CHAPTER VIII. EXPLANATORY OF THE COST OF BUILDINGS ACTUALLY ERECTED, AND COMPARISON WITH OTHER BUILDINGS-COST OF ADAPTATION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS TO THE DESIGNS DESCRIBED IN PRECEDING CHAPTERS. I NOW have to consider the all-important question of cost, and shall show that one of the strongest recommendations to the adoption of my plans is, that by them new houses can be built and existing ones altered at a fair remunerative interest on the required outlay of money. Clearly, if we leave philanthropy out of the calculation, and rest on commercial enterprise alone, we may be certain that no plans will be adopted by the commercial world which fail to show a good rate of interest on capital. Firstly, let us take the cost per room of some of the existing model buildings, and we find-I quote from Mr. Roberts's 'Dwellings of the Labouring Classes -that the cost per room of the Victoria Lodging House was nearly 60%.; the Columbia Square 1067. per room; Rochester Buildings over 967; and Peabody Square over 1137.; while ordinary builders, working with the disadvantage of borrowed capital, build at a cost of 317. per room. Here of course is one reason why these block buildings do not pay, and why they declare dividends of such an uninviting amount as (I am still quoting from Mr. Roberts's work)— Metropolitan Association for Improving the Dwellings of the Industrial Classes Marylebone Association Central London Dwellings Improvement Company Strand Buildings Company London Labourers' Dwelling Society (Limited) Per cert. 5 Improved Industrial Dwellings Company (Limited} . All then fail in the essential point of profit, as I do not find that any reserve fund is provided to recoup the capital, and the reader may be surprised to hear that my model buildings, while they are at least as good in plan and in the accommodation given, will pay a good rate of interest. Of this I cannot expect to convince him unless I can produce facts in confirmation. By Fortunately, unlike most propounders of something new, I can do this, and I will now show the outlay in building the model homes in Pentonville, which were built last year. My client determined to build one-half the block, for fear of non-success as to letting, and the total cost, including architect's fees, was 1,1181. referring to the plans, sections, and perspective I have given, the reader will understand the half includes two of the bay windows shown and one entrance door, and comprises eight distinct homes; each having plumber's watercloset, sink (water laid on thereto), range, coalcellar, and cupboards. The sizes of the rooms are also E marked on the plan. The present rentals are 7s. 6d. for the back sets, and 8s. 6d. for the front sets (those facing the street), thus giving a gross rental of 1667. 8s. per annum. I should mention the rental is put too low, but they were finished building at a depressed season, and the gardens could not be formed because a part of the land required was not vacated, and to prevent any risk of their not letting, the rent we considered fair value, namely, 10s. each set, was not asked. Moreover, we could not be sure that our novel plan would command approval. The result was that at the rentals of 7s. 6d. and 8s. 6d. the sets let before the building was finished, and dealing even with this low rental the result is To return interest at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum, we require only 55l. 18s., so we get more than 81 per cent., as that sum would require only 951. Os.7d., leaving a surplus 31. 14s. 5d.; and yet I am confident my client could now obtain the larger rental I have mentioned, though I cannot help admiring the motive that prevents him. This motive is the dislike he has to raising the rent of his tenantry. We may therefore conclude that houses built according to my plan will safely pay even tempting interest, if land can be obtained on building lease at a price of 10s. per foot frontage. In inferior spots no doubt land could be obtained at a much less price, but then the dwellings would have to be let at a less rental, so that the revenue would not be greatly affected. We may therefore assume in ordinary cases, as I have shown, a certain income of over 77. 10s. per cent. may be obtained from building according to my registered plan. I say that rate to allow the return of capital, and for parts standing empty, and not taking into account the increased rentals that may be obtained.* It may be objected the rental these homes command is far above that which the poorer classes can pay to which I answer, I am, it must be borne in mind, building so that I can get tempting interest, and therefore I am bound as to rentals by the 'demand' to provide the 'supply,' to use the commercial phrase. It is certainly, in a monetary point of view, wiser to work from the higher demand to the lower, than the reverse; because we are more certain to get the rental paid by the higher class of the working men than the lower, and there is also the less destruction of the houses to be placed on the credit side of the question. I would make an extract from a letter in the 'Society of Arts Journal' of April 21, 1871, signed R. H. which confirms my view. He says: 'There is one more practical point which I would urge in connection with building. If there be a real want for houses for a class well above poverty, which it cannot itself supply, but for which there is no reasonable doubt it could pay in the shape of remunerative rents, there are surely some strong reasons for entering upon such an undertaking rather than directly building for a pauperised class, who cannot pay at all. It is certainly somewhat hard entirely to reverse the old maxim, and to refuse" 'on principle" to help those who can do a great deal to help themselves, and beyond this lie two very practical considerations: 1. This better class certainly cannot occupy new houses without vacating old ones, so that all, down to the lowest, are likely indirectly to share in the Next, let us consider my second plan, adapted to land having little depth, and to families requiring only one bedroom, or whose means are more limited and who might make the sitting-room useful at night by having a shut-up or press bedstead therein. As the basis of all calculation must be the groundrent that is paid, or the interest on the capital invested in the purchase of the freehold land, we must first deal with that. I ever advise the purchase of land well placed, and so will assume we give 1,000l. an acre for four acres. Our first operation (for I place against us all question of using the roads on the estate, and presume our land is good, but has not any frontages) must be to reduce our four acres available for building by roads 40 feet in width. This will be an excellent width for the roads, having regard to the small height of our houses, which are 23 feet from line of pavement to top of parapet. The limit, I may mention, as to height permitted by the Metropolitan Buildings Act, 1855, would allow, with this width of roadway, an increased height of 17 feet, but I consider it wiser not to increase the height, as my desire is improvemert. Next take the land, minus the road, and give a depth of 10 feet to the houses for back yards, on which no erections need be put, and put a ground-rent of 4s. per benefit. 2. Such a better class of tenants will not only be self-supporting, but, in all probability, their houses, when tenanted, will become saleable, so that a great and permanent advantage would be afforded by a use of funds for a short time. Not only is the money replaced for future usefulness, but there is a double, though partial, advantage speedily and safely accomplished, and it may well be, also, that in some cases good gained by such easy steps may, in the long run, go on faster and better than that accomplished per saltum.' |