is what we want our cities to be. And that is what we have set out to make them.
One word can best describe the task we face—and that word is immense. Until this decade, one description fitted our response: "too little and too late.” By 1975 we will need two million new homes a year—schools for 60 million children-health and welfare programs for 27 million people over the age of 60—and transportation facilities for the daily movement of 200 million people in more than 80 million automobiles.
In less than 40 years--between now and the end of this century, urban population will double, city land will double, and we will have to build in our cities as much as has been built since the first settler arrived on these shores.
Our cities are struggling to meet this task. They increased their taxes by 39 percent between 1954 and 1963, and still their tax debts increased by 119 percent. Far more must be done if we are to solve the Number 1 domestic problem of the United States.
Let me be clear about the heart of this problem: It is the people who live in our cities and the quality of the lives they lead that
We must not only build housing units; we must build neighborhoods. We must not only construct schools; we must educate our Page 23
children. We must not only raise income; we must create beauty and end the pollution of our water and air. We must open new opportunities to all our people so that everyone, not just a fortunate few, can have access to decent homes and schools, to recreation and culture.
These are obligations that must be met not only by the Federal Government but by every government-State and local—and by all the people of America. The Federal Government will meet its responsibility, but local government, private interests and individual citizens must provide energy, resources, talent, and toil for much of the task.
Many of the conditions we seek to change should never have come about. It is shameful that they should continue to exist. And none are more shameful than conditions which permit some people to line their pockets with the tattered dollars of the poor.
We must take the profit out of poverty. And that is what we intend to do.
First, I have asked the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to set as his goal the establishment-in every ghetto of America—of a neighborhood center to service the people who live there.
Second, I have asked the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity to increase the number of neighborhood legal centers in slums. I want these legal centers to make a major effort to help tenants secure their rights to safe and sanitary housing.
Third, I am directing the Attorney General to call a conference to develop new procedures to insure that the rights of tenants are fully and effectively enforced. We will have at that conference the best legal minds in the country to work with State and local officials.
Fourth, I will appoint a commission of distinguished Americans to make the first comprehensive review of codes, zoning, taxation, and development standards in more than two generations. I proposed the establishment of such a commission in my 1965 message on the cities. Both Houses of Congress this week agreed in conference to fund this effort. The work of the commission will begin immediately upon the enactment of this legislation.
These are steps we will take now. But let me be perfectly candid: This job cannot be done in Washington alone. Every housing official, every mayor and every Governor must vigorously enforce their building, health, and safety codes to the limit of the law. Where there are loopholes, they must be closed. Where there are violations, the exploited tenant must be assured a swift and sure action by the courts.
Not even local officials, however, can change these conditions themselves. Unless private citizens become indignant at the treatment of their neighbors, unless individual citizens make justice for others a personal concern, poverty will profit those who exploit the poor. The Federal Government, of course, has a very large responsibility. And we are trying not only to fulfill but enlarge our role in the rebirth of American cities.
In 1961 we were investing $15 billion in our cities. We have increased that nearly 100 percent—to almost $30 billion. For the first three years of this decade these programs increased by an average of $1/2 billion per year. Since then, they have increased $4 billion per year-2/2 times the rate of increase in the previous three years.
We have made important new starts in many vital areas: in the war on poverty; in assistance to law enforcement; in the attack on pollution; in the training of manpower; in the education of children; and in the improvement of our health.
But not all the answers are in. Not even all the questions have been asked. We must continue to search and to probe, to experiment and to explore. We need constant study and new knowledge as we struggle to cure what plagues the American city.
That is why, for the first time in our history, our cities have a place in the Cabinet. More than a century after President Lincoln created the Department of Agriculture, we have a Department to serve the needs of the three out of four Americans who live in cities.
I have directed every member of my Cabinet who can help with our urban challenge to meet at least once a week in the White Houseor as often as necessary, to keep our cities program moving. I have asked each one of them to go out into the cities and to see the needs for themselves and to come back and tell me what he finds.
This is why we have brought to Washington the ablest men we could find in this country to concern themselves with the future of our cities. They have come from the universities, from business, and from labor. They are scientists, lawyers, and managers—creative men, men of vision, practical men.
This is why we have taken steps to set up summer programs for our youth, to keep the playground open later at night, to open swimming pools and open fire hydrants on hot summer evenings. These temporary steps do not take an Act of Congress. Any city can take them. Every city should take them now.
There are responsibilities, however, which only Congress can meet. We need laws and new programs—and we need them this session.
I have proposed to Congress what could become the most sweeping response ever made to our cities' needs. This is the Demonstration Cities Program, which is still before the Congress. It admits for the first time that cities are not made of bricks but of men. When Congress acts—and action is needed now-we will be able to make the first concentrated attack on urban blight and to rebuild or restore entire neighborhoods.
As we learn more, new ideas and new courses of action to improve our cities can be fitted into the Demonstration Cities Program. It does not freeze our strategy and inhibit future change. It does not erode the power of local governments, but on the contrary gives cities new choices and new abilities, new ideas and new spurs to action.
Congress has already acted to provide the money for the rent supplement program that will mobilize private enterprise for our poor. Every $600 of rent supplements will encourage private enterprise to build a housing unit with 20 times that amount.
Congress gave us $18 million less than we need, and it only acted more than a year after we proposed rent supplements. But now we can move forward to help hundreds of thousands of poor families raise their children in clean and decent surroundings.
These are only two of the programs we have laid before Congress to help solve the problems of our cities. What we need now and what American cities expect now—is action. Congress can pass this program and bring new opportunities to millions.
Give us funds for the Teachers Corps—and let skilled teachers bring knowledge and a quest for learning to those children who need it most.
Give us more resources for rent supplements and let us provide better homes for so many who live in substandard housing. Give us the Civil Rights Bill--and let us begin to break the chains that bind the ghetto by banishing discrimination from the sale and rental of housing.
Give us the means to prosecute the war against poverty—and let us provide jobs and training for adults and a head start for the very young.
Give us the Child Nutrition Act-and let us offer breakfasts and hot lunches to needy children who can be encouraged to stay in school.
Give us the Hospital Modernization Bill—and we can build and modernize hospitals to serve our urban citizens.
Give us the legislation—and we can help overcome a severe shortage of trained medical personnel.
Give us the money for urban mass transit-and our cities can begin to provide adequate transportation for their people.
Give us a just minimum wage—and more American workers will earn a decent income.
Give us better unemployment insurance--and men out of work can be trained for jobs that need workers.
Give us the Truth in Lending Bill--so that customers, especially those who are poor, can know the honest cost of the money they borrow.
Give us the Truth in Packaging Bill—so the hard-earned dollars of the poor-as well as of every American-can be protected against deception and false values.
We have an agenda for action. We have taken the first steps toward great cities for a great society. Now Congress must act to give us the power to move ahead on all these fronts.
This is no time to delay. This is no time to relax our efforts. We know there is no magic equation that will produce an instant Page 24
goal the establishment-in every ghetto of America-of a neighborhood center to service the people who live there." Now the New York Times of March 26, 1967, had a story by Robert Semple, headed : “President Seeks To Mesh Slum Aid.” The article contains this paragraph: However, the convenor order does not give Mr. Weaver authority over programs belonging to other departments. Therefore, while his own agency can provide the physical facilities for the social service system, much delicate negotiating with other departments will be necessary to provide the services-manpower retraining, pre-school training, medical care, welfare aid, and so on. (The complete article from the New York Times follows:)
(From the New York Times, Sunday, Mar. 26, 1967)
PRESIDENT SEEKS TO MESH SLUM AID
PROJECT WILL TEST FEDERALISM CONCEPT IN 14 CITIES
(By Robert B. Semple, Jr.) (Special to the New York Times) WASHINGTON, March 25.—The Johnson Administration is embarking on an unusual experiment in Federal cooperation designed to help the nation's poor and, at the same time, remedy the administrative difficulties of Great Society programs. Under the experiment, announced by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, five Federal agencies will combine efforts to establish “neighborhood service systems” in slum areas in 14 cities, including New York. The aim of the program-regarded here as a “pilot" program capable of future expansion and emulation by other cities is to coordinate social, health, manpower, recreation and educational services in low-income neighborhoods and thus to give poor families much more effective assistance than they now receive. "Too often in the past such services have been fragmentary and uneven," Robert C. Weaver, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, declared. "Families in need frequently lack information or access to services. These pilot programs will help solve such problems.”
The 14 pilot cities are: New York, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Detroit, Minneapolis, Washington, St. Louis, Dallas, Oakland, Louisville, Chattanooga, Jacksonville and Philadelphia. In part, the idea is an outgrowth of President Johnson's pledge in Syracuse last August to establish a neighborhood center of some kind "in every ghetto in America." The major purpose of the plan is to make it easier for the poor to take advantage of the many programs of the Great Society. However, officials here also regard it as an unusual and possibly hazardous test of "creative federalism." This is the phrase the President uses to describe his hopes for a more efficient and productive set of relationships between state, Federal and local governments. For example, the program will almost certainly require a much closer relationship than now prevails between state health, education and welfare agencies on the one hand, and city governments and local poverty programs on the other. Most of the programs funded by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare are channeled through state agencies; most housing and poverty programs are channeled directly to the cities. Yet the success of the program presupposes the careful coordination of them all. "One possibility under this program," a housing agency official explained, "is a central neighborhood center, where all families can be conveniently located in one place. But the idea won't amount to very much if some state or local agencies refuse to put their programs in there. Things will be just as fragmented as ever." The program also involves a major commitinent on the part of the five participating Federal agencies to make certain that once the "system" is established the programs are available to keep it going. Page 25
5. Finally, the pilot projects hopefully will clarify many of the questions about neighborhood centers which remain unanswered. For example, how can a series of specific programs be related in a coherent and meaningful fashion? How can social agencies better respond to the clientele? What are the potentialities and opoprtunities of the neighborhood concept. How can neighborhood residents play a more effective role in determining their needs and evolving their own solutions? In general a greater understanding of the requirements for planning, designing, ad operating neighborhood centers hopefully will be developed. Each of the pilot projects will be locally conceived, and local choices and needs will determine the specific neighborhood solution. However, each city will be expected to: 1. Involve to the greatest extent possible representatives of the neighborhood in the selection of the service programs and in planning and operation of the center. 2. Plan and design the service system with a variety of relevant state, local, county and private agencies and neighborhood groups. 3. Design the service system to include participation of the established and newer anti-poverty agencies as well as local public and private service agencies. The neighborhood centers are to be organized to operate as an integrated coordinated whole, and linkages should be established with agencies in the service area and the rest of the community to create a neighborhood service system. 4. Achieve broad utilization of Federal, state and local programs and, whenever feasible, evolve innovative relationships between programs to provide components of the service system; efforts should be made to relate categorical programs to a matrix of coherent services. 5. Concentrate services to provide a comprehensive and effective attack on the problems of the disadvantaged. The program should be of sufficient magnitude to indicate that a substantial improvement in community services will result. 6. Give careful attention to insuring that minority and neighborhood staff are selected to help operate the center, and, to the exent feasible, the City should insure that efforts are made to hire neighborhood residents to help construct any needed facilities. THE APPROACH Each Federal agency involved in the pilot program has appointed a representative to the Washington Interagency Group. This group meets weekly and is chaired by a representative of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Washington Interagency Group is responsible for: Developing procedures, guidelines and informational material for the pilot program and insuring that they are put into effect. Identifying funds that are available to support the projects. Whenever possible, expediting the review and approval of particular applications. Providing the leadership and direction for the pilot program. If warranted, recommending modifications in policies, procedures and statutes which would facilitate a more effective local response to the problems of providing services on the local level and which would encourage the coordination of a variety of state and Federally administered programs. Resolving problem that may arise in the field between and among the different participants. Reviewing and commenting on the initial and final project proposals in light of the objectives of the pilot program. Evaluating the effectiveness of the pilot program in terms of the service quality and the success of the interagency effort. Each locality has been assigned a Federal City Team which includes representatives from all the participating agencies. In general, these representatives are Regional Office personnel and are well acquainted with the problems of each locality. The chairman of the Federal City Team is the Regional Administrator of HUD or his designated representative. The role of the Federal City Team is: To advise and assist each city in selecting the pilot neighborhood and in planning and developing its proposal. Each agency designee is responsible for providing detailed information on the particular service or facility components for each agency and for identifying for each local team what Federal funds will be available for the project proposal, Page 26
agency-OEO. It had more flexibility than any other agency and could move more quickly than any other agency. As a result of that decision, there are, as I said before, some 250 centers now in operation to meet the pressing problems to which the President alluded in his message in Syracuse, to which you are alluding. MULTIAGENCY APPROACH IS LONGRUN SOLUTION
In addition, we decided, in accordance with the President's message and with the convener order, that we should make an immediate start in bringing together and getting the cooperation of these agencies for a multiagency approach. It was not only because of these centers, but also because of the implication for the model cities. We recognized that this would take a considerable period of time. It has, but it has not delayed the major thrust of getting the neighborhood centers established. So that there are both short run and longrun phases of the same activity. Senator ŘIBICOFF. Do I understand you to say that today in 250 cities of America there are neighborhood centers ready to give service and aid toward ameliorating the problems in those 250 cities? Secretary WEAVER. They are either in operation or they are imminent. Senator RIBICOFF. In how many cities of the 250 are these established centers actually in operation? Secretary WEAVER. I will have to supply that. That will have to come from OEO. Senator RIBICOFF. I wonder your staff is here. This will last until 12 o'clock-if your staff can let us know before the morning is over in how many cities these 250
OEO CENTERS ARE PART OF COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM
Secretary WEAVER. We will call OEO and find out. Senator RIBICOFF. If somebody will call to see. Are they ready to go? Secretary WEAVER. Some of them are already; others are ready (See p. 3713 for response.) Senator RIBICOFF. Are not the OEO centers you are talking about the centers involved in the community action programs? Is this what the President had in mind in the Syracuse speech? Secretary WEAVER. Well, as you know, under the legislation the HUD centers are supposed to be tied in primarily with the community action program, so this would be the orientation of most of these activities. MODEL CITIES APPLICATIONS Senator RIBICOFF. Let's turn to the model cities program. How many applications do you have as of today? Secretary WEAVER. We had about 28 last time I checked, last nightI imagine about 30 today. Senator RIBICOFF. About 30. What is the final day for filing the applications? Secretary WEAVER. The 1st of May. |
Which of the following was not typical of the big house of the 1940s and 1950s?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 frojeostern Inc.
