Enough has probably been said to show that the work of caring for the
house under the conditions existing in most immigrant neighborhoods,
is unnecessarily difficult for the foreign-born housewife. The most
obvious point at which these burdens might be lightened so that the
housewife could have time for other duties, would appear to be through
improvement of housing. With an awakened realization of this fact,
both on the part of the foreign-born woman herself and the community
of which she is an inevitable part, will come the solution of these
difficulties. A protest, however inarticulate or indirectly expressed
by her, will find its response in a growing realization that plans for
improvement must be developed.
The several housing projects that have already been offered are
suggestive of the problems and possibilities along this line rather
than useful as hard-and-fast solutions. They not only meet the needs
of the more inadequate immigrant housing conditions, but provide
improvement upon most native-born conditions. In this connection
interest naturally centers on the war-time housing projects of the
United States government, on the experiment of the Massachusetts
Homestead Commission at Lowell, and on certain enterprises carried out
by so-called limited dividend companies. The first two are especially
interesting, in that they recognize that supplying houses to the
workers is not a function that can be wholly left to private
initiative.
It is not possible to discuss these projects in detail, nor is it
necessary.[16] It is sufficient to consider them here with reference
to the contributions they might make in helping the immigrant
housewife. In the first place, they provide for a toilet and a bath in
every house, and a supply of running water that is both adequate and
convenient. In the matter of kitchen equipment there is an attempt to
provide some of the conveniences. Both provide a sink and set
wash-tubs equipped with covers. They must be set at a minimum of
thirty-six inches from the floor in the United States plans. Both make
provision for gas to be used for cooking, although the coal stove is
accepted. The kitchens in the Massachusetts houses are also provided
with kitchen cabinets, with shelves under the sink, and with a drain
for the refrigerator.
In other ways also consideration for the housewife is evidenced.
Electricity is urged for lighting, passages through which furniture
would not go are avoided, the size of the living room is adapted to
the sizes of the most commonly purchased rugs, etc. Study of the
Massachusetts plans reveals other interesting features, such as the
care given to the location of the bathroom and the attention to the
size of the doors, so that the mother at work in her kitchen can watch
the children at play in other rooms.
Both projects are interesting also in that they realize the necessity
of a "front room" or parlor, and prescribe a minimum number of
bedrooms--three in the Massachusetts, and two in the United States
experiment. Both require closets in every bedroom wide enough to
receive the men's garments on hangers, and rooms of such size that the
bed can stand free of the wall and out of a draught. It is evident
that the plans for houses in both projects provide very definite
improvements in the matter of the conveniences to which the immigrant
is not accustomed in the houses at present available to him.
Some limitations, however, become apparent by comparing them with the
recommendations of the Women's Subcommittee of the Ministry of
Reconstruction Advisory Council, England. That committee emphasizes
the importance of electricity for lighting, and urges "that a cheap
supply of electricity for domestic purposes should be made available
with the least possible delay." The American plans agree that
electricity is the preferred lighting, but gas is accepted by the
United States government, although not by the Massachusetts plan.
There is no suggestion of developing a cheaper supply of electricity.
The English women also suggest the desirability of a central heating
plant as a measure that would lessen the work of the household, afford
economies in fuel, and render a hot-water supply readily available.
They urge, therefore, further experimentation with central heating.
The American plans have no suggestions to make at this point, but
accept the coal stove or the separate furnace in the higher-priced
houses as the means of heating. While they provide for hot water, no
suggestions are made as to how this is to be supplied. It is
presumably done by a tank attached to the range, which means that hot
water is not available when there is no fire in the range; that is, in
summer and during the night. It should also be noted that these plans
make no suggestions for co-operative use of any of the equipment of
the household.
There is another point at which the architects and builders failed to
take sufficient notice of the problem of lightening the women's
work--namely, in their attitude toward the separate family home as
compared with the multiple family dwelling. The Massachusetts
Commission was, by the terms of the Act creating it, limited to the
provision of one or two-family houses; the United States government
standards were definitely against the building occupied in whole or in
part by three or more families.
Tenement and apartment houses are considered generally
undesirable, and will be accepted only in cities where,
because of high land values, it is clearly demonstrated that
single and two-family houses cannot be economically provided,
or where there is insistent demand for this type of multiple
housing.
This judgment, however, has by no means met with universal approval.
Those architects who think in terms of the woman's time and strength
consider the merits of the group and of the multiple house. For
example, those who planned the Black Rock Apartment House Group in
Bridgeport, Connecticut, the open-stairway dwellings, the John Jay
dwellings on East Seventy-seventh Street, New York City, and the
Erwin, Tennessee, development, maintain that the advantages of the
separate house in privacy, independence, and access to land can be
secured by the multiple arrangement. Not only can economies in the use
of the land be practiced, but protection and assistance for the women
and children can be obtained, and there is the possibility of devices
for convenient and collective performance of many tasks.
It is unnecessary to review the arguments for the one or for the
other. It is evident that the group house, and perhaps the multiple
house, offer such inducements in the economy of space and the
possibility of assigning areas of land to definite and anticipated
uses, that their further adaptation to family needs must be
contemplated. It is generally assumed that the family group wants the
separate house. The question of interest for this study is one of the
desire of the immigrant groups in this respect. Their preference
should be an indispensable element in the formulation of housing
standards.
There is not, however, a great deal of evidence on this subject. The
fact that immigrants live in the city in the congested districts may
only indicate that they have had no choice in the matter. Most of the
officers of certain immigrant building and loan associations
interviewed for this study thought there was a preference for the
single-family dwelling when it could be afforded. That also is the
belief of the investigators in this study, who think that the use of
multiple houses indicates not the immigrants' desires, but their
acceptance of what is before them, and that the dream of almost every
immigrant family is to have a house of its own, to which is attached a
little garden.
How far the desire for the separate house is confused with the desire
for the garden would be difficult to say. It is certain, however,
that in general the immigrant has known only one way to have the
garden, and that was by having a separate house. There is universal
agreement that especially the foreign-born family desires access to
land for whose cultivation they may be responsible, and whose produce
both in food and in flowers they may enjoy. Recently, however, certain
architects have been interested in working out plans by which this
advantage might be retained for dwellers in group or tenement houses.
They have pointed out that one advantage of the group and multiple
house is the setting free of spaces to be more skillfully adapted to
the size and composition of the family.
Attention may be called to certain devices that are urged by
experienced architects in the matter of the use of land. For example,
in the Morgan Park, Minnesota, development of the Illinois Steel
Company, the architects have developed interesting plans in connection
with their low-cost houses. These are all group houses, with a front
space opening on an attractively planned street. At the rear of the
house is a latticed porch--a small area graveled, but not grassed--and
then the alley. Across the alley is the rear garden, which may thus be
fenced in and kept separate from the house lot.
[Illustration: A COMMUNITY PLAN SUBMITTED BY MILO HASTINGS IN THE
AMERICAN HOUSING COMPETITION, 1919, SHOWING THE U VARIATIONS, THE BACK
SERVICE STREET, THE PROVISION FOR REAR GARDENS, AND THE OPEN AREAS ON
WHICH ALL THE HOUSES WILL FRONT
(Reprinted by permission from the Journal of the American Institute of
Architects, June, 1919)]
Interesting suggestions on this point are to be found in the two
articles, to which prizes were given by the American Institute of
Architects in the June and July, 1919, numbers of their journal. There
is much experimentation yet to be done, as the question of the
separate house with its separate plot of ground is by no means a
settled one. It is particularly desirable that the interest of the
foreign born be enlisted, both that they may contribute to the
solution of the question and that they may become acquainted with all
the possibilities of access to the land which are being worked out.
In spite of some defects and the need for further experimentation
along the lines suggested above, there is no doubt that the projects
of Massachusetts and of the Federal government mark a very real
advance. The most pressing need is to construct a sufficient number of
these houses so that they may be available for immigrant groups. One
means of doing this is by the employer's building houses for the
workers to buy or to rent. Although this has sometimes been found to
help solve the housing situation, factors may enter that limit its
usefulness. The industrial relationships between employer and employee
may be such that subsidy for housing by employer would hinder rather
than help. Where a community is largely comprised of one industry it
may be very unwise for the industry to go so far toward the control of
community affairs. Labor unrest in the northern iron ranges can be
traced in part to such company provision of housing and sanitation.
The limited dividend company, organized not for profit, and operating
under the careful supervision of a governmental department, is another
solution. This agency has been particularly successful in
Massachusetts under the stimulus as well as under the supervision of
the Massachusetts Homestead Commission, and is undoubtedly capable of
further development.