July_1966 — Page 67

Professor W. G. Gregory, BArch, ARIBA

THE

WORLD HOUSING CONGRESS

HF 28th World Congress of the International Federation for Housing and Planning was held in Tokyo from the May 9 to 14, 1966,

Two themes were discussed "Transportation Systems and Urban Pattern" and "Housing Standards for Low and Lowest Income Groups in Relation to the National Level of Economic and Social Development." The final reports on the discussions are obtainable from the Federation or its regional chapter, the Eastern Or- ganization for Planning and Housing. It is not proposed to deal with these here, but to give some personal ideas and impressions that were generated by the discussions on the second theme, the one concerned with hous- ing.

This theme is not necessarily more important than the first in the context of Hong Kong or elsewhere in South East Asia, but the thoughts generated are a little better formed. An attempt will be made in a subsequent article to discuss the first theme.

It was obvious from the start that there could be no agreement on hous- ing standards between the developed and developing nations, nor in the re- lationship between standards and so- cial and economic development, nor even in what constituted low income groups. Obviously in each country the lowest income group could be de- fined, but there could be no basis for comparison, one with the other. A touch of realism to the situation was added when an Indian delegate asked if the "No-Income Group” should not be considered with the Lowest Income Group.

This leads us to wonder if housing standards should not be related to human needs instead of to the econo- mic potential of any particular group to meet an investment.

Single Standard

In developing countries, where taxation is mainly direct, the invest- ment for housing is to a large extent contributed by the poorest element in the community, who are the most numerous but who cannot benefit from their contribution because of their inability to pay an economic rent (or even the "fictitious" economic rent based on a forty year amortisation). This would suggest that there ought to be but one standard and the avail- able investment directed to the provi- sion of as many units to this standard as it will run to, and then apportioned between the low, lowest and

Far East Architect & Builder July, 1966

no-

income groups.

Some thoughts generated by

the 28th Meeting of IFHP

One delegate suggested that the man about to marry should be given priority for housing, because it was on him that the future depended: a too- realistic view, perhaps, since it means the practical abandonment of the existing generation.

Another suggested that preference should be given to the most produc- tive sector of the community, whose activities improve the economic situa- tion which in due course brings bene- fit to other sectors of the community.

The obvious disadvantage of single standard housing is that there is in- evitably a greater degree of rent sub- sidy, resulting in a lesser return on in- vestment, a lesser regeneration of new capital and a lesser production of housing. The dilemma then is either to provide less housing on equitable basis or more housing on an unequitable basis.

an

A single standard does not suggest a uniform standard but a basis allow- ing for a variety of units for different sizes of family. Applied to Hong Kong, this would mean that the floor space unit would be uniform for all categories of housing whether provid- ed by the Resettlement Department. Housing Authority, Housing Society. private industrial undertaking, public company or philanthropic institution.

A Housing Standard founded on human needs is not easy to determine and is subject to a wide variety of personal opinions. The problem needs to be tackled, initially by a re- search programme, in order to estab lish criteria by which to examine both the functional and the social needs. A considerable amount of research has already been done, but not enough en the functional aspect, which for one thing is constantly changing.

Japanese social housing is based on the tatami, the 6 ft. x 3 ft. sleeping mat, the room or flat being designat- ed by the number of tatami units on which its plan is based. This is a simple modular basis which ensures that the space provided is functional- ly usable to the maximum.

The figure of 35 sq. ft. per person used in Hong Kong has little mean- ing unless related to functional needs. since it is possible to provide this

of

figure by many combinations dimensions, many of which can pro- vide useless or wasteful spaces.

It is interesting to note, that two tatami units side by side gives 36 sq. ft., a most useful unit, which if look- ed at in the minimum way, gives a space that will accommodate a bed, a chair and a table or desk or small storage unit, and suggests that a spatial standard based on a 6 ft. x 6 ft. space per person should prove satisfactory and that flat widths would work out at a minimum of 12 ft. (2 x 6 ft.) rather than 10 ft. which often results from structural consi- derations.

Planning Module

If this basic module is turned into round figure metric units, it gives us a 2m x 2m (6.7 ft. x 6.7 ft.) basic planning module, which could then include the structure, conveniently tieing-in structure and planning and coming into line with an interna- tional dimensioning system, leading to system building and prefabrication.

These are only first thoughts on a line of research which could be in- vestigated, in terms of optimum func- tion, which may mean in terms of standardization of basic necessary furniture, and maximum usability of space. Putting it another way the ap- proach to standards is through design and not through pure arbitrary spa- tial areas; the criteria are its form and usability.

A popular misconception in the whole realm of housing is that greater space gives greater convenience and amenity. This can only, but not al- ways, be true when the project is be- ing designed by the best architects. Even then the best architects are able to improve on convenience and am- enity with less utilization of space.

From this it follows that only the best architects should be given the responsibility for social housing, low- cost housing or housing for the low- est income groups, however it is des- cribed. Although there are some not- able examples of this thinking, there is still a wide-spread belief, also held in Hong Kong, that housing is basic- ally an engineering problem or that

65