Strata, Sitta f nrb THE GIFT OF T, &, Saku-Wv^a-vt, / Cornell University Library HD7304.B8 G29 Housing standards in Brooldyn: 3 1924 030 084 804 olln liQI^MQ Sl^AMIMilDS BROOICL¥N DATE DUE :)Ef^?¥fiffWtr^ j/w— r BfTF fi^^ , 6 ft^ «i ^/m^BM^ *ff§z T SiUyt b B > ^..-p-""^'" M^-U ^§ ^WBi^ii iii9 36 22.1% 43 26.4% 6 3.8% 85 52.2% Greenpoint . . 40 25% 27 16.9% 75 46.9% 18 11.2% 120 7S% Gowanus . . S3 29.9% 49 27.6% 74 41.8% 1 0.57o 124 70.1% Navy Yard . . 94 56.6% 38 22.9% 33 19.8% 1 0.6% 72 43.3% Red Hook . . . 123 36.6% 98 29.2% 109 32.4% 4 1.2% I '0.6% 213 64.4% St. Marks . . .50 45.4% 27 24.5% 26 23,6% 6 5.4% I 0.9% ■ 60 54.5% Southern . . 72 41.8% 28 16.2% 65 37.8% 7 4.1% 100 58.1% Williamsburg !h . 264 57.4% ' 1,012 43.7% 99 21.5% 518 22.4% 82 17.8% 708 30.6% IS 76 3.3% . . . 3.3% 3 0.01% 196 42.6% Total 1,30S 56.3% Total families 2,317 Total number of rooms in all apartments . 8,861 Total number of interior rooms .... 2,174 or 24.S% TABLE X TUBERCULOSIS DAY CAMP One Two Bedford . . . Bushwick . . East New York Flatbush . -. . Fort Greene Greenpoint . . Gowanus . . . Navy Yard . . Red Hook . . St. Marks .. . Southern . . . Williamsburgh 8 61.5% 2 16.4% 2 15.4% 7 63.6% 4 36.4% 48 90.6% 3 S.7%- 2 3.7% 3 100% 8 72.7% 2 18.3% 1 9.1% 1 33.3% 2 66.6% 4 100% 2 40% 3 60% 1 50% 1 50% 7 1007o 38 -7-4.4% 11 21.5% Three 1 7,6% Total Apartments With Interior Rooms 5 38.5% 4 36.4% 5 9.4% 3 27.3% 2 66.6% 2 3.' Total 127 77.9% 13 8% 20 12.3% 3 1.8% . . Total families 163 Total number of rooms in all apartments 709 Total number of interior rooms 62 or 8.7% 60% 50% 13 25.4% 36 22,1% IS TABLE XI DISTRICT NURSES None 1 25% Bedford Bush wick East New York . , Flatbush Fort Greene .... 4 40% Greenpoint 19 76% Gowanus S 55.6% Navy Yard 1 lOOfo Red Hook 3 30% St. Marks 2 100% Southern 24 55.8% Williamsburgh ... 43 71.7% One 2 50% 12 85.7% 2.14.2% 1 10% 1 4% 1 11.1% 8 18.6% 5 8.3% Two 1 25% 5 50% S 20% 3 33.3% 6 60% 1 10% Three Four 11 25.6% 10 16.6% Total 114 64.1% 26 14.6% 36 20.2% Total FamiUes Total number of rooms in all apartments . Total number of interior rooms 2 3.3% 2 1.1% 104 or . 178 . 782 13.1% Total Apartments With Interior Rooms 3 75% ' 2 14.3% 6 60% 6 24% 4 44.4% 7 70% 19 44.2% 17 28.3% 64 35.9% Bedford . . . Bushwick . . East New York Flatbush . . Fort Greene . Greenpoint Gowanus . Navy Yard . Red Hook . . St. Marks . . Southern . . Williamsburgh TABLE XII JEWISH AID SOCIETY None 25 28.8% 3 21.4% 118 '8-1. 9fo^ 1 25% 1 20% 1 100% 10 90.9% 8 50% 98 35.1% One 21.8% 14.3% — 8.4%- 25% 66.6% 60% 25% 100% 12.5% 25.4% Two 35 40.2% 8 57.1% 9.03% 50% 33.3% 20% 50% 31.3% 29.4% Three 5 5.8% 1 7,1% 1 0,7% 1 25% 9,09% 6.2% 9.6% Four 3 3.4 Total Apartments With Interior Rooms % 62 11 26 3 3 4 4 1 71.3% 78.6% 18.1% 75% 100% 80% 100% 100% 1 0.4% 181 Total 265 46.5% 114 20.1% 149 26.1% 37 6.5% 4 0.7% 304 Total FamiUes 569 Total number of rooms in all apartments 2,084 Total number of interior rooms 539 or 26% 50% ' 64.9% 53.5% The similarity between the results of this study with that of Dr. Chapin with respect to dark rooms is quite striking. He finds that 53% of his famihes have interior living rooms, while 52.9% of our famihes have interior rooms. The following table (XIII) gives a detailed sum- mary of the number and percentage of interior rooms for different economic groups. 16 Income Group (Annual Income) $400 to $599 600 to 799 800 to 899 900 to 1099 1100 and over TABLE XIII Number ci Families 25 151 73 94 391 Number of Families with One or More Bark Rooms 16 81 47 46 18 ■ 208 64% 54% 64% 49% 53% ROOM OVERCROWDING. There is no more important phase of the housing problem than room- overcrowding, for it has a direct and far-reaching effect on both the moral and physical yyell-b eing of th e_family. The indiscriminate crowding together of from three to five persons in a bedroom breaks down all privacy and decency and is a prolific source of vice and crime. From the point of view of public health the evil is quite as serious. Public health authorities both here and abroad have produced the most convincing evi- dence to prove that both the incidence and death rate of tuberculosis in- crease injproportion to the amount of overcrowding. Since overcrowding affects both tHe~moralslLnd^he heallhof the family, any standard de- signed to regulate it must be drawn with respect to both aspects of the problem. The standard set by the tenement house law and the sanitary code in New York City, which requires 400 cubic feet of air for each adult and 200 cubic feet of air for each child, is designed to regulate the unsanitary features of overcrowding but neglects entirely its moral aspects. But even from the sanitary point of view the standard is fright- fully inadequate. Recently the Tenement House Department investigated ninety -five apartments in Brooklyn which it had reason to believe were overcrowded. Of this number, nine, or about 10%, were found to be violating this requirement, and yet the following table (XIV) is a list of some of the conditions of overcrowding which existed in these apart- ments, but which the tenement house law, because .of its inadequate standard, was powerless to prevent. 17 TABLE XIV OVERCROWDING FOUND BY THE TENEMENT HOUSE depa: Number in Family Adults Children Number of Rooms in Apartment Number of Cubic Feet in Apartment Number of Cubic Feet Required 7 3 4 4100 3400 7 1 4 4019 2800 4 4 3 2902 2400 4 S 3 2609 2600 4 1 2 2148 1800 5 3 3 3026 2600 6 7 4 3972 3800 3 S 2 2208 2200 3 3 2 2205 1800 6 2 3 4363 2800 4 3 3 3354 2200 3 7 4 4532 2600 S 5 4 4901 3000 It is obvious that this standard is totally inadequate and must be increased or a more practicable one adopted. There is a growing feeling that overcrowding should be regulated by the number of persons to a room regardless of its size. This standard is urged because, so far as decency is concerned at least, what matters most is the number of persons in the room and not its size. Besides, a provision of this kind is more capable of enforcement and most of the health officials in England base their regulations on this principle. The standard mainly adopted by health authorities in English ,cities is that there must not be more than two persons to a room. The standard set by other authorities and which has been adopted by the New York State Conference of Charities and Correction and by the New York State Factory Investigation Commission is that there must not b^ more than one and one-half persons per room. For those who are somewhat puzzled by this fractional division of human beings it may best be expressed by saying that there must be not more than six persons living in four rooms or three persons in two rooms. This would mean that a family of six living in four rooms would probably be distributed in three bedrooms, since at least one room would be used for a kitchen, dining room or living room and not for sleeping pur- poses. This would seem to be the limit which a due regard to decency and sanitation would dictate. For the purpose of separating the families into two distinct groups, of the overcrowded and the decently housed, we shall adopt this standard. However, since any such division is more or less arbitrary and since it fails to give us an adequate picture of the degree of overcrowding existing in each group, we shall consider the data from several different angles and in considerable detail. We shall first consider the number of persons in each family and the number of persons in each apartment. This information, covering the entire group, is found in the accompanying table (XV) and is arranged in a form which will clearly show the relation between the number of rooms and the number of persons in family. The vertical columns classify 18 the families according to the number of persons in the family; the horizontal columns classify the apartments according to the number of rooms they contain; by combining the two we can tell at a glance the number of families of different sizes and the number of rooms which each family occupies. TABLE XV NUMBER OF FAMILIES CLASSIFIED AS TO NUMBER OF PERSONS AND NUMBER OF ROOMS IN APARTMENT. Total No. No. of NUMBER OF PERSONS o: 1 Fami- Rooms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lies % 1 6 19 8 7 1 _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ - — 42 1.30 2 17 63 87 52 48 27 12 11 2 1 1 - - - 321 9.94 3 7 57 105 160 136 102 86 53 20 7 1 - - - 734 22.77 4 2 65 124 226 270 229 192 150 76 31 14 3 1 2 1385 42.93 S 2 16 39 52 73 115 82 64 44 25 3 6 - 2 523 16.20 6 _ 2 9 21 23 25 26 21 20 19 5- 4 1 1 177 5.48 7 _ _ 2 3 3 3 2 8 2 3 2 _ _ 2 30 .93 8 _ _ 1 _ _ 2 1 1 1 _ - _ - - 6 .18 9 _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 • 1 1 _ _ _ _ _ 5 .15 10 - - - - - - 2 1 - - - - - 1 4 .12 Total No, of .34 7.22 375 521 5,54 504 406 310 166 86 26 13 2 8 3227 Families Per cent. 1.2 6.9 11.7 16.2 17.2 15.6 12.3 9.6 5..1 2.7 .8 .4 .06 .03 of°Persras34-444 1125 2084 2770 3024 2842 2480 1494 860 286 156 26 112 This table i^eveals many striking cases of room congestion. For example, we find two families of fourteen persons living in four-room apartments; one family of eleven persons living in a three-room apart- ment; eleven families of eight persons living in two-room apartments, and one family of seVen persons living in one room. The same table also indicates that four-room apartments are the most popular, for 1,38S families or 42.9% are so housed. Three and five-room apartments rank next in popularity, with 22.7% and 16.2% respectively occupying such apartments. There is, however, more variety in the size of family. While families of five hold first place, those of four and six persons are almost as common, and those of three and seven but slightly less common. The following is a fair summary of the above table: Total number of persons 17,737 Total number of rooms 12,446 Total number of families • 3,227 Average number of rooms per family 3.8 Average number of persons per family S.S Average number of persons per room 1-4 The average family of the entire group is considerably larger than the average family throughout the entire country, which, according to the U. S. Census of 1910, was 4.7 persons per family. The size of the apart- 19 merit on the other hand falls below the normal size. Although adequate data for this is not available, it is generally assumed that four rooms is a proper minimum for a normal family. The report of the Tenement House Department for the year 1914 shows that the average number of rooms in "new law" apartments erected between the years 1902-1914 was 4.3. When it is remembered that apartments in tenement houses are not usually considered spacious this average would hardly seem an excessive standard to apply to all groups. With families above normal size and apartments below normal size abnormal room congestion in- evitably follows. There are many interesting points of difference among the four groups with reference to room occupancy. The accompanying tables (XVII and XVIII) classify the families of each group as to the number of persons per family and the number of rooms per family for each of the four groups. • TABLE XVII Bureau of Charities Day Camp District Nurses Jewish Society Number of Number % Number % Number % Number % Rooms in of of of oi Apartment Families Families Families Families 1 39 » 1.7 1 .6 1 .6 1 A 2 247 10.7 4 2.5 4 2.2 66 11.6 3 543 23.4 20 12.3 20 11.3 151 26.6 4 947 40.9 81 49.7 78 43.8 279 49.04 S 38S 16.7 34 20.9 51 28.6 53 9.31 6 128 s.s 19 11.6 14 7.9 16 2.81 7 17 .7 2 1.2 8 4.5 3 .53 8 4 .2 2 1.1 9 3 .1 2 1.2 10 4 .2 Total 2317 163 178 569 TABLE XVIII Bureau of Charities Day Camp District Nurses Jewish Society Number of Number % Number % Number % Number % Persons in of of of of Family Families Families Families Families 1 27 1.1 5 3. 3 1.6 7 1.2 2 185 8. 12 7.3 14 7.8 29 5,1 3 284 12.2 17 10.4 36 20,1 65 114 4 384 16.6 17 10.4 30 16.8 84 14,7 S 402 17.3 32 19.6 29 16,2 105 18,5 6 353 15.2 28 17 26 14.6 90 15,8 7 267 11.5 23 14.1 24 13,4 85 IS 8 208 9 18 11.4 8 4.4 55 9.6 9 lis 5 8 4.9 3 1.6 25 4,3 10 60 2.6 2 1.2 2 1.1 15 2.6 11 15 .7 1 .6 2 1.1 '7 1.2 12 9 .4 1 .6 1 .01 13 1 .05 14 7 .3 1 '.01 Total 2317 163 178 20 569 Obviously, the four-room apartment is the most popular in each group. It is significant, however, that the two lowest economic groups have a larger percentage of their families housed in but one or two room apartments, since approximately 12% of their respective families are living in such inadequate quarters, as against 3 % in the more prosperous groups. The Jewish Aid Society, however, reports the largest percentage of its families in apartments of four rooms or less. Families of five predominate in all of the groups except in the Day Camp group, where families of six lead the list. There is, however, greater variety in the size of families than in the size of apartments and the population of each group is fairly evenly distributed in families of three, four, five and six persons. The following table (XIX) indicates the average number of persons per room for each group : TABLE XIX. Bureau of Day District Jewish Aid Charities Camp , Nurses Society Total Number of Persons 12,465 1,047 1,051 3,174 Total Number of Rooms 8,861 709 792 2,084 Average Number of Persons in Family S.4 6.4 5.9 5.6 Average Number of Rooms in Apartment 3.8 4.3 4.4 3.7 Average Number of Persons per Room 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.5 Even these averages indicate that the families at the greatest econorhic disadvantage fare worst as to the size of their apartments; for the families of the two relief societies make the poorest showing as to the average size of their apartments. However, this conclusion must be modified somewhat in the case of the Day Camp since the average size of its families far outstrips those of all other groups. The best criterion is, of course, the average room densitv,and not the size of the apartment. Here we find for the first time that one of the relief societies, the Jewish Aid Society, is on a par with a more prosperous group, the Day Camp, in furnishing the worst type of houses. Both of these groups have an average density of one and one half persons per room, which is on the very verge of overcrowding. Averages, however, are unsatisfactory in giving us an adequate con- ception of the problem since they are arrived at by a process of neutraliz- ing the good and bad features of the situation. Our first table, showing exactly the relation of the number of persons to the number of rooms for each family, indicated clearly the degree of room congestion in each case and enabled us to select striking examples of overcrowding. It failed, however, to furnish us a grouping of the families in a convenient form with respect to congestion. The following table (XX), it is hoped, ■will supply this demand: 21 TABLE XX. No. of Persons Bureau of Day District Jewish Aid Total For Per Room Charities C: imp N urses Society Borough No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 1-2 or less 98 4.2 5 3.1 4 2.2 16 2.8 123 3.8 .51 to 1 629 27.2 35 21.4 55 30.9 119 20.9 838 26. 1.01 to 1.50 720 31.1 S3 32.5 60 33.7 192 33.7 1025 31.8 1.51 to 2 559 24.1 48 29.4 4.6 25.8 163 28.6 816 25.4 2.01 to 2.50 174 7.5 IS 9.2 8 4.S 55 9.7 252 7.8 2.51 to 3 100 4.3 6 3.7 3 1.7 18 3.3 127 3.9 3.01 to3.50 18 .7 — — 1 .6 3 .5 22 :(, 3.51 and more 19 .9 1 .7 1 .6 3 .5 24 .7 It is clear at a glance that the Jewish Aid Society and the Day Camp groups are the most congested. However, the Bureau of Charities has the largest percentage of its families housed at exceedingly high densities. The following summary shows the percentage of families of each group housed at the rate of more than two and one-half persons per room: Bureau of Charities S.9% Day Camp 5.4% District Nurses 2.9% Jewish Aid Society 2.3%. Thus the lowest economic group shows the largest percentage of the very worst room congestion. The following table (XXI) shows what proportion of the families of each group are overcrowded according to the standard we have accepted. TABLE XXI OVERCROWDED NOT OVERCROWDED (More than IJ/2 persons per room) (Less than 1>4 persons per room) No. % Bureau of Charities S70 38. Day Camp 70 42.9 District Nurses 59 33.2 Jewish Aid Society 242 42.6 Entire Borough 1241 38.4 1986 61.6 The situation with respect to room overcrowding is unique in that the group lowest in the economic scale is not living under the worst condi- tions. The Tuberculosis Day Camp and the Jewish Aid Eocfety groups are worst off with respect to room congestion and conditions are equally bad in each case. The Bureau of Charities makes a better showing than the Jewish Aid Society, although their families are on almost identically the same economic plane. The families of the District Nursing Com- mittee are the best of all, but it must be remembered that this group is the most prosperous of all. • Whether or not the rate of overcrowding for these groups is excep- tionally high can only be determined by comparing it with the rate pre- vailing among similar groups. Dr. Chapin found' that 48% of the 39,1 22 No. % 1447 62. 93 . 57,1 119 66.8 327 57.4 families he studied were overcrowded according to our standard. This figure, ■ however, combines the results found in all of the boroughs of Greater New York. In Manhattan he found that 55% of the families were overcrowded, while in all the boroughs, including Brooklyn, only 29% were overcrowded. It would seem, therefore, that the rate of over- crowding which he found in the outlying boroughs was 10% less than we have found. This would indicate that overcrowding has increased 10% in Brooklyn in the ten years which have elapsed since Dr. Chapin's study was made. Dr. Edward T. Devine found that of the 4,500 families which be describes in his work, "Misery and Its Causes," 45% were overcrowded. Inasmuch as these families resided in either Manhattan or the Bronx, it would indicate that there is less room congestion in Brooklyn than in these boroughs. The fact that the families are drawn from the same economic class niakes the comparison all the more applicable. In this connection, comparison with Rowntree's epoch making work, "Poverty," is enlightening. Rowntree's study covers the years 1898, 1899 and 1900 and is descriptive of the conditions prevailing among the entire working population of the City of York, England. He found that 10% of the working population of that city were overcrowded according to the English standard of more than two persons per room. Our results show, however, that 13% of our families are housed at that density. This can be probably accounted for by the fact that the York families, at the time of Rowntree's study at any rate, were much smaller than the Brook- lyff families we are now studying. The average size of workingm'en's families of York in 1898 was 4.01 persons, whereas our general average is 5.5. This is more remarkable since the birth rate prevailing among that group was 39.83 per thousand of population and for the entire city was 30 per thousand of population. The birth rate for New York City, in- cluding Brooklyn, was 24.57 in 1916. On the other hand .the infant mortality rate for York in 1898 was 176 per thousand births, while in New York it was 93.1 per thousand births in 1916. The general death rate for York in 1898 was^lS.S, while in New York it was 13.9 in the year 1916. It would seem, therefore, that although fewer children are born in propor- tion to the population in New York City, more survive than in its English namesake. This mdre fortunate condition of American families can be attributed to nothing less than the great strides that have been made in infant welfare work and the control of contagious diseases. In fairness to the English city, however, it must be remembered that we are comparing conditions prevailing there two decades ago with those prevailing here to-day, and it is fair to assume that a similar improvement has been made there. 23 THE LODGER EVIL . The custom of taking in lodgers to increase the family income has usually been regarded as the most prolific source of room congestion. However, we shall have to seek elsewhere for an explanation of the room congestion among our groups since only a negligible number of families re- port lodgers. The following table (XXII) indicates that only 4.4% of the families of the entire group have lodgers. ' The total number of lodgers is 217, or considerably less than 1% of the population we are studying. TABLE XXII TOTAL NUMBER OF FAMILIES HAVING LODGERS FOR ENTIRE BOROUGH Total Families None One Two Three Four Five With Lodgers Bedford 247 13 S _ _ _ 18 Bushwick 132 7 1 _ _ _ 8 East New York 392 10 4 2 1 2 19 Flatbush 97 7 _ _ _ _ 7 Ft. Greene 178 S 3 1 _ _ 9 Greenpoint 188 3 1 1 - - S Gowanus 188 4 2 - - ^ 6 Navy Yard 162 8 2 1 - - 11 Red Hook 341 4 3 - - 1 8 St Marks 121, 7 2 _ ■ _ - 9 Southern 224 4 _ - 1 2 . 7 Williamsburgh 817 22 6 4 - 1 33 Total 3087 94 29 9 2 6 . 140 - 4.4' Total Number of Families 3,227 4.4% have lodgers Total Number Lodgers 217 There is, as the following table (XXIII) shows, considerable varia- tion within the four groups with respect to lodgers. Bedford 6 Bushwick 6 East New York 3 Flatbush 7 Fort Greene 9' Greenpoint 5 Gowanus 6 Navy Yard 11 Red Hook 8 St. Marks 6 Southern S Williamsburgh 6 Total No. of — Faniilies with Lodgers 78 Total No. of Lodgers 123 TABLE XXIII TOTAL NUMBER OF FAMILIES WITH LODGERS Bureau of Charities Day Camp District Nurses Jewish Aid Society -~ . 12 3.4% 1.9% 2 14 3 2 25 58 90- 10.2% -217 24 The Jewish Aid Society group has the largest quota, with 10.2% of its famihes taking in lodgers; the Bureau of Charities ranks next with 3.4%; the Tuberculosis Day Camp next with only 1.9%, while the Dis- trict Nursing Committee reports only one of its families or .4% as having lodgers. Again, the groups are ranked in their economic order with the poorer groups reporting the largest number of lodgers and the more pros- perous groups practically free from them. However, the Jewish Aid Society has exactly three times the proportion of its families housed with lodgers as the corresponding group reported by the Bureau of Charities. This fact unquestionably explains almost entirely the greater room densi- ty prevailing among the former group. Apparently the greater room con- gestion prevailing among the Jewish families is directly due to the greater number of lodgers which they house, for the two groups differ in the same degree with respect to lodgers as they do with respect to overcrowd- ing. It is fair to assume, therefore, that if the lodger evil among the Jewish families were reduced to that prevailing among the Bureau group, the overcrowding would be equal in each case. The high rate of congestion found among the families of the Tuber- culosis Day Camp obviously cannot be accounted for by the presence of lodgers in the home. Although the families of this group are larger than in any other they are not increased by lodgers. Rather must it be ascribed to the difficulty confronting families of moderate means, but with abnormally large families, of finding sufficiently large apartments. Al- though no adequate statistics are available for proof, it is generally recog- nized that there is a dearth of apartments of adequate size in the tenement houses now being erected. The reports of the Tenement House Depart- ment show that the average size of "new law" tenements erected in Brook- lyn has steadily decreased from 4.8 rooms per apartment in 1902 until it now averages four rooms to the apartment. Apartments of six. and seven, or more, rooms are found either in a few of the otherwise undesirable "old law" tenements or in very expensive modern "apartment houses." ' Families in such circumstances are forced to accept apartments of in- adequate size or to pay rentals out of all proportion to the number of rooms offered. 25 LAND OVERCROWDING. Although New York City is unquestionably the most congested city in the world, it is commonly believed that this evil is confined entire- ly to Manhattan Island. Mr. Herbert Swan's study, pubhshed by the Tenement House Committee of the Brooklyn Bureau of Charities in 1916, did much, however, to dispel this belief, for it showed that parts of Brook- lyn were rapidly becoming as congested as the east side of Manhattan. Mr. Swan found that the average density of "new law tenements" erected in 1915 was 724 persons per acre; the maximum density, 1600 persons per acre. This density is exceeded in no other city of the world except Manhattan Borough. Because of the limitations under which it was made, Mr. Swan's study showed only the tendency in the construction of new buildings for a limited period and did not make it clear what sections of the population were being housed at the higher arid what sections at the lower densities. The data of our study is of interest in supplement- ing Mr Swan's work by showing some of the social consequences of the tendency he so clearly traces. While it' has been impossible to express the exact density per acre at which these families are housed, our data does give us a definite clue to the situation. The record of families in the buildings in which each family lives gives an adequate idea of the density of population with- out expressing it with mathematical exactness. The following table (XXIV) groups the families of the entire bor- ough with respect to the number of families in building: TABLE XXIV NUMBER OF FAMILIES IN BUILDING Number of Families Number ot Families Percentage In Building land 2 618 19.20 3 to 5 906 28.15 6 to 8 1122 34.87 9 to 11 122 3.79 12 to IS 113 3.51 16 to 20 154 4.79 21 to 25 ■ 121 - 3.76 26 to 30 22 .68 31 to 3S 26 .81 36 to 40 13 .41 over 40 1 .03 3218 100. No record 9 3227 number of families in buildings 6.9 The most popular tj^^e of building is that which houses from six to eight famines. The vast majority (82%) of the families are housed in 26 buildings containing eight families or less. The average building contains 6.9 faniilies. This could hardly be said to indicate an alarming rate of congestion. It must be remembered, however, that these figures are largely determined by the conditions found among the largest group, viz. the Brooklyn Bureau of Charities, which furnishes 72% of the famihes. A comparison of the four groups is, therefore, essential to a fair understand- ing of the situation. The accompanying table (XXV) gives the number of families per building for each of the four groups: TABLE XXV NUMBER OF FAMILIES IN BUILDING Bureau of Charities Day Camp District Nurses Jewisli Society No. % No. % No. % No. % 1 and 2 488 28.10 26 16.16 S3 29.78' 51 9.18 3 to S 710 30.70 40 24.84 40 22.47 117 20.67 6 to 8 834 36.06 61 37.90 58 32.58 166 29.33 9 to 11 79 3.41 5 3.11 5 2.81 33 5.83 12 to IS 103 4.45 4 2.48 2 1.13 48 8.32 .16 to 20 63 2.72 7 4.34 5 2.81 43 7.60 21 to 25 17 .73 12 7.45 15 8.42 74 13.07 26 to 30 4 .17 3 1.86 _ _ 17 3.00 31 to 35 14 .61 3 1.86 _ _ 14 2.47 36 to 40 1 .04 - - _ . _ 2 .35 over 40 2313 161 178 1 566 .18 No record 4 2317 2 163 3 569 Average number of families in building 6 8.1 . 6.5 ■ 10.2 As in the case of room congestion, the families do not rank in the order of their economic status, for the Jewish Aid Society furnishes the greatest and the Brooklyn Bureau of Charities furnishes the least con- gestion. Not only is the average density per building greater in the case of the Jewish Aid Society group, but it has a larger' percentage of its families living at exceedingly high densities than any group. The aver- age building of the Jewish Aid Society group contains 10.2 families. Moreover, 19.07% of these families live in buildings containing more than 20 families.- On the other hand, the average for the Bureau of Charities group is six famihes per building, while only 1.5% of its families are housed in buildings containing more than 20 families. The Day Camp group, with an average of eight families per building and with 11.2% of its families Hving in buildings containing more than 20 famihes, and the District Nurses group, with the average building containing 6.5 famihes and with 8.4% of its families living in 20 famihes buildings or larger, fall between these two extremes. 27 The fact that the groups which report the greatest amount of room congestion also report the greatest amount of land congestion, and vice versa, would indicate that there is some connection between the two phenomena. It has frequently been observed that land congestion begets room congestion. Inasmuch as the height of tenements is not only limit- ed by law but by commercial returns as well, a too intensive use of the land is bound to result in reducing the size of individual apartments. When, as is commonly the case in t];ie "new law tenements" of WilHams- burgh, 35 families are housed on lots SO feet wide and 100 feet deep and in buildings six stories high covering but 70% of a lot, small apartments inevitably result. Land congestion is to be deplored, therefore, not simply because it turns streets into sunless, noisy canyons and because it deprives children of normal play facilities, but because it is an important contributory factor in room congestion as well. A comparison of the floors on which the families live is of interest not only in showing the altitude at which the families are housed but also in throwing some additional light on land congestion. The following table (XXVI) shows. on what floors each of the families in the entire group are living. ' TABLE XXVI CLASSIFICATION AS TO FLOORS FOR THE ENTIRE BOROUGH Private Basement 1 2 3 4 S 6 Over 6 Bedford 3 11 66 103 61 11 7 ■ 3 - Bushwick' 1 2 44 43 40 8 1 ■1 - East New York 7 14 129 137 103 21 - - - Flatbush 11 3 34 44 11 - 1 - - Fort Greene ■ 6 IS 38 62 51 11 3 1 - Greenpoint 3 8 76 40 46 17 2 - 1 Gowanus 3 11 59 71 40 10 - - - Navy Yard 3 IS 27 64 46 13 2 3 - Red Hook 9 28 67 lis 102 26 2 . _ - St .Marks 7 10 48 41 17 6 1 - - Southern 7 8 67 103 39 7 _ _ « Williamsburgh 10 30 276 253 184 58 25, 14 - Total 70 ISS 931 1076 740 188 44 22 1 Percentage 2.17 4.81 28.85 33.35 22.93 5.82 1.36 .68 .03 Grand Total 3,227 It is gratifying to note that only 155 families, or 4.8% of the entire group are living in basements. A negligible 2.1% of the families are living in private houses and are in most cases occupying two floors. Flatbush and Williamsburgh furnish the largest number of families in private houses, but of the two, Flatbush furnishes the greater proportion, since 11% of its families are so housed as against 1.1% of the Williams- burgh families. This will not surprise those who are familiar with the scattered character of the- population in these districts. The second floor houses a larger percentage of the families than any other, since almost ex- actly one-third of the entire number of families are living on that floor. Only 2% of the families are housed above the fourth floor. This would 28 indicate tiiat the evil of excessive stair climbing is not present among the great proportion of the population we are studying. The accompanying table (XXVII) enables us to compare the condi- tions found in each of the four groups. Both the Day Camp and the Jewish Aid Society far exceed the other two groups in the proportion of their families living on the fifth and sixth floors. This would indicate that the groups living under the most overcrowded. conditions also live at the highest altitude. The contrast, however, is not as clear as it might have been if the number of stories in each building were given instead of the floor on which each particular family lives. The figures also indicate that a larger percentage of the families of the Bureau of Charities and the District Nurses live in basements, which is undoubtedly worse from a sani- tary point of view than having to climb to the fifth and sixth floors. - TABLE XXVII CLASSIFICATION AS TO FLOORS ON WHICH FAMILIES LIVE Bureau of Charities Day Camp Pri- Base- Over Pri- Base- Over vate ment 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 vate ment 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 Bedford 2 10 45 61 37 S 1 - - 1 - 4 S 3 Bushwick 1 2 37 38 32 S--- - - 4 - 4 2 1-- East N. Y. 6 12 69 60 46 7 - - - 1-16 19 17 - Flatbush 11 3 29 43 11 ------ 2 1 -- Ft. Greene S 14 33 S3 44 11 2 1 - 1 - 2 4 3 - 1-- Greenpoint 2 3 59 36 40 17 2 - 1 - 1 - 1 1 -' Gowanus 3 11 55 64 34 10 - - - - - 1 - 3 - Navy Yard 3 15 26 64 40 13 2 3 - - - 1 - 4 - Red Hook 9 28 63 111 97 26 2 - - - - - - 2 - St. Marks 7 9 39 35 13 6 1 - - - - 1 3 3 - Southern 4 7 46 77 31 7----- - - -- W'msb'gh 7 26 166 140 97 17 7 - - 1 1 12 IS 12 7 3-- Total 60 140 667 782 522 124 17 4 1 4 2 43 48 52 9 S-- Per Cent 2.25 6.05 28.80 33.75 22.58 5.36 .74 .17 .05 2.45 1.23 26.38 29.45 31.90 5.52 3.07 — Total _ 2,317 163 District Nurses Jewisli Society Pri- Base- Over Pri- Base- Over vate ment 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 vate ment 12 3 4 5 6 6 Bedford -- - 4 ------117 33 216 6 3- Bushwick _--- _ 3 S 4 1-1- East N. Y . - - 5 7 2 - ----- 2 39 51 38 14 - - - Flatbush -- - - 3 - --i-_ Ft. Greene -1 1 5 3- 2 - i_--- Greenpoint 14 IS 2 3- 2 1 2---- Gowanus -- 2 5_2- 1 2 1-- Navy Yard -- - - 1- - - 1-- Red Hook -- 4 3 3- 1 _---.- St. Marks -1 1 - 7 3 i---- Southern 3 1 IS 19 5- 6 7 3__-_ Williamsb'gh 2 2 25 24 S 1 1 - - - 1 73 74 70 33 14 14 - Total 6 9 68 69 24 1 1 - - - 4 153 177 142 54 21 18 - Per Cent 3.37 5.05 38.26 38.76 13.50 .56 .56 - - - .7 26.89 31.11 24.95 9.49 3.70 3.16 - Total 178 569 29 TYPES OF BUILDINGS. The classification of the types of buildings in which these families are housed will not only enable us to separate the families into the good, bad and indifferently housed but it will enable: us to determine what pro- portion of the working population are receiving / the benefit of the Tene- ment House Law and may also enable us to discover some of the short- comings of that law. We have classified alLof the houses in which our families live under the following well-recognized types: "old law" tene- ments, "new law" tenements, illegally converted tenements, two-family houses, private houses and furnished-room houses. A tenement house, according to the legal definition, is any house where three or more families live independently of each other and do their own cooking on the premises. An "old law" tenement house is a tene- ment house which was erected prior to the present Tenement House Law 'of 1901. The average apartment in these tenements contains at least one and often two or three dark rooms. In most cases the toilet is either in the public hall or in the yard and because of its location and construction is usually in a frightfully unsanitary condition. The entire building, with the exception of outside walls, is usually built of wood and when once a fire gains full headway it is quickly communicated to the rest of the building. The danger is still further increased in such buildings by the fact that they have antiquated vertical-ladder fire-escapes. In short, they are the worst type of buildings in which human beings have ever been forced to live. "New Law" tenement houses, on the other hand, are required to have all living rooms lighted and ventilated to the outside air. The toilets and water supply are required to be within each apartment, so that from a sanitary point of view, the apartments are self-contained. The dangerous parts of the building, particularly the public hall and the stairways and connecting partitions, are built of fire resisting material so that the fire can be confined to one section of the building for a sufficient length of time to allow the tenants to escape. The fire-escapes consist of strong iron balconies with iron stairs connecting the various floors. No better proof of the safety of these buildings is needed than to point out that no life has been lost because of conflagration in any "new law" tenements in New York City, although hundreds of lives have been lost in "old law" tenement houses. It is only fair to say, therefore, that the "new law" tenements represent the best type of housing it is possible to secure in multiple-family dwellings under the present method of legislative control. The "illegally converted" tenements present a housing problem in themselves. They are border-line cases and have not all of the vices of "old law" tenements nor all of the virtues of "new law" tenements. They are usually either one or two family houses which, because of radical neighborhood changes, are no longer suitable for such use but which can- 30 not profitably be altered Into "new law" tenements because of the cost of such alterations. Both from the point of view of sanitation and fire hazard, however, most of these old private houses are a vast improvement on "old law" tenements. All of the rooms open to either the street or yard; they are usually only three stories and basement in height; they can readily be altered so as to provide proper sanitary conveniences. The Tenement House Committee of the Brooklyn Bureau of Charities, realizing that many of these houses could be altered into decent tenements if the legislative requirements were reduced to a point which, while safe- guarding the essentials of good housing, would not exact too costly alter- ation, sought for two years to conciliate the various interests and to secure a proper amendment to the law. A group of real estate operators finally presented a bill to the legislature which in theory would have accomplished this very thing and which, with the support of both the Tenement House Comniittee of the Brooklyn Bureau of Charities and that of the Charity Organization Society of New York City, was enacted into law in May, 1917. Unfortunately, many of the technical requirements which it was thought had been removed, according to a strict interpretation of the law, are still present, and, therefore, builders have not been able to benefit by the amendment, for no building has been altered since the law went into effect in 1917. It is to be hoped, however, that the law will finally be amended so as to remove all of these difficulties and to permit the legal occupation of these buildings as tenement houses. Except from the point of view of light and ventilation, the two-family houses are, for the most part, admirable types of buildings. Unfor- tunately, however, many thousands of them have been built in Brooklyn with at least two alcove rooms and often one totally dark interior room. From a sanitary point of view these houses are all that could be desired, since they are self-contained, have ample yard space and are afflicted with neither block nor room congestion. The private houses reported in this survey are not as ideal as their name would indicate, for they are for the most part either dilapidated resi- dences abandoned by their original denizens or are miserable frame shacks built and occupied either by squatters Or frugal workingmen who have sacrificed health and decency to an unfortunate obsession for home owner- ship. So far as general sanitation is concerned they are, however, better than the old law tenements. The furnished-room houses were once private houses but are now sub- let furnished to families or individuals. Such apartments are for the most part rented to childless couples or to single persons, and differ sufficiently from private houses to warrant their being placed in a separate category. 31 The following table (XXVIII) indicates the types of houses in which the families of each of the twelve districts are living: TABLE XXVIII Total No. Illegally of Old Law New Law Converted Two-Family Private Furnished Families Tenements Tenements Tenements Houses Houses Rooms No, % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Bedford 265 161 60.7 46 17.4 9 3,4 42 15.8 3 1.1 4 1.5 Bush wick 140 94 67.2 31 22.2 1 .7 12 8,6 1 .7 1 .7 East New York 411 99 24.1 190 46.2 31 7.5 80 19,5 10 2.4 2 .4 Flatbush 104 3 2,8 18 17.3 5 4.8 62 59,6 14 13.4 2 1.9 Fort Greene 18V 132 70,6 S 2.6 11 5.9 25 13,3 7 3.7 5 2.6 Greenpoint 193 135 69,9 24 12,4 3 1.5 26 13,4 4 2.3 - Gowanus 194 128 65,9 IS 7,7 13 6.7 29 14,9 5 2.5 4 2,03 Navy Yard 173 134 77,4 3 1,7 11 6.3 7 3,9 6 3.4 12 6,9 Red Hook 349 302 86,6 5 1,4 13 3.7 23 6,6 3 .8 2 .5 St, Marks 130 50 38.4 38 29,2 13 10.0 25 19.2 4 3.8 - - Southern 231 61 26.4 75 32,5 13 5.6 72 31.2 11 4.7 - - Williamsburgh 850 540 63.5 149 17,5 38 4.4 107 12.6 14 1.6 4 .4 Total 3,227 1839 56.7 599 18.6 161 5.0 510 15.8 82 2.5 36 1.1 Red Hook with 86.6% of its families living in "old law" tenements and Flatbush with but 2.8% of its families in such buildings mark the two extremes of housing conditions for the entire borough. This fact is borne out by the record of sanitary conveniences for these districts; for Red Hook reported but 17.5% of its families as having inside toilets, the worst showing of any district; while Flatbush reported 8S.S% with in- side toilets, the best showing of any district. As to interior rooms, how- ever, Red Hook is slightly better than Bushwick, Bedford, Greenpoint or Gowanus, which are also predominantly "old law" districts. Flatbush, however, has not the smallest percentage of interior rooms as we should expect, because 59.6% of families are living in two-family houses which commonly contain interior rooms. The returns for the entire borough show that considerably over one-half, 56.7%, of the families are living in the discredited "old law" tenements. It is significant that the percentage of families of the entire borough having inadequate toilet facilities, 56.6%, is almost identical with the percentage living in "old law" tenements and that the percentage with interior rooms, 52.9%, is only slightly less. This would seem to bear out our assumption that the families living in "old law" tenements are the worst housed. In spite of the fact that there is, as we have seen, considerable variation in "old law" districts as to unsani- tary living conditions, the "old law" tenement is a safe index of the extent of bad housing, at least so far as hght and ventilation ■ and sanitary con- veniences are concerned. East New York with 46.2%, and Southern with 32.5% far outstrip all other districts in the number of "new law" tenements. This is ac- counted for by the fact that great areas of these districts have been built up since 1901. Those tenements, therefore, comply with the provisions of the "new law." This is again reflected in the record of sanitary con- 32 vemences for these districts. Nearly three-fourths of the famihes of each district have mside toilet arrangements. East New York has also fewer interior rooms per family than any district. It is obvious, therefore, that so far as general sanitation and light and ventilation are concerned "new law" tenements typify good housing conditions as clearly as "old law" ten- ements typify bad housing conditions. The illegally converted tenements abound most in St. Marks and East New York districts, which are undergoing transition, which is indi- cated by the fact that both of these districts reported a comparatively large percentage of "new law" tenements. In this change the old private houses are being altered into tenements without, however, the sanction of the Tenement House Law. Although only 5% of the families of all districts live in illegally converted tenements, an increasingly large num- ber of such houses are added each year with the result that their control presents the most baffling problem which the tenement house department has to solve. Inasmuch as such buildings are almost invariably confined to three families and since their sanitation, light and ventilation are uni- formly good, the families who live in such buildings are infinitely better housed than they would be in "old law" tenements. They ought, how- ever, to have what they do not now enjoy, adequate fire-escapes, interior toilets and above all the constant inspection and protection of the tene- ment house department. Two-family houses are about as popular as "new law" tenements. Flatbush, with a trifle less than 60% of its families so housed, leads the list. The large number of such houses in Flatbush, as we have indicated before, accounts for the fact that although "old law" tenements are almost entirely absent in this district, 42% of the apartments have interior rooms. Serious as this fault is, however, it is the only one to be found with such dwellings. Private houses are also more popular in Flatbush than in any dis- trict. There are still neighborhoods in^ Flatbush, such as Pigtown, the Cedars, and parts of the old town of Flatbush, which still retain their rural characteristics. The housing conditions of such communities consist chiefly of squalid, unsightly and often overcrowded quarters, rather than seriously unsanitary ones. The fact that but 2.5% of all the families are housed in private houses indicates that if they are a boon to working people, few of our families can avail themselves of it ; if they are a curse, few of our families are afflicted with it. As a matter of fact they are neither one nor the other and will likely soon disappear entirely to make room for the multiple-family dwellings. A still smaller per cent., 1.1%, of the families are living in furnished- room houses. These can hardly be called families in the ordinary usage of the word, for they usually consist of aged couples or single men and women who find it both more convenient and more economical to live in a fur- 33 nished room than to maintain their own apartments. Such quarters are usually found in old private houses where the housing conditions are fair. The following table (XXIX) indicates the type of house in which the families of each of the four groups are living: Old Law New Law Illegally Two-Family Private Furnished Tenements Tenements Converted Houses Houses Rooms No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 1423 61.4 251 10.8 144 6.2 398 17.2 65 2.8 36 1.6 76 46.6 S7 35.0 5 3,1 20 12.2 5 3.1 - 69 38.8 52 29.2 2 1.1 47 26.4 8 4.5 _ 271 47.6 239 42.0 10 1.7 45 8.0 4 .7 - - TABLE XXIX CLASSIFICATION OF TYPES OF HOUSES Grouped According to Societies Represented. Brooklyn Bureau of Charities Day Camp District Nurses Jewish Society Total 1839 56.7 599 18.6 161 5.0 510 15.8 82 2.5 36 1.1 So far as the general type of housing is a safe criterion the poorest group is housed in the worst buildings, the most prosperous group in the best buildings. The Bureau of Charities has 60% of its families living in "old law" tenements, while the District Nurses group have only 38.8% of its families in such buildings. The Jewish Aid Society and the Tuber- culosis Day Camp have practically the same proportion of its families in "old law" tenements. Although the Bureau of Charities reports the small- est percentage of families in "new law" houses, the Jewish Aid Society reports the largest percentage so housed. It is indeed a startling dis- covery that, of two groups living on the same economic plane, one group should have so much larger a proportion of its families in the desirable though expensive "new law" houses than the other. Obviously the Jew- ish families have a strong preference for the newer type and are willing to make great sacrifices to find quarters in them. Unfortunately, as our study of overcrowding indicated, this has been accomplished either by families crowding into smaller apartments or by taking in lodgers to help out with the rent. However, it is undoubtedly true that in certain Jewish sections. East New York for example, "new law" tenements rent for but little more than "old law" houses. In most cases, however, the rentals for "new law" tenements afe considerably higher and the sacrifices have been made in room space and family privacy. In this connection it is worthy of note that the two groups which have the largest proportion of their families housed in "new law" houses, the Day Camp and Jewish Aid Society, also lead the list in overcrowding and tuberculosis. Desirable as "new law" houses are from the' point of view of safety and sanitation, if they inflict overcrowding on all of their tenants of limited means and thus dispose them to tuberculosis, their contribution to the housing problem is of doubtful value. While our figures on this point are not conclusive they do reveal this regrettable tendency. Tenement houses, both old and new law, are most popular with the 34 Jewish families. The Bureau oi Charities and the District Nursing Com- mittee have the larger proportion of their families in houses of the smaller tj^e. The illegally converted house is now a problem with the Bureau of Charities group. THE PREVALENCE OF TUBERCULOSIS. The experience of public health authorities is ample testimony of the relation between unsanitary housing conditions and the spread of tubercu- losis. For example, the Health Department of the City of Liverpool found that, when it had cleared several unsanitary slum areas and replac- ed the old houses with decent buildings in which it housed practically iden- tically the population of the old buildings, the annual death rate of tuber- culosis was cut from 4 persons per thousand to L9 persons per thousand. This reduction of over 50% is a gain which can be ascribed to nothing else than the improved housing conditions. It is not surprising, therefore, that we should find tuberculosis more prevalent among our group than among the general population of the City. The following table shows the number of tubercular families and the number of tubercular patients for the entire group: TABLE XXX NUMBER OF CASES OF TUBERCULOSIS FOR ENTIRE BOROUGH Total Number of Total Number of Families No. None of Cases Per F One Two amily Three Four Families with Tuberculosis % Bedford 265 214 40 11 _ - 51 19.2 Bushwick 140 104 31 4 1 - 36 25,7 East New York 411 300 92 14 4 1 111 27.0 Flatbush 104 86 16 2 _ - 18 17.3 Fort Greene 187 155 31 1 - - 32 17.1 Greenpoint Gowanus 193 194 159 164 28 4 29 1 2 : 34 30 17.6 15.4 Navy Yard Red Hook 173 349 157 315 14 2 25 4 4 1 16 34 9.2 9.7 St. Marks 130 104 24 1 1 - 26 20,0 Southern 231 • 206 23 2 - 25 10,8 Williamsburgh 850 703 128 16 2 1 147 17.2 Total 3227 2667 481 60 16 3 560 17.3 There is remarkable uniformity in each district with respect to the number of families reporting tuberculosis! We should expect to find the disease more prevalent in the districts where "old law" tenements abound, but this is not always the case. For example, while Navy Yard and Red Hook report 77.4% and 88.6% of their respective famihes as living in •'old law" tenements, they report only 9.2% and'9.7% of their families as tuberculous. Furthermore, Bushwick, an "old law" tenement district, reports practically the same amount of tuberculosis as East New York, a "new law" tenement district. A comparison of our four groups will, however, enable us to tell more definitely what features of the housing environment dispose families most 35 to tuberculosis. The accompanying table (XXXI) gives a survey of the tuberculosis situation for each group. Here it must be pointed out, how- ever, that the Day Camp reports 100% of its families as tubercular, since that agency has access only to families so afflicted. The fact that it is a selected group, therefore, must be kept clearly in mind in any general- izations we are tempted to make for the entire borough. TABLE XX> a NUMBER OF CASES OF TUBERCULOSIS Bureau of Charities Day Camp Total No. Fam. Total No. Fam. None 1 2 3 4 withTB. % I STone 1 2 3 4 withTB. % Bedford 138 19 4 - _ 23 12.8 - 10 3 - - 13 100. Bush wick . 94 ,18 2 1 _ 21 18.2 - 10 1 - - 11 100. ■East New York 164 32 4 _ _ 36 18. - 40 8 4 1 53 100. Flatbush 84 11 2 - _ 13 13.4 - ■ 3 1- -, - 3 100. Ft. Greene 144 18 1 - _ 19 11.6 - 11 - - - 11 100. Greenpoint 131 24 3 2 - 29 18,1 2 1 - - 3 100. Gowanus ISI 25 1 - - 26 14.7 - 4 - - - ■ 4 100. Navy Yard 156 8 2 _ _ 10 6.02 - 5 - - - 5 100. Red Hook 306 21 4 4 1 30 8.9 2 - - - 2 100. St. Marks 93 17 _ _ _ 17 15.4 - 5 1 1 - 7 100. Southern ISO 20 — 2 _ 22 12.8 _ - - - - - - Williamsburgh 410 44 5 - 1 50 10.9 - 41 8 2 - 51 100. Total 2021 257 ; 28 9 2 296 12.8 - 133 22 7 1 163 100. District Nurses Jewisli Society Total Number Total Number Fam. Fam. None : 1 ■ 2 3 witliTB, % None 1 2 3 with TI !. % Bedford 1 3 - _ 3 .75 75 8 4 - 12 13.8 Bush wick _ _ _ _ _ _ 10 3 1 _ 4 28.6 East New York 13 1 _ _ 1 7.1 123 19 2 - 21 14.6 Flatbush - _ - - ^ _ 2 2 _ _ 2 SO. Ft. Greene 9 1 _ _ 1 10. 2 1 _ _ 1 33.3 Greenpoint 25 - - - - - 3 2 - _ 2 40. Gowanus 9 - - - - - 4 - - - - - Navy Yard 1 - - - - _ - 1 _ _ 1 100. Red Hook 9 1 - - 1 10. - 1 - - 1 100. St. Marks 2 - _ _ _ .- 9 2 _ _ 2 18. Southern 40 3 — _ 3 6.9 16 _ ' — _ — _ Williamsburgh 58 2 - - 2 3.3 235 41 3 - 44 IS. Total 167 11 _ _ 11 6.9 479 80 10 _ 90 1S.9 The Jewish Aid Society, with 15.9% of its famiHes tubercular, reports the highest rate of tuberculosis for any group, except, of course, the Tuber- culosis Day Camp. The Bureau of Charities ranks close to its economic mate, with 12.8% of its families tubercular. The District Nurses' group, in spite of the fact that it is a group receiving medical and nursing aid and therefore presumably below normal physically, reports only 6.9% of its families as tubercular. Again we find that the two groups which report the largest number of "new law" tenements, the Day Camp and the Jewish Aid Society, also report the greatest amount of tuberculosis. It would seem, therefore, that "new law" tenements, in the case of the families 36 which we are studying at least, have done little to check tuberculosis. It would seem, also, that, excluding the Day Camp group, which, after all, is a specially selected group, the economic factor is again the determining one in the case. From these tables it would also appear that overcrowding is the most important of all the housing factors in relation to tuberculosis. The Day Camp and the Jewish Aid Society, the two most overcrowded groups, re- port also the greatest amount of tuberculosis. Both the Brooklyn Bureau of Charities and the District Nurses group have less tuberculosis than the other two groups, and the different groups rank in exactly the same order with respect to the prevalence of tuberculosis as they do with respect to overcrowding. Since tuberculosis seems to be quite as prevalent in "new" as in "old law" tenements, it would seem that overcrowding, and not un- sanitary, conditions, is most productive of tuberculosis. In examining the records of. each tubercular family, however, we have found that, next to overcrowding, the factor of light and ventilation has an important bearing on tuberculosis. The following table (XXXII) shows the interior room record for all the tuberculosis families of each group: TABLE XXXII Number of Tuber- Number of Interior Rooms Percent with cular Families None One Two Three Interior Rooms Bureau of Charities 296 119 60 ■ 110 7 - 60. Day Camp 163 127 13 20 3 22. District Nurses 11 6 1 4 - 45. lewish Aid Society 90 37 . 16 33 4 59. Total ^ 560 289 90 167 14 45. With the exception of the Day Camp, where, of course, the figures are exactly the same, since it is simply a repetition of our former table, each group reports a greater percentage of interior rooms for its tubercu- lar families than for its normal families. The Brooklyn Bureau of Chari- ties reports 60% of its apartments with interior rooms in the case of its tubercular families as against 56.3% for all its families; the District Nurses report 45% of the apartments of tubercular families with interior rooms as against 35.9% for all famihes; the Jewish Aid Society reports 59% interior rooms for tubercular cases as against 53% for other families. It is perfectly obvious, therefore, that a greater percentage of tubercular families are living in dark rooms than other families of the same economic class and it clearly follows that their disease is aggravated, if not caused in many cases, by the lack of proper light and ventilation. The following figures (Table XXXIII) will serve as a basis of com- parison of the prevalence of tuberculosis in our group with that found in the entire population of the borough of Brooklyn. 37 TABLE XXXIIl Population of Brooklyn . 1,928,432 Population of housing study group ^ 17,737 Number of cases of tuberculosis in entire borough 9,092 Number of cases of tuberculosis in entire borough per thousand of population 4.3 Number of cases of tuberculosis among housing study group 661 Number of cases of tuberculosis among housing study group No. of cases of tuberculosis among housing study group per thousand population 31 We find, therefore, that tuberculosis is nearly eight times as prevalent among this group as among the entire borough. Although the group we are studying represents but 0.9% of the entire population, th'e number of cases of tuberculosis found represents 7.2% of the number for the entire borough. It is obvious from these two comparisons that tuberculosis is alarmingly higher among the more inadequately housed group than among the general population. Of course this cannot be ascribed entirely to bad housing conditions. LaCk of proper food, overwork and ignorance of proper sanitary standards, which almost invariably accompany poor hous- ing, contribute their quota of cases, but the internal evidence points, as we have seen, to a direct connection between overcrowded and inade- quately ventilated rooms and the breeding and spreading of this disease. RENTS. We have frequently had occasion to note the close connection between the economic status of the various groups and the type of housing they re- ceive. Our conclusions in such cas'es were on the assumption that the economic status of a particular group was determined by- the proportion of its members who are receiving charitable aid. In general, the evidence has proved that this assumption is sound, but it is too general in charac- ter to serve as a basis for thorough analysis of the 'econor«4c factor in hous- ing. The record of the rents paid by each particular family is a much fairer index of its economic status; for it not only enables us to compare the rentals obtaining among each group of families but also to compare the rentals demanded for the different types of houses. We get, there- fore, not only a clue to the economic ability of the several families but also a clear idea of the rents demanded for the various types of buildings. By combining these two phases we can bring out some interesting con- nections between the ability to pay and the rentals asked. In 95% of the cases we were able to secure the exact monthly rental paid by each family. Where the rental was paid in the form of janitorial service the rental asked for similar quarters in the same building was designated as the rental paid by that particular family There were, of course, a small number of families who failed to report rentals. These, however, constitute but S% of the total number of the families studied. The rentals have been given both per room and per apartment, since either item taken separately fails to give us an adequate idea of the entire rental paid or to. enable us to compare the rate prevailing for difcerent 38 types of buildings or among different groups. For example, two families each paymg $12.00 per month for their apartments are not paying at the same rate if for that amount the one receives four rooms and the other three rooms. We shall first consider the rents prevailing for the various types of houses irrespective of the various social groups inhabiting them. The fol- lowing table (XXXIV) gives the average rental for each type of house for the entire borough: TABLE XXXIV AVERAGE RENTS FOR ENTIRE BOROUGH Per Apartment Per Room Old Law Tenements $10.70 $2,45 New Law Tenements 12.20 3.37 Two-family Houses 11.92 2.65 Illegally Converted Tenements 11.90 3.01 Private Houses 14.58 3.10 All Types 11.24 2.69 As we should expect, the rentals prevailing for "old law" tenements are much less than those prevailing for any other type of house. This is shown both in the rentals per apartment and per room. Apparently the two-family houses are the best value for the money, since they cost but little more per room than the "old law" tenemeiits and are a great im- provement over them. The low rental per room is accounted for by the fact that such apartments have usually five or six rooms, and it is a com- mon observation that the larger the apartment the lower the rental per room. Notwithstanding this fact, however, the average rental for such apartments is slightly less than that asked for "new law" tenements. It is rather surprising to note that the rental per room for private houses is but little less than that demanded for "new law" tenements. We should expect that private houses, since they usually have more rooms and fewer conveniences, would rent for less per room than tenement houses. How- ever, many of these so-called private houses are merely three or four room shacks and conditions do not greatly differ so far as floor area is concerned from those found in tenement houses. The private houses usually occupy considerable land, a fact which tends to force rentals up without often contributing much to the living conditions of the family. From an eco- nomic point of veiw one doubts the wisdom of housing such families in private houses, since the rentals demanded are so much greater than those demanded for "new law" tenement houses and are out of proportion to the type of housing received. It is significant that the rentals are 38% high- er in new than in old tenements. Families living in old law tenements can only find quarters in the newer type either by increasing the rentals to that amount or by taking a smaller apartment and thus creating con- ditions of overcrowding. 39 The average rental for all types and for all groups is $11.24. This figure is of interest in giving us an economic index of the entire group. Every careful study of groups of this kind has shown that the item of rent consumes between 25% and 30% of the family budget. If this holds true in the case of these families, it probably means that their expendi- tures for all living purposes should be about $50.00 a month. With such families expenditures equal and often exceed income; the defi- cit being met by charitable aid of some sort or by actual privation. It is fair to assume, therefore, that in considering these 3,227 families we are dealing with a group whose average income is about $50.00 a month or $12.50 a week. The various studies of the standard of living in New York City would all indicate that these famihes are subnormal so far as income is con- cerned, and most of our evidence would lead us to believe that they are certainly subnormal so far as their housing conditions are concerned. One of the bureaus of the Board of Estimate of New York City recently estimated, after a careful survey, that the minimum income necessary to support a working man's family of five persons in New York City in a de- cent standard of living is about $925.00 a year; whereas, if our deduc- tions are correct, these families are receiving about $600.00 a year, and this in spite of the fact that the family income is augmented in many in- stances iDy charitable relief. It is obvious, therefore, that the economic factor is the prevailing one in determining the standard of living which these families are forced to accept. We have kept the rental for furnished rooms separate from the other types of houses because that type of housing is distinctly unique. As we should expect, the rentals are much higher than those asked for unfur- nished apartments. We find that the average monthly apartment rental is $11.25 for furnished rooms, which is about the average rental paid for all other types of houses. The average rental per room is $4.59 a month. However, a grouping of the actual monthly rentals paid for the dif- ferent types of buildings is much more valuable as a basis of comparison than these colorless averages. The following tables (XXXV and XXXVI) show the rental paid both per apartment and per room for each type of building. We find that, at what might be considered the lower rentals, that is, $10.00 a month or less, the "old law" tenements lead the list with over 40% of the rentals falhng below that figure. The illegally converted tenements are about in the same class, with over 38% of the rentals below that amount. The one-family houses have the smallest percentage of their families below such rentals, while the two-family houses have a con- siderably larger ■ percentage at the lower rentals. The "new law" tene- ments have a Uttle over 25% at the lower rentals. On the other hand, the "old law" tenements have 8.6% of their families at the higher rentals, that is, over $15.00 a month, while about 19% of the "new law" tene- ments rent above that figure. Thus it is clear that the rentals prevailing 40 . . for ^ new law ' tenements and for the other desirable types, such as two- family houses and one-family houses, are remarkably higher than those prevailing for the "old law" tenements. TABLE XXXV TOTAL RENTALS PER APARTMENT. Old Law New Law ,^^wo-Fami]y One-Family Illegally Converted Tenements Tenements Houses Houses Tenements Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No, % Under $5.00 10 .6 2 .3 6 1.3 1 1.5 _ 19 .6 5 to 9.99 709 40. 146 25.3 154 32.4 14 21.5 60 38.4 1083 35.6 10 to 10.99 900 50.8 320 55,5 185 41.1 22 33.9 75 48.1 1502 49.3 IS to 19.99 127 7.2 90 15.6 102 21.3 10 15.4 17 10.9 346 11.4 20 and over 25 1.4 19 3.3 28 5.9 18 27.7 4 2.5 94 3.1 Total Rentals 1771 100.0 577 100.0 475 100.0 65 100.0 156 100,0 3044 100.0 A grouping of the rentals per room does not bring out our point as clearly as we should like, since there is comparatively little variation in such small units. It is, however, interesting to see that the same tendency prevails in the room rentals as in the apartment rentals. This is im- portant, because if we take the first table as our only guide it might be fair to ask whether or not the higher and loWer rentals were not determined simply by the relative size of the apartments. This is clearly not the case, since the "new law" tenements, for example, have a little over 25% of their families housed at less than $3.00 a room, whereas the "old law" ten- ements have 60% housed at these rentals; while the "new law" tenements have about 5% housed at high rentals, that is, more than $4.00 a room, and the "new law" tenements have over 1-1% so housed. The same ten- dency which we noted in the other types of houses holds good in the rent- al per room schedule. TABLE XXXVI TOTAL RENTALS PER ROOM Illegally Old Law New Law Two-i ■amily One-] ^'amily Converted Tot al Tenements Tenements Houses Houses Tenements No, % No. % No. % No. % No. • % No, % Under $2.00 84 4.7 17 3.0 43 9.1 11 16.9 11 7.1 166 5,7 2 to 2.99 980 55.3 284 49.2 237 49.9 26 40,0 75 48.1 1602 52.6 3 to 3.99 622 35.1 212 36.7 152 32.0 15 23.1 51 32.6 1052 34.6 4 to 4.99 71 4.1 50 8.7 32 6.7 4 6.1 10 6.4 167 5.5 5 and over 14 .8 14 2.4 11 2.3 9 13.9 9 5.8 57 15 Total Rentals 1771 100.0 577 100,0 475 100.0 65 100.0 156 100.0 3044 100.0 The grouping of total rentals, shown in the last column, furnishes an interesting summary of the prevailing tendency of rents among the entire group. One half of the famihes (49.3%) are paying moderate rentals ranging from ten to fifteen dollars a month, a little over one third (36.2%) are paying low rentals, from four or five to ten dollars a month. Only 14.5% are paying over fifteen dollars a month. The rentals per room, however, illustrate more clearly the downward tendency of rents. More 41 than half of the famihes (52.6%) are paying from two to three dollars per room. A trifle over five per cent, are paying less than two dollars, while more than a third are paying from three to four dollars per room. Exact- ly 7% are paying more than four dollars per room. So far we have considered the rental situation simply from the point of view of the entire group. While we were thus able to follow the general level of rents for each of the various types of dwellings, we were not able to trace clearly the division among the four groups as to their economic ability or to make comparisons of the rentals by each group for the dif- ferent types of buildings. The following table (XXXVII) gives the rentals paid by each group for all types of houses. As we should expect, the families reported by the relief societies are paying by far the lowest rentals. The families of the Jewish Aid Society, however, are paying slightly lower rentals than those of the Bureau of Charities, while the District Nurses' group are paying considerably higher rents than the Day Camp group. This can best be seen by comparing the number of families of each group housed at low and at high rentals. We find that while 37.7% of the Bureau of Charities and 40.7% of the Jewish Aid Society's families are paying less than $10.00 a month, only 16.1% of the District Nurses' and 20% of the Day Camp group are paying such low rentals. On the other hand at what might be considered the high rentals, i. e. over fifteen dollars a month, the order is reversed. The Bureau of Charities' and the Jewish Aid Society's groups report 13.2% and 10.5% of their respective families paying high rentals, while 36.4% of the District Nurses' group and 22.9% of the Day Camp group are paying such rentals. No further proof is needed of the validity of the economic cleavage of the four groups which we have constantly as- sumed to exist. Rentals per room do not necessarily follow the same trend as apart- ment rentals, for in this case the Jewish Aid families are actually paying higher rentals than the Bureau of Charities families, while according to apartment rentals they are paying less. The Bureau of Charities reports 60.1% of its families at rentals less than $3.00 a room, while the Jewish Aid Society reports 52.8% of its famihes at such rentals. On the other hand, the Bureau reports 6.7% of its families at rentals above $4.00 a room, while the Jewish group report 8.8% at the high rentals. It is obvi- ous, therefore, that the Jewish families are paying at a higher rate per room even though the actual monthly rental is less. This is partly due to the fact that the Jewish group has a larger percentage of its families in "new law" tenements, but more to the fact that they occupy smaller apartments. This is largely responsible for the fact that the rate of overcrowding is greater among the Jewish group. With the other two groups, however, rentals per room follow pretty closely the same tendency as rentals per apartment. 42 TABLE XXXVII RENTALS PER APARTMENT Brooklyn Bureau Charities Day Camp District Nurses Jewish Aid Society Total Brooklyn Bureau Charities Day Camp District Nurses Jewish Aid Society Total Undi erS No. % 19 .9 .0 .0 .0 5to9.99 10tol4.99 No. % No. % 806 36.8 1075 49.1 29 20.1 82 56.9 27 16.1 80 47.6 22140.7 265 48.8 Rentals 15 to 20 Un- 19.99 and over Total known No. % No. % No. % No 227 10.4 62 2.8 2189 100 92 27 18.7 6 4.2 144 100 19 48 28.6 13 7.8 168 100 10 44 8.1 13 2.4 543 100 26 19 .6 1083 35.6 1502 49.3 346 11.4 94 3.1 3044 100 147 RENTALS PER ROOM Rentals 4 to Un- Under 2 2 to 2.9P 3 to 3.99 4.99 5 and ovei • Total known No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. 140 6.4 1176 53.7 726 33.1 110 5.0 37 1.7 2189 100 92 5 3.5 84 58.3 47 32.6 5 3.5 3 2.1 144 100 19 4 2.4 73 43.3 70 41.7 2112.5 0.0 168 100 10 17 3.1 269 49.7 209 38.5 31 5.7 17 3.1 543 100 26 166 1602 1052 167 ■57 3044 147 The accompanying tables (XXXVIII) warrant a careful reading, for they show the variation of rents among the four groups with respect to each particular type of house. TABLE :: SCXXV III OLD LAW TENEMENTS Per Apartment B.B. C. Day Camp Dist. Nurses Jewish Society No. % No. % No. % No. % Under $5 10 .7 0. 0. 0. S to 9.99 552 40.3 21 30.- 15 22.7 121 46.3 10 to 14.99 692 50.3 36 51.4 46 69.7 126 48.3 15 to 19.99 102 7.4 10 14.3 4 6.1 11 4.2 20 and over 18 1.3 3 4.3 1 1.5 3 1.2 Total Rents 1374 100. 70 100. 66 100. -251 100. Rentals Unknown 49 6 3 10 Per Room B.B. C. Day Camp Dist. Nurses Jewish Society No. % No. % No. % No. % Under $2 71 5.2 3 4.3 2 3. 8 3. 2 to 2.99 777 56.2 39 55.7 44 66.6 120 46. 3 to 3.99 459 33.4 26 37.1 17 25.8 120 46. 4 to 4.99 . 59 4.3 1 1.4 3 4.6 8 3. 5 and over 8 .6 1 1.4 0. 5 1.9 43 TABLE XXXVIII— (Continued) NEW LAW TENEMENTS Per Apartment Under $S S to 9.99 10 to 14.99 IS to 19.99 20 and over B. B. C. No. % 2 .8 57 23.3 ISO 61.3 30 12.2 6 2.4 Day. Camp No. % 0. 5 9.8 30 58.9 14 27.4 2 3,9 Dist. No. 4 23 21 3 Nurses % 0. 7.8 45.1 41.2 5.9 Jewish Society No. % 0. 80 34.8 117 50.9 25 10.9 8 3.4 Total Rents 245 100. SI 100. 51 100. 230 100. Rents Unknown 6 6 1 9 Per Room Under $2 2 to 2.99 3 to 3.99 4 to 4.99 5 and over B. B. C. No. % 11 4.5 117 47.8 99 40.4 If 5.7 4 1.6 Day Camp No. % 1 2. 31 60.8 14 27.4 4 7,8 13/i 2. Dist. No. 13 26 12 Nurses % 0. 25.5 51. 23.5 0. Jewish Society No. % 5 2.2 123 53.5 73 31.7 20 8.7 9 3.9 TWO FAMILY HOUSES Per Apartment Under $S 5 to 9.99 10 to 14.99 IS to 19.99 20 and over B.B. C. No. % 6 1.6 131 34.8 149 39.5 72 19.1 19 S. Day Camp No. % 0. 2 11.8 11 64.7 3 17.7 1 5.8 Dist, No. 7 8 22 8 Nurses % 0. 16.3 18.6 51.2 13,9 Jewish Society No. % 0. 14 36.9 17 44.7 S 13.2 2 5.2 Total Rents 377 100. 17 100. 45 100. 38 100. Rents Unknown 21 3 4 7 Per Room Under $2 2 to 2.99 3 to 3.99 4 to 4.99 5 and over B.B. C. No. % • 37 9.8 198 52.5 108 28.9 25 6.5 9 2.3 Day Camp No. % 1 5.8 9 53. 6 35.3 0. 1 5.8 Dist. No. 2 12 25 4 Nurses % 4.6 28. 58.1 9,3 0. Jewish Society No. % 3 7.9 18 47.4 13 34.2 3 7.9 1 2.6 44 Under $S S to 9.99 10 to 14.99 IS to 19.99 20 and over Total Rents Rents Unknown Under $2 2 to 2.99 3 to 3.99 4 to 4.99 5 and over ^BLE XXXV] [II— (Continued) ONE FAMILY HOUSES Per Apartment B.B. C. Day Camp Dist. Nurses Jewish Society No.- % No. % No. % No. % 1 1.9 0. 0. 0. 12, 22.6 0. 1 14.2 1 25. 16 30.2 1 100. 3 42.9 2 SO. 9 17. 0. 0. 1 25. 15 28.3 0. 3 42.9 0. S3 100. 1 100. 7 100. 4 100. 12 4 1 Per Room B. B. C. Day Camp Dist. Nurses Jewish Society No. % No. % No. % No. % 11 20.8 0. 0. 0. 19 3S.8 1 100. 3 42.9 3 7S. 12 22.6 0. 2 28.S 1 25. 2 3.8 0. 2 28.S 0. 9 17. 0. 0. 0. ILLEGALLY CONVERTED TENEMENTS Per Apartment B.B. C. Day Camp Dist. Nurses Jewish Society No. - % No. % No. % No. % Under $5 0. 0. 0. 0. S to 9.99 54 38.6 1 20. 0. s SO. 10 to 14.99 68 48.6 ■ 4 80. 0. 3 30. IS to 19.99 14 10. 0. 1 100. 2 20. 20 and over 4 '2.8 0. 0. 0. Total Rents 140 100. 5 100. 1 100. 10 100. Rents Unknown 4 1 Per Room B.B. C. Day Camp Dist. Nurses • Jewish Society ' No. % No. % No. % No. % Under $2 10 7.1 0. 0. 1 10. 2 to 2.99 65 46.S 4 80. 1 100. 5 so. 3 to 3.99 ■48 34.3 1 20. 0. 2 20. 4 to 4.99 V 10 7.1 ' 0. 0. 0. S and over 7 S. 0. 0. 2 20, Per Apartment No. % Under $5 2 5.6 S to 9. -99 11 30.6 10 to 14.99 ,17 47.2 IS to 19.99 6 16.6 20 and over 36 0. Total Rents 100. FURNISHED ROOMS Broolclyn Bt^au of Charities Per Room Under $2 2 to 2.99 3 to 3.99 4 to 4.99 5 and over No. % 1 2.8 2 S.6 3 8.3 4 11.1 26 72.2 45 By comparing the percentage of ^each group paying the higher and lower rentals we find that in general each group pays more or less accord- ing to its financial ability, the two relief groups paying less in each case than the two more prosperous groups. So far as rentals per apartment are concerned, however, the families of the Jewish Society pay less in every case than those reported by the Bureau of Charities. But so far as rentals per room are concerned the Jewish families pay more for old law and private houses and less for new law and illegally converted tenements than the Bureau group. In the case of the old law tenenients, the rentals per room are probably more among Jewish families because their apart- ments are generally smaller, and as we have already seen rentals per room tend to increase as the size of apartments decrease. Inasmuch as the Jew- ish families report only four private houses, the rentals for that type have little or no significance. ■ The only apparent reason why rentals per room should be less among Jewish families for new law tenements and two family houses is because the districts in which houses are located, as for example Brownsville, are remote from the business and industrial centers, with the result that the land values and rents are comparatively low. The comparison of rentals in different districts is shown to some extent in the recent report of the Tenement House Department. The following table (XXXIX), quoted from that report, shows the maximum and minimum rentals per month of tenements erected in the various sections of the borough during the years 1912 and 1914. TABLE XXXIX MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM RENTALS OF APARTMENTS IN NEW LAW TENEMENTS ERECTED IN BROOKLYN 1912-1914 Maximum Rental Per Month Minimum Rental Per Montll Per Apt. Per Room Per Apt. Per Room Downtown District $ 65.00 $ 16.25 $ 7.00 $ 3.50 North Brooklyn SS.OO 7,86 6.00 3.00 Bush wick 3S.00 5.84 7.00 3.50 Central Brooklyn 125.00 17.86 8.00 2.66 Greenwood 110.00 15.72 7.00 3.50 Flatbush 100.00 13.33 9.00 3.00 • Ft. Hamilton 42.50 7.08 6.00 3.00 Sheepshead Bay 35.00 5.83 14.00 2.30 Paerdegat 35.00 8.75 7.00 3.33 Brownsville 50.00 8.33 6.00 1.50 Incomplete as these figures are, they show the tendency of exceed- ingly low and high rentals in the different sections. Brownsville clearly is a section where low rentals prevail, since the lowest rentals of any ten- ement built within those three years was found in that district. Even the highest rentals in that district are low in comparison with other sections of the city. The Tenement House Department report is of interest also in giving us some clue to the general level of rentals of new law tenements prevail- ing throughout the city. It can be seen at a glance that the minimum 46 rentals asked in each district are only slightly less than the average rental paid by our families in different sections of the city. The average min- imum rental for those three years was $2.92 per room, while the average I'ental for all new law tenements among our families was $3.10. Further- more, among the more poorly paid groups, the Bureau of Charities and the Jewish Aid Society, the majority of the families are paying less than $3.00 per room; in the case of the Bureau of Charities 60% are paying such rentals and in the case of the Jewish Society 53 % . Thus it is clear that among the group that we are studying only the very minimum priced new law tenements are available. NATIONALITIES. The presence of great masses of foreign population in New York City has tended to aggravate its housing problem both by increasing congestion in certain sections and by making regulation of housing evils more difficult because of racial barriers of language, custom and standard of living. The increments of population from immigration might easily be assimilated by the city, if they did not tend to settle in districts which are already crowd- ed to the limits of decency. The Italian immigrant seeks his home among his own people, who speak his own language and to whom he is bound by ties of blood and racial tradition. For the same reason, the Hebrew gravitates to the ghettos of. the city. Not only is the city's congestion thus steadily augmented but the very presence of great masses of alien population, accustomed often to rural conditions and unsuited to the com- plex conditions of tenement house life, render them more or less imper- vious to American ideals and standards of living. The demand for the proper use of sanitary conveniences, the need of adequate light and ven- tilation, the danger of obstructing fire-escapes, proper methods of garbage disposal are essentials of good housekeeping which have gradually and painfully to be taught the new arrival. The Tenement House Commission of 1900, in commenting on this problem in its report, said: "While the Commission appreciates that no state legislation is practicable upon this subject, yet it would call atten- tion to the fact that the tenement-house system is exerting quite as detri- mental an effect upon the newly arrived immigrant, as the nev/ly arrived immigrant is exerting on the tenement house." While we are not able to divide the "foreign" population into the foreign born and native born of foreign parents, yet we were able to clas- sify them fairly accurately with respect to their racial stock. In general, only those families who are native born of native parents are considered "American"; though there are probably some deviations from this rule, since in some instances the report was based on personal impression rather than scientific inquiry. As might be expected, any classification as pop- ular as this one differs slightly from that of the federal census bureau. The most notable difference is that of our keeping the Jewish families 47 separate as to race rather than throwing them in with Russians, Poles, Germans and others, according to nativity merely. This, we believe, has the advantage of being a sounder division ethnologically, and besides of iitting in better with popular racial concepts. It will no doubt surprise those who do not realize the tremendous so- cial changes that have overtaken conservative Brooklyn to learn that three- fourths (74.5%) of these 3,227 workingmen's families are ''foreign". The accompanying table (XL) which classifies the families of each district according to nationality shows that Americans barely lead the list with 82'4 families. In spite of the fact that the largest group, the Bureau of Char- ities, reports only five Jewish families, which it is caring for by a special arrangement, the Jewish race leads all foreign groups with 724 families. Italians, however, are a close second with 722 families. These two groups together with 154 Polish families indicate a strong prevalence of eastern and southern European races in contrast with the 298 Irish families, 157 Gerrn.an families, 72 English and Scotch families, which represent northern and western Europe. TABLE XL NATIONALITIES FOR THE ENTIRE BOROUGH Bed.Bush.E.N.Y.Flat.Ft.G. Gpt. Gow. N.Y. R.H.St.M. So. Wms. Total American 92 57 52 58 73 62 45 66 83 4S 64 127 824 Australian -4 ---41- --1717 Danish - - -2^ --5- 3-11 12 English 132722747396 S3 French 1- 2---12 --13 10 German ■ 6 22 16 7 7 10 6 3 12 - 9 59 157 Hungarian 12 1--5-- - - - 7 16 Finnish -- _3--.__ _i5_ 9 Irish 20 3 8 11 29 41 25 13 65 10 27 46 298 Italian 29 26 106 8 47 30 68 37 120 23 61 167 722 Jewish 100 19 196 4 4 8 7 2 1 16 28 339 724 Lithuanian -- 1----2 ---21, 24 Negroes 10 - 6 2 13 - 1 9 1 26 - 1 69 Norwegian 1 - - - - 1 6 - 20 3 12 - 43 Polish 2 ~2 6 3 - 38 10 8 5 - 5 75 154 Portuguese -- ---__i ____ 1 Scotch -- 12-31- 6132 19 Spanish -- 12--13 12-- 10 Swedish 11 1-3-34 5155 29 Syrians -- -----16 13-1- 30 West Indies ----1-12 1--1 6 Totals 264 139 399 109 179 2,04 188 172 343 131 232 867 3227 The distribution of the races in each of the twelve districts is of in- terest in giving us an idea of the gregariousness of certain races and at the same time an idea of the racial complexion of each district. Flatbush, for example, is the most American in its complexion, since 58 or 56% of the families reported for that district are American. While the most American families are reported in Willamsburgh (127 families), this 48 district is prevailingly foreign, since Americans represent only 15% of the tota,l families it reported. Bedford, Bushwick, Ft. Greene, Greenpoint, Navy Yard and St. Marks are still largely American, with from 30 to 40% of their families of native stock. It is interesting, however, to note the invasion of other races into these old districts. Bedford, one of the old- est districts in Brooklyn, reports eight more Jewish families than Amer- icans. Irish and Italians are found in large numbers in Greenpoint, Ft. . Greene, Navy Yard and St. Marks. Bushwick, which was formerly made up of native Americans and Germans, reports only 22 German families as against 26 Italian and 19 Jewish families. The effect of this change on the housing conditions of that section is most marked. Private houses have been altered for two families or are illegally occupied as tenements, while both old and new law tenements have replaced many of the old pri- vate houses. The Irish are fairly evenly distributed in all of the districts, with ap- parently a slight preference for Red Hook, Williamsburgh and Greenpoint. It is obvious that none of these twelve districts can be said to be pre- vailingly Irish, so completely is that race being replaced by Italian, Jew- ish and other races of more recent arrival. Although only 15% of the Red Hook families are Irish there are still many blocks in that district which are- almost entirely inhabited by Irish. The Germans have been even more completely replaced by other races, since only one district, viz. Bushwick, reports enough German families to give it anything of a Teutonic character. However, to the credit of the frugality and industry of that race it must be said that a comparatively small percentage of German families fall into the economic group that we are studying. It must also be remembered that many of the families now considered "American" are of Gerrrian stock. By far the greater number of Italians are found in Williamsburgh, Red Hook and East New^ York. Red Hook and Gowanus are most Italian in character, since 35% of the families reported from each of these districts are Italian. In this conriection it is interesting to note that, with the exception of East New York, in those districts where Jewish famiHes are found in large numbers Italian families are relatively scarce, and vice versa. There is no clearer example of the part which racial and religious antipathies play in determining the character of a neighborhood. Besides, it must be remem- bered that each of these districts is fairly large in area and that even though the two races do report about the same number of families, as in the case of East New York, they are sharply divided into Jewish and Ital- ian quarters within such districts. Clearly WilUamsburgh is the most popular district with the Jewish famihes, since 47% of all such famihes are found in that district and since 40% of all the families in that district are of that race. Indeed in only East New York and Bedford ai'e any considerable numbers of Jewish fam- ilies reported. Lithuanians and Poles are confined almost entirely to 49 Williamsburgh and Greenpoint. They are to be found for the most part near the water front in these districts, where they are employed in the sugar refineries and on the docks. The gregariousness of the newly arrived immigrants is shown by the fact that Italians, Hebrews and Slavs are confined for the most part to two or three localities. The older groups, Americans, Irish and German, however, are fairly evenly distributed in all of the districts. Apparently until the foreigner loses most of his race consciousness and- is no longer dependent on his fellow countrymen for social intercourse, he seeks his own kind in congested centers. The distribution of nationalities among each of the four groups is of interest as a side-light on the social character of each. The accompany- ing table (XLI) gives the nationalities found in each group by districts. TABLE XLI NATIONALITIES ) BUREAU OF CHARITIES Bed. Eush. E.N.Y. Flat. Ft. G. Gpt. Cow. N.Y. R.H. St. M. So. Wins. Total American 92 SS 47 56 67 54 42 64 81 44 60 114 776 Australian _ 2 — " — _ 4 1 _ _ _ 1 6 14 Danish _ - _ 2 _ _ 5 — 3 _ 1 1 12 English 1 3 2 7 2 2 7 4 7 3 8 4 SO German 6 22 IS 7 6 9 5 3 12 _ 6 54 145 French 1 - 2 _ - _ 1 2 _ _ 1 3 10 Hungarian 1 2 1 — _ 5 _ _ _ _ _ 7 16 Finnish - - _ 3 - - _ _ _ 1 5 _ 9 Irish 19 2 8 10 23, 35 24 13 61 9 24 44 272 Italian 26 24 99 8 .42 22 65 36 116 22 48 150 658 Jewish ;- - 1 - _ - _ _ - _ 1 3 5 Lithuanian - - 1 - _ _ - 2 - _ - IS 18 Negroes 10 _ s 2 11 _ 1 8 1 25 _ 1 64 Norwegian 1 ■_ _ _ _ 1 4 — 20 3 8. _ 37 Polish 2 2 5 3 - 36 10 8 4 - 4 .66 140 Portuguese - - - _ - - - 1 _ - - _ 1 Scotch _ _ 1 2 .. — 3 1 _ 5 1 3 , 2 18 Spanish - - 1 2 - - 1 3 1 2 - _ ^ 10 Swedish 1 1 1 - 3 — 3 4 5 1 4 5 -28 Syrians - - _ _ _ - IS 13 _ 28 West Indies - - - - 1 - 1 2 1 _ - 1 6 Total 2,317 SO TABLE XLI— (Continued) NATIONALITIES DAY CAMP Bed. Bush. E.N.Y. Flat. Ft. G. Gpt. Cow. N.Y. R.H. St. M. So. Wins. Total American -2324-22 . - 1-2 IS Australian - 2 - - _,_ __ _ . _ _ _ 2 German --!_________ i Irish - 1 _ 1 4 1 1 _ _ 1 _. 1 10 Italian 3 2 3 - 3 1 - 1 2 1 -. 9 25 Jewish 10 S 43 - - 1 1 1 - 4 - 38 103 Negroes -_i _________ 1 Norwegian _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Polish ■ __i________i2 Swedish .- - _- - _ - - __ _ Syrians _______i____ 1 Total 163 DISTRICT NURSES Bed. Bush. E.N.Y. Flat. Ft. G. Gpt. Gow. N.Y. R.H. St. M. So. Wras. Total American --2-281-2-4 11 30 Australian __________i_ 1 English __________ 12 3 German ----11.1 ---3 5 11 Irish l___2 5--4-31 16 ItaUan __4_,2 7 3-2-13 8 39 Jewish 3 _ 8 - 1 "2 2 - - 1 11 19 47 Lithuanian _________ __6 6 Negroes ____2--l-l-- 4 Norwegian _^____2---4- 6 Polish _-___2--l-18 12 Scotch -_______■_!___ ] Swedish - - _ - _- - - - - i_ 1 Syrians __________ i_ 1 Total 178 JEWISH AID SOCIETY Bed. Bush. E.N.Y. Flat. Ft. G. Gpt. Gow. N.Y. R.H. St. M. So. Wms. Total Jewish 87 14 144 4 3 5 4.1 1 11 16 279 569 The case of the Jewish Aid Society is comparatively simple, since all of its members are Jewish. The situation among the Bureau group nat- urally corresponds closely to that of the entire group, since it contributes 72 per cent, of the total quota of families.' It is a fair picture of the prev- alence of all foreign groups, except Hebrews, who are in a state of econom- ic dependence throughout the entire borough. The situation parallels so closely that found in the entire group that there is no need of additional comment here. It is interesting to note that the two agencies which accept both Jews and Gentiles each report a majority of Jews in comparison with every other race. In the case of. the Day Camp group, 103 families, or 63%, are Jewish, while in the District Nurses' group 47 or 25% of the fam- ilies are Jewish. Apparently Jews are less prevalent in the higher in- come groups than in the lower, though they predominate in all groups which are near or below the poverty line. That 63% of the Day Camp group, who are all tubercular, are Jewish, affords an interesting sidelight 51 on the tuberculosis problem. It has been generally assumed by public health authorities that Hebrews are immune to this dreadful scourge. So far as the death rate from tuberculosis is concerned this may be true, but both the number of cases which we found among the Jewish Aid Society and the fact that more than half of the patients of the Tuberculosis Day Camp are Jews would seem to indicate that, so far as the incidence of the disease is concerned,, this race is by no means immune. One needs, how- ever, a larger group than 724 families to reach definite conclusions as to the racial factor in the tuberculosis problem. Next to the Jews, the Italians lead in all foreign groups. There are, however, relatively few of them in the Day Camp group, for only 25 Ital- ian families are reported as against 103 Jewish. One is tempted to generalize as to the immunity of Italians to tuberculosis, but again the number is entirely too small to permit of generalization. The small number of Italian families under the care of the Day Camp is more likely due to the fact that the Day Camp is located nearer to the Jewish neigh- borhoods or to the fact that Jewish families are more disposed to avail themselves of such aid than Italians. SUMMARY From the material before us it is possible to reconstruct a composite picture of the entire group which we have studied and of its four social and economic divisions. Our attention up to this point, however, has been so closely confined to particular aspects of the problem that an adequate survey of the entire situation has escaped us. The follow- ing summary, by throwing into strong relief the salient features of the situation, will, it is hoped, give the reader this broader view.' The emphasis of our study, as was indicated at the beginning, has been placed on the housing standards of individual families rather than on general building and sanitary statistics. As the study progress- ed we were half consciously contrasting these standards with that usually deemed essential to normal family life and to rendering the family an asset to society rather than a liability. In this instance, too, a close atten- tion to particular aspects of the problem made impossible a complete appraisal of the housing standards of our group. To lay down any par- ticular standard of living as either essential or adequate is a rather hazard- ous and presumptuous undertaking because such a standard is bound to reflect the personal standard of the individual who proposes it or is like- ly to be limited to contemporary economic conditions. The experience of social workers, however, in dealing with the problems of ill-health, vice, crime and poverty has evolved a fairly definite minimum stand- ard. According to this rather vague standard, every family should live in an apartment which contains a toilet, water-supply and bath, in which all living rooms open directly to the outside air, and which contains a. S2 ,. sufficient number of rooms so that there are not more than one and one half persons to a room. The land should not be so congested that adequate open spaces for recreation are lacking. The building should be so protected against fire that the family may be assured of easy escape. On basis of this standard it is possible to divide the entire group roughly into the good, bad and indifferently housed. So far as the most important sanitary conveniences are concerned less than one half of the families are adequately housed, for only 43% of all the families have interior toilets and only 22% have baths. The water supply, however, was adequate in 96.6% of the apartments. As a protection against disease, adequate light and ventilation is even more important than proper plumbing fixtures, so that the fact that 53% of the families are living in interior rooms is sufficient cause for alarm. Nearly one fourth X23.1%) of all the rooms were inadequately lighted. Besides, apartments with two interior rooms were even more prevalent than those with one interior room. Considerably more than a third (38.4%i) of the families were overcrowded. Striking examples of overcrowding were found to exist which are not adequately shown in this general average. We found, for example, two families of fourteen per- sons each living in four-room apartments or at the rate of three and one half persons to a room. There were eleven families of eight persons liv- ing in two rooms or at the rate of four persons per room. Thirteen per cent, of the families were living at the rate of more than two persons per room, a density which in England is considered a menace to public health by health officers and is so dealt with. The overcrowding among the group is, of course, due to the fact that the average family is abnormally large, comprising 5.5 persons as against an average 4.7 for the entire coun- try, and that their apartments are abnormally small, averaging 3.8 rooms for the entire group. These families, however, were not greatly in- creased by lodgers, since only '4.4% of the families were reported as having lodgers. Although there is a steady trend toward land congestion in Brook- lyn it is not an evil so far as the entire group is concerned. We found that the average number of families td the building is 6.9, while 82% of the families are housed in buildings containing eight families or less. We were not able to tell how many of the families are living in unsafe buildings. The nearest approach to such classification is the record of the number of families living in old law tenements. With a few notable exceptions the old. law tenements are almost without protection against the spread of fire, and the fire-escapes are of an inferior type. Over half of the families (56.7%) are living in buildings of this type. Less than one fifth (l8.6%o) of the famihes are hving in new law tenements which are constructed of fire resisting material and have adequate fire-escapes. The 5% who are living in illegally converted tenements are without fire protection, for no provision was made for fire-proofing when they were S3 built and they are without fire-escapes. At best, however, the type of the house is a very unsatisfactory index of the fire hazard. The rental study showed that rents were lowest for old law tene- ments and highest for new law tenements, an increase of 38% per room being demanded for the newer type of building. The average rental was $11.24 per apartment and $2.69 per room. The rental per room appeared to be less as the number of rooms in the apartment increased. Practically 50% of the families were paying rents ranging from $10 to $15.00 a month, and 36.2% were paying less than $10 per month. How- ever, $15.00 was the limit beyond which less than' 15% of the families were able to go. The prevailing rentals we concluded gave us a fair index of the economic status of the group we have been studying. Since the item of rent has been found to consume from 25 to 30% of the family income of the working population it is fair to assume that. the average family studied has an income of about $50.00 a month or $600.00 a year. This is between $250 and $350 less than what is usually deemed essential to support a workingman's family decently in New York City. The great majority of our families are, therefore, below normal economically, a fact which must be kept constantly in mind in appraising their hous- ing standards and in determining the effects of their housing conditions. For it is such groups as this that are not only badly housed, but underfed and improperly clothed as well. It is difficult, therefore, to ascribe any given effect such as ill health entirely to their housing conditions. We found that the twelve districts differed widely in the character of their housing conditions. The older districts. Red Hook and Navy Yard, furnish in general the worst housing conditions, while the more recently, developed districts, Flatbush, East New York and Southern, provide the best housing conditions. This is reflected both in the types of houses prevailing in those districts and in the records of sanitary conveniences and interior rooms. Red Hook and Navy Yard report 86.6% and 77.4% of their respec- tive houses as "old law" tenements, while Flatbush and Southern report 2.8% and 24.1% of their buildings as belonging to this type. On the other hand. Red Hook and Navy Yard report only 1.4% and 1.7% of their respective buildings as "new law" tenements, as against 46.2% for East New York and 29.2% for Southern. Flatbush, however, reports only 17.8% of its buildings as "new law" tenements, since 59.6% of its houses are two family houses. In the record of sanitary conveniences, the same tendency was found. Only 17.5% of Red Hook apartments and 24.2% of Navy Yard apartments had interior toilets, while in Flatbush 86.5%, in East New York 72.7% and in Southern 71% of the apartments had interior toilets. Practically the same order was found with respect to bathrooms. Red Hook and Navy Yard reporting 3.4% and 10.5% of their respective apartments as having bathrooms, while Flatbush had 66.3%, Southern . 54 .58%, and East New York 40% of their apartments provided with these valuable "conveniences." While we found it to be generally true that the districts which re- ported the largest number of old law tenements and the worst sanitary conditions also reported the greatest number of interior rooms, yet there were- notable exceptions. In this instance we found that Bushwick led the hst with the largest number of interior rooms, 75% of its apartments being so afflicted; whereas it ranked third with respect to unsanitary conditions and fourth with respect to old law tenements. Greenpoint and Gowanus were nearly as badly off, with 68% of their apartments with interior rooms, while Red Hook reported 63.3%.. East New York had the fewest interior rooms, since only a third (33.8%) of its apart- ments were inadequately lighted, a fact which was clearly due to the prevalence of "new law" tenements in that district. Flatbush and Navy Yard, curiously enough, were equally badly off in respect to dark rooms, since 42.2% and 43.8% of their apartments had dark rooms. The larger number of two-family houses in Flatbush is responsible for this anomalous condition. The contrast between the four social and economic groups em- braced jn our study was so clearly brought out at every stage of the development of the study that a detailed summary here is unnecessary. Except in the case of overcrowding, the lower income group were in- variably the worst housed. The families reported by the two relief groups had a much lower rating with respect to sanitary conveniences and dark rooms than the other two groups who were for the most part well above the poverty line. Because of the large percentage of its families living in new law tenements the Jewish Aid Society's group was better off than the Bureau of Charities' group. The former reported 57% of its famihes as having interior toilets, as against 37.1% for the latter group. The difference with respect to interior rooms, however, was not so marked, for the Jewish Aid Society reported 53.5% of its apartments as containing interior rooms, while the Bureau reported 56.3% of its apartments inadequately lighted. The Day Camp reported 65.7% of its apartments as self-contained, while the Nursing Committee reported 60.1%. 35.9% of the Nursing Committee's apartments had interior rooms, as against 22.1% of the Tuberculosis Day Camp. With respect to overcrowding, however, we found a low income group, that of the Jewish Aid Society, vying with a fairly prosperous group, that of the Tuberculosis Day Camp, in producing the worst con- .gestion. Inasmuch as both groups reported larger percentages of their families in new law tenements than either of the other two groups we concluded that new law tenements, because of their high rentals and the smallness of their apartments, tend to produce overcrowding. The Day Camp and the Jewish Aid Society each reported an average room density of 1 1-2- persons per room, which is just on the border line of con- SS gestion. On the other hand the Bureau of Charities reported an average of 1.4 persons per room, as against 1.3 for the District Nurses. 42.9% of the Day Camp's families and 42.6% of the Jewish .Aid Society's famihes were overcrowded, in contrast to 38% for the Bureau of Chari- ties and 33.2 for the District Nurses. The congestion among the Jewish Aid Society group was largely due to the fact that 10.2%'of the families had lodgers, while only 3.4% of the Bureau families had lodgers. The Day Camp and District Nurses groups reported only 1.9% and .4% of their respective families with these undesirable additions. Both of the relief groups, therefore, re- ported a greater prevalence of lodgers, which is ample evidence of the fact that the lodger problem is at bottom an economic one. In the case of the Jewish families it was more acute because of the fact that a larg- er percentage of the families were trying with limited incomes to pay for quarters in new4aw tenements. Land congestion was found more prevalent among the groups re- porting the greatest amount of room congestion. Nearly 20% of the Jewish families were housed in buildings containing more than twenty families, as against 1.5% for the Bureau. The Day Camp reported 11.2% of its families in buildings containing twenty or more families, as against 8.4% for the District Nurses. From this showing two conclusions were derived, first that land congestion is an accompaniment to room con- gestion, and second that land congestion is rapidly increasing in new law tenements. The lower income groups also led in the number of old law tene- ments reported. The Bureau reported 61.4%, the Jewish Aid Society 47.6% of their families in these discredited buildings. The Day Camp and District Nurses reported 46.6% and 38.8% of their families in old law tenements. The two most overcrowded groups, the- Day Camp and Jewish Aid Society, reported the greatest prevalence of new law tene- ments, with 35% and 42% of their families so housed. Only 10.8% of the Bureau's families and 29.2% of the District Nurses' families were liv- ing in the buildings of this type. The rental study seemed not only to substantiate our economic division of the four groups but also to enable us to trace the connection be- tween the rental paid and the type of housing received. Rentals were considerably lower among the two relief groups than among the other two, but they were much higher among the District Nurses' group than among the Day Camp group. Rentals were lower among the Jewish group than among the Bureau group because of the fact that they rent- ed smaller apartments and because they were living in remote sections of the city where land values were low. Many readers have no doubt found it difficult to visualize the actual living conditions of these families from the statistical data presented. For such persons a very brief description of a typical home, based entirely 56 upon the facts disclosed by our study, will be found helpful. Since more than half of the homes found in discredited old law tenements are without proper sanitary arrangements and contain interior rooms, and since considerably more than a third of the apartments are over- crowded, it is fair to assume that a typical apartment is afflicted with all of these evils. The apartment of such a family would in all probability be found in a veritable fire-trap of an old law tenement, often built entirely of wood and never adequately protected against fire. This building houses eight families, two families to a floor, one apartment facing the street and the other facing the yard. The public hall leading to the apart- ments is cold in winter, hot in summer, and odorous and unsanitary at all times. The only light available streams through a tiny skylight in the roof and the front door; the only ventilation available is through the street and yard doors, on the first floor, which are usually shut. The apartment itself consists of three very small bedrooms and a large kitchen, the latter used also as a dining and living room. The kitchen and one bedroom open either on the street or yard; the other two bedrooms admit only such light and air as find their way through the doors, which are constantly open, and through the sash windows placed in the partitions. Since the kitchen is the only room which is heated and the only one except the front bedroom which is adequately lighted, the doors are always thrown open, with the result that the steam and odors from cooking and washing soon permeate the entire apartment. Just outside the kitchen window is a frail-looking balcony with an opening about eighteen inches square through which the vertical ladder descends and through which, also, a child too often descends when he has for a moment escaped the watchful eye of his parent. As a precaution against such a tragedy, and also to enable her to store boxes, refrigerator, et cetera, for which there js too little room in the crowded apartment, the mother often completely blockades this opening with a wooden platform. The mother and father usually occupy the front bedroom, the only one with adequate ventilation; the children occupying the two interior rooms. Windows are never open from fall to spring, save for very short periods to air the bed-clothes, not only because the tenants are ignorant of sanitary precautions but because if the windows were kept open for eight hours it would be impossible to heat the apartment adequately for the rest of the day from the single kitchen stove. The stove, by the way, is a costly necessity in the tenement home because all the coal must be kept in a box in the kitchen. It is, therefore, necessary to buy it in hundred- pound or bushel lots, with the result that the tenement family pays twenty dollars a ton, while the well-to-do family that buys in large lots pays ten dollars a ton. The practice of bathing is discouraged and frequently entirely S7 ' abandoned, not only because of the lack of proper facilities (the typical home is without a bathroom), but because of the utter lack of privacy. The kitchen is the only room which is warm enough for the purpose, and it is difficult to find a time when it is not occupied by the family. In- deed so well is this hardship recognized by philanthropists and by city officials that many large public baths have been erected at public and private expense to meet a real need which the tenement home does not supply. The toilets are either in the hall where they render the atmosphere almost unbearable, or in the yard where they freeze and overflow in winter or breed flies in sumrner. In either case they are shared in common by several families, and are both an aid to the communication of disease and a menance to morality and decency. • Such a description as this is, of course, inadequate but it does serve to give a fair description of the conditions under which the average, not the poorest, families of our group are living. The reader can draw upon his own imagination to picture the conditions found when ten, eleven or twelve persons are living in the type of apartment just described. The purpose and scope of our study was to discover exactly the hous- ing conditions of these families, not to trace either the causes or the effect of such conditions. The record of the cases of tuberculosis, how- ever, furnished us a fair index of the effect which the housing environ- ment has on the health of the group. Since the two most overcrowded groups reported the greatest rate of tuberculosis, we concluded that overcrowding was most largely responsible for the spread of this disease. We found also, however, that dark rooms were more prevalent among tubercular families of the same group. We, therefore, concluded that dark and overcrowded apartments predispose families to this disease. In view of the adverse conditions under which these families were living it was not surprising that tuberculosis was eight times as prevalent among them as among the entire population of the borough. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Housing reform in New York City has been almost entirely confined in the past to the statutory regulation of the construction and main- tenance of tenement houses. By this rneans, a tremendous improvement in general living conditions has been wrought. The disgusting and dangerous privy vaults have been abolished; dark rooms can no longer be created in tenement houses, and the fire hazard in all buildings has been greatly reduced. That this method falls far short, however, of greatly improving the environment of the lower income groups, this study unquestionably demonstrates. Roughly, one-half of the entire group which we have studied are improperly and even dangerously housed, and only a handful of them are receiving the full benefit of the newer type of house required by the Tenement House Law. The future 58 housing reformer must, therefore, address himself definitely to the prob- lem of improving the housing of this particular stratum of society. It is, of course, entirely outside the province of a study of this kind to offer a final solution of this baffling problem, even if there were one imme- diately at hand. A few suggestions for dealing with certain phases of the problem, as our study has brought them to light, will, however, be helpful to most readers, if for no other reason than to serve as a basis for discussion. Since 56% of our families are living in the discredited old law tenements, a way must be found either to remove the most serious defects of such buildings or they must be abohshed entirely and their tenants rehoused in. decent buildings. With respect to this problem two solu- tions which have been tried out in other communities both here and abroad may be offered; the first is through private initiative, the second through governmental action. The Octavia Hill Association of London is the best example of the first method. Such associations purchase a group of old houses, put them in a sanitary condition, and employ friendly rent collectors who, in addition to collecting the rent, visit the families regularly and instruct them in proper methods of housekeeping. Inas- much as the return on the investment is usually limited to 4 or 5%, the corporation can afford to provide repairs and improvements which would be impossible for a purely commercial enterprise. The advantage of this method is that it involves no radical departure from traditional govern- mental policies, while it does contribute enormously to the general improve-" ment of living conditions among the most helpless groups of the community. According to the second method, the municipality condemns and purchases at public expense unsanitary and congested areas and erects on such sites decent quarters which it rents at moderate prices to work- ing men. This method has met with remarkable success in English cities. There can be no doubt but that slum areas are thus effectively rebuilt, but the method is open to serious objections which many English authorities have themselves been the first to point out. Unless such a plan is carefully administered there is likelihood of a more prosperous and less needy group pouring into the rebuilt districts, while the dispossessed tenants seek even worse quarters elsewhere. A more fundamental objec- tion is that by using the public funds for such purposes the careless land- lord is enriched at the taxpayers' expense, for he must be paid a fair com- pensation for his property, tio matter how lieglected. Moreover, in recovering the deficit for such housing from the taxpayers, the community is practically subsidizing parasitic and selfish industries which through inadequate wages are contributing heavily to the housing problem. Every effort ought to be made to encourage the alteration of obsolete private houses into decent tenements. Any concession in the present law or in its enforcement which will make this possible without sacrific- ing the essentials of good housing ought not to be considered as surrender- ing the ground already gained, but ought to be welcomed as a real reform. 59 The living conditions in such houses, provided of course that dark rooms and other abuses are guarded against, are vastly superior to the condi- tions in old law tenements. With a few comparatively cheap alterations they would provide three desirable apartments at low rentals. - Such a change, therefore, is of the greatest value from the point of view of the housing of the community; for what is most needed is an abundant supply of clean, safe and sanitary quarters at moderate rentals. High land values, high rents, block and room congestion move, as we have seen, in a vicious circle. The only remedy for this unfortunate situation is adequate city planning. This should take two forms: first, the development of adequate transportation facilities; second, the restriction of the number of families to the acre. Crosstown transportation can be encouraged by the giving of free transfers from the rapid transit trunk lines. This would result in the even distribution of population, with ample open space for streets, yards and courts. It would also stabilize land values and rents, which again would assist in checking a too intensive use of the land, thus limiting congestion. The city should be given the power to limit the number of families to the acre of ground in the differ- ent localities, depending on the existing land values, industrial centers and other factors. These two things, the development of subsidiarj' transit lines which would produce a free flow of population, and the legal restriction of the number of families to the acre, would check the regret- table tendency of duplicating in the newer sections of Brooklyn the hide- ous congestion of the east side of Manhattan. Our comparison of rents with the t3qpe of housing received showed that the housing standard, as with all other features of the standard of living, is largely determined by the economic status of the family. There can, therefore, be no permanent or far-reaching reform in housing con- ditions until the great masses of our population have their incomes great- ly increased in proportion to the price of commodities. Whether this is to be accomplished through a better system of industrial training, through social insurance or through a complete reorganization and control of in- dustry, it is not within the scope of a housing study to determine. It must be remembered, however, that unless the economic status of the working population is greatly improved all other attempts at improving their living condition will prove futile. The terrific waste of human life through bad housing will continue just as long as the public permits it to continue. Not until the public is thoroughly acquainted with the true situation and all that it involves will it be aroused to demand the correction of this evil. It is only by pre- senting carefully and scientifically the facts of the living conditions in our great cities that public interest will be thoroughly aroused. This brief study of one industrial group it is hoped will help to supply this knowl- edge and thus contribute in some slight degree toward the solution of the entire problem. 60