Good houses cost more than many families can afford. Although housing specialists for a number of years have been making recommendations and suggestions for the reduction of house costs, many of which have been used with some success, there are still a great number of families in this country whose incomes are not large enough to permit home ownership. The United States Census Bureau reported in 1920 only 45.6 per cent of families as home-owners. High costs and difficulty in the financing of homes undoubtedly are responsible in part for this low home ownership that is reported by the Census. Since housing specialists maintain that a safe price to pay for a house is one which is not over two or two and one-half times the annual income it is obvious that families receiving much less than $1,500 annually cannot afford a home that will include the necessary standards for healthful and comfortable living, unless it is in the southern states where building due to climatic conditions may be less expensive. Better standards for more of the cheaper homes are now demanded, for no family should be subjected to poor ventilation, lack of sunlight, congestion, and unsanitary conditions generally. With costs as they now are families of low-income groups must necessarily live in the cast-off houses of families with more money. The problem in housing, then, is the problem of reducing costs and at the same time maintaining an acceptable standard. Every house that is erected should be planned and built with every consideration in mind for the health and comfort of the family that is to occupy it. Although the family for whom the house is built may afford a new home within a few years, the cast-off house doubtless will become the home of some less prosperous and less fortunate family.

There are a number of methods which have been both tried and suggested by which costs may be reduced to some extent. Some of these are mass production, the use of more factory-made parts, less expensive land, less expensive improvements (sewerage facilities, water, electricity, gas, improved streets and pavements), elimination of waste in all construction processes and in materials, better use of materials, standardization of building materials and parts that make up the completed house, substitutes for costly materials, year-round construction, cheaper financing, reduction of the cost of selling, reduction of fire losses, uniformity of building codes, and eliminations in planning and building the actual house such as omitting the basement, fireplace, certain built-in equipment, etc. (Some of these methods are discussed in the following pages of this chapter; references to others are included in the Bibliography.)

Little effort has been made to determine costs of dwelling houses for the entire country, owing to the fact that costs of both materials and labor differ widely in various sections. It has been stated that the cost of a particular Colonial house built from as nearly identical materials as possible varied as much as 35 per cent in different communities, owing largely to varying material and labor costs and also to the varying profits demanded by contractors. It is difficult also to compare a particular house built in several places, as the requirements of owners will differ and the grades of materials selected will not be identical.

Undoubtedly the most extensive compilations of costs of houses are those prepared by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. This Bureau collects information on the cost of residential as well as nonresidential buildings, the number of families provided for, and the average cost of dwellings - single, two-family, and multi-family. These cost figures, collected monthly by the Bureau, are based on costs submitted with building permits.

Table VI, adapted from one which appeared in the April, 1931, Monthly Labor Review, shows the average cost of dwellings, the index numbers of cost of dwellings per family from 1921 to 1929, based on the building permits of 257 identical cities in the United States.

The costs of houses reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics are those costs stated by the builder who applies to the local authorities for a permit. Frequently there is some difference between the cost stated in the permit and the actual cost of the building. However, these figures show admirably, trends - the increase or decrease in cost over a period of years. The Bureau, however, has not distributed costs per room or taken into consideration the kinds of materials used such as brick, stucco, or wood, etc. The table shows average costs of dwellings of every size and every material.

This same Bureau has made another most interesting and useful study on the distribution of the building dollar and the relative cost of materials and labor in residential buildings. This study which is reported in some detail in the Monthly Labor Review of January, 1929, has been based on reports on residential building in three cities representing different types of urban communities - Cincinnati, Ohio; Decatur, Illinois; and Washington, D.C. The per cents used in Table VII are based on the average costs reported by these three cities. Overhead expenses, finance charges, profits, and cost of land are not included. The Bureau also has distributed the cost, combining both material and labor among the various classes of work that are essential in house building. Building materials represented 54 per cent of the dollar for residential building and labor 46 per cent.

The cost also has been distributed among the various classes of work combining materials and labor in these same three cities and here is where the building dollar goes (cf. Table VIII).

The United States Department of Commerce publishes in its monthly publication, the Survey of Current Business, construction costs and building material prices for frame and brick houses. The figures included in Table IX appear in the February and August, 1930, and the February, 1931, issues.

Table VI

Table VII

Table VIII

The table below shows building material price indexes representing the relative cost of building materials entering into the construction of a 6-room frame house and a 6-room brick house, from the United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Standards, Division of Building and Housing and Bureau of Census, based on prices paid for material by contractors in some 60 cities of the United States. The prices are weighted by the relative importance of each commodity in the construction of a 6-room house.

Another distribution of the building dollar has been made of the cost of nine houses averaging $15,000 by the Copper and Brass Research Association. This distribution includes landscaping, builder's profit, architect's fee, and financing (cf. Table X).1

1 From A Real Home - Suggestions to Home Builders. New York: Copper and Brass Research Association, 1927.

Some effort has been made also to determine costs per cubic foot. Table XI shows the average costs of houses of the Pittsburgh District.1

Table IX

Table X

1 From the Pittsburgh Realtor, April 17, 1928. Although there are many controversies over the value of cubic-foot costs as a guide in estimating the cost of new houses, many

The tables and compilations are merely indicative of the general average of house costs, costs of materials and labor, of operations, and costs per cubic foot. As before stated, costs vary so greatly between city and city and district and district that only the most general information is obtainable.

Table XI

[Note. - In addition to the information on costs of houses compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Bureau also compiles wholesale price indexes for building materials and information on union wage rates in the building industry. Information may be obtained also from the U.S. Department of Commerce on retail prices of building materials.]