By the staff of FAO's division of forestry and forest products
Hundreds of photographs and articles have acquainted the world with the destruction caused by the war in the various European countries and the fact that a European housing problem exists. The ruins left in Europe in the war's wake have dramatized to the world the European housing problem. The horrors of Europe's rubble-filled streets, the pictures of gaunt swaying walls overlooking acres of devastation have familiarized the world with the fact that sheltering Europe's millions is one of the major tasks of the next decade. The Housing Sub-Committee of the Economic Commission for Europe has issued a survey on the European housing problem (a preliminary review) which covers the following 17 European countries, containing 43 percent of the total European population: Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Europe throughout this article refers to the above-mentioned countries.
As the preliminary review points out, the Continent's housing-problem has not been caused exclusively by the war, but dates much further back. Its origins can be traced to the first half of the 19th century, the days of the industrial revolution when a constant and rapid rise in population and a steady increase in industrial population led to an ever-growing need for more housing accommodation.
This need was seldom satisfied even in terms of quantity, but quality of the housing provided' was even worse, and throughout the 19th century overcrowding and insanitary living conditions were met with in most European industrial centers. Although conditions improved somewhat in the early years of the 20th century, two world wars and the continuing rapid rise in population, as well as Europe's further industrialization, aggravated the problem to a point where housing after the war became a main problem in the recovery of many European countries.
By 1950, the problems of restoring production and transport, which during the immediate postwar years had been accorded top priority, have been largely solved, but today housing represents one of the most intractable internal problems with which the governments of Europe must grapple.
Housing is far more than a grave social problem; it is of considerable economic importance, since the accomplishment of many tasks with which the governments are faced depends in a large measure on the availability of housing accommodation for the workers and their families. As private industry is unable to cope with it, owing to the magnitude of the task and more particularly owing to the fact that the need is for low-rent housing which does not provide the building industry with the necessary profit incentive, governments have generally entered the housing problem as part of their social and economic policies.
During the last 100 years, Europe's governments have been compelled to take a more and more active interest in housing. Some states have discharged this responsibility by building houses, but more often the problem has been handled by establishing a housing policy laying down minimum standards of construction and paying direct building subsidies or through general financial policy.
Most of the present European governments have been elected on programs which contain promises of some solution of the housing problem, and electorates are now pressing for the fulfillment of these promises. On the other hand, all European governments are committed to anti-inflationary policies and are forced to maintain carefully their foreign trade balances. The housing programs which these governments there fore have been able to evolve are confined by several limits.
The Problem
In 1939, Europe's total-housing facilities amounted roughly 65 million dwellings, comprising 205,700,000 rooms, while annual building construction proceeded at the average rate of about
824,000 dwellings per annum.
The war damage amounted to:
2,800,000 dwelling units totally destroyed
2,900,000 dwelling units partially destroyed;
8,900,000 dwelling units slightly damaged.
By the end of the war, approximately 5,700,000 1 dwellings had thus become uninhabitable, and a further 9 million needed minor repairs.
1 The aggregate of totally destroyed and partially destroyed dwelling units.
Taking into account repairs of damaged houses and construction of new dwellings, the European stock of housing presented the following picture by the end of 1947:
|
Inhabitable buildings |
22,800,000 |
|
Dwellings |
62,400,900 |
|
Rooms |
96,800,000 |
The population of the 17 countries covered by the ECE preliminary review amounted to 243 millions in 1939. By 1945 this number had been decreased by around 6 millions, and from this time on it gradually began to increase again, reaching 239 millions in 1947 and 243 millions in 1949. In other words, by the end of 1949 the population of Europe had practically caught up with the severe losses caused by six years of war. Table 1 outlines country by country the change in population and, wherever possible, gives the room per caput figure in the individual countries:
In spite of the reduction in population, the damage caused to European housing during the war period had reduced the average rooms per caput from 0.833 to 0.803. Working on the basis of these average room per caput figures, it appears that at the end of 1947 the European countries surveyed were roughly two million rooms short of the 1939 living standard.
It is estimated that the total number of dwelling units required in Europe in order to return to the prewar housing standard would amount to about 3,100,000, which would be equivalent to roughly three and three-quarter times the prewar annual output of the building industry.
Repairing the war damage, however, is only a minor part of the total task ahead. The 1939 housing standards were very inadequate and it is estimated that to relieve overcrowding, to replace unhealthy and unsafe buildings, more than 11 million dwellings need replacement. Current annual building needs to provide for the annual increase in population in the number of families or the number of household units, and secondly for the replacement of over-age obsolete buildings, are set at 965,000 dwelling units per annum.
In round figures, the problem presents itself as follows:
3,100,000 dwelling units to regain 1939 standards;
11,100,000 dwelling units to improve on 1939 standards
1,000,000 dwelling units for additional annual current need.
The Housing Problem in Germany
Owing to the scarcity of available data on the housing situation is Germany and the incomparability of statistics from the different parts of Germany, the ECE preliminary review did not incorporate the German figures in its statistical survey. In a separate appendix, however, it deals in broad lines with the problem in the different zones of that country.
The appalling housing conditions resulting from the: war were aggravated by the mass arrival of refugees from countries outside Germany, as well as by the displacement of persons within the zones themselves.
In the French Zone of occupation, where 1,350,0 dwellings had been available before the war, 955,000 (70 percent of prewar) were available after the war. By the end of 1949 total available dwellings had been brought up to 1,092,500 (80 percent of prewar). Taking into account the number of refugees that have to be housed and the normal population increase, it is stated that 300,000 additional dwellings are required by 1952-53 to restore prewar housing standards. It is, however, envisaged that not more than about 90,000 new dwellings can be obtained from repaired or new construction within the next three or four years.
Table 1. - Rooms per caput in relation to changes in population
A reconstruction project that takes into account traditional local architecture. Amiens, France.
Photographs by courtesy of French Embassy Information Division
In the United States Zone of occupation, 1,375,200 dwellings (65.1 percent of prewar) were available by the end of November 1947. Total population in that year was 92.3 percent of that of 1939. The average number of rooms per caput was 0.55, compared with 0.78 prewar.
The needs in the British Zone of occupation, according to a report of the building industries branch of the Control Commission in October 1948, amounted to 5,800,000 "dwelling unit equivalents." At prewar rates of output this volume of building would require 8,700,000 man-year's of labor, and it was estimated that an annual force of nearly 350,000 men would be needed to do the job in 25 years. The removal of rubble alone constitutes a special problem. In order to clear the 200 million cubic meters in the British zone in 10 years, an annual labor force of about 70,000 men would be required. If the rubble were to be moved by rail, it would require 370 50-truck trains every working day.
The Bizone housing program for 1949-50 considers it of the utmost importance to build during that period at least 125,000 apartments; as well as the appropriate public services.
Although detailed information is lacking from the U.S.S.R. Zone of occupation, it has been indicated that in 1949 the supply of building materials was twice as great as during 1948 and was used mainly for new houses for workers in industrial and agricultural areas and for repairs in the larger cities. The 1949 building program provided for the reconditioning of 68,500 damaged houses. As can be seen from these scanty figures, the housing problem in Germany represents a far greater task than the combined housing problem in the 17 countries covered by the statistics of the preliminary review.
The Solutions
The Economic Commission's preliminary review set up what it called the "necessary program," which, if applied, would solve the European housing problem within 22 years. It represents an attempt to satisfy total housing needs within a reasonable time on the basis of a rate of building activity which, although extremely unlikely to be achieved under present conditions, is theoretically a possible one.
To put the "necessary program" into operation, building material would have to be produced at the rate of 200 to 300 percent of prewar production. It would, for instance, call for a timber delivery to the housing industry of 16.1 million cubic meters per annum. This program would involve tremendous efforts by the various national economies and demand a raw material supply far beyond not only the financial, possibilities of the various countries, but also beyond the capacity of the raw material producing: industries. It is obvious therefore that nothing like the "necessary program" can be carried out under present conditions, and in fact none of the existing European housing programs aims at any such "short-term solution".
As an alternative the preliminary review evolved a probable program which is based on a realistic estimate of what countries could achieve. In some cases, this estimate may be optimistic, although in others the activity has already surpassed the expected program. This "probable program" shows a progressive rise from 92 percent of the 1939 rate, which had been attained in 1948, to 155 percent of the 1939 rate, which should be attained by 1952.
Even the execution of the "probable program" would strain the resources of many European countries, none of which would find even such a comparatively modest contribution to the solution of the housing problem an easy one. The "probable program" for 1948 involved an annual timber supply of approximately 7,200,000 cubic meters (roughly 90 percent of the prewar consumption of 7,800,000 m³). As it is estimated that 25 to 30 percent of sawn wood production is used by the housing industry, this would have necessitated a total sawn softwood output of 23 to 28 million cubic meters. In 1948 European sawn softwood output amounted to about 32 million cubic meters and amply sufficed to cover the timber needs of the "probable program" for that year. Progressive increases of building activity in the: following four years would bring the timber supply; necessary for the execution of the "probable program" up to approximately 12 million cubic meters by 1952, which would correspond to a total European sawn softwood output of from 36 to 48 million cubic meters. It is, however, extremely unlikely that European sawn wood production, which with great efforts reached 35 million cubic meters in 1949, can be extended to cover these demands.
Furthermore, it should not be overlooked that the figures of the preliminary review did not take into account the needs of the German housing program and that furthermore 1948 and 1949 represent peak years of postwar sawn wood production.
If the governments of Europe find it possible to undertake housing programs at a rate equal to the "probable programs," the European housing problem could be solved within 50 years on the average, although in some countries it might take 150 years to achieve the desired goal.
It must be pointed out that no European government has committed itself to the execution of these "probable programs." While in some countries: actual building activity now in progress approaches the "probable program" outlined by the preliminary review, building results in most countries fall short of the "probable program" targets, as building plans are cut to suit financial conditions and the availability of building material and of skilled manpower. In fact, the building programs have without exception been adjusted in advance to correspond with available material, so that none of them have been held up by lack of material except in a few local and isolated cases.
The Difficulties
The greatest difficulties which European governments meet in carrying out and expanding their building programs are financial ones. They far overshadow the difficulties encountered in the supply of building material and skilled manpower. The magnitude of the problem and the necessity of providing large numbers of low-rent dwelling units have forced most European governments to subsidize their building: programs heavily. It-will prove more difficult for them to go any further without taking the risk of putting their financial policies in jeopardy The existing building programs not only affect the domestic financial policy' but also threaten to disturb trade balances, as a considerable amount of building material must be imported.
While some governments have resorted to direct subsidy, others have initiated building programs financed and carried out entirely by the state itself.
As was mentioned, no serious building material shortage at present exists within the framework of the housing programs set up by the various European governments. Up to 1947, the shortage of building materials, particularly of steel, timber, and cement, was pronounced, and in several countries the housing programs were hampered by the lack of either one or more of these materials. It must be kept in mind that a balanced supply of steel, timber, cement, glass, bricks, and asbestos, as well as an assured supply of pipes, sanitary fittings, etc., is essential to the execution of a building program. An abundant supply of timber or steel, for instance, which a county might have at its disposal at one time or another, would not in itself do away with the shortage of building materials.
Photographs by courtesy of British Information Center
Since 1947, the situation has greatly improved so far as building materials are concerned, and within the framework of the present programs no important material shortages are likely to develop. Should financial conditions improve, however, and governments for one reason or another find themselves in a position to expand their housing program, a shortage of essential building materials would be very likely to develop within a short time.
What has been said concerning the building material position applies equally to the supply of skilled manpower. Present programs can be executed with the manpower available, particularly as a large reservoir of qualified building laborers is available in Italy, which is drawn upon not only by neighboring countries but also by more distant countries of Europe.
Timber's Role in European Building
Despite considerable economy and the substitution and development of new building materials, the pattern of materials in house construction is not markedly different from that in use before the war. Basically the building methods employed are still the same.
The high price of timber, and its shortage during the first four postwar years, gave a strong impetus to the trend to save timber wherever possible. It is symptomatic that in 1947 all but four European countries, namely, Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland, reported more or less acute timber shortages. Even such timber-producing countries as Austria and Poland reported shortages due to overexploitation of forests during the war and to the leek of hauling equipment. All other countries covered by the preliminary review (Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) reported timber shortages due to the low level of imports, which in turn is a result of shortage of foreign exchange. While Poland suggested economy measures and utilization of waste as a remedy for the timber shortage, Austria suggested increased imports of coal, modernized equipment, and skilled foreign labor. All other countries suggested as the only remedy increased imports a feet which clearly shows that even in 1947 the timber shortage was primarily a question of foreign currency.
Forced either to import timber to carry out their building programs or to save as much timber as possible in order to increase the exportable amount of that valuable raw material, most countries adopted stringent measures of economy in the use of timber in their house-building industries.
The estimated average requirements of timber per dwelling unit are shown in Table 2, page 104.
This table shows the surprising fact that in Austria timber requirements per dwelling unit are nearly three times as high as prewar, which seems to be due mainly to a shortage of cement, while timber requirements have remained stable in Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, Norway, and Switzerland. All other countries have been able to reduce timber requirements per dwelling unit by 10 to 20 percent.
Attempts have been made to save timber in two ways: (1) by using substitute materials, and (2) by a more economical use of timber.
For reasons already mentioned, a great number of substitutes were used in the building industry during the immediate postwar years. However, substitution in the long run frequently proved self-defeating, as many types of substitutes were in themselves uneconomic. Some measures of substitution, however, particularly the use of entirely new materials, seem to have come to stay. Concrete joists and floor boards on solid filling have been substituted for timber in floors, and a wide range of other substitute materials such as wallboards, aluminum, and other floor coverings have been used either in association with or instead of concrete.
A badly bombed district of London now transformed into a modern garden city.
Photographs by courtesy of British Information Center
The answer to the question whether application of these substitute materials will prove economic in the long run can be given only when market conditions have returned to normal and competition can determine which material will be used by the building industry. It is, however, safe to say that many of the materials developed from wood waste or from locally available products will find a permanent place.
Table 2. - Average timber requirements per dwelling unit
|
Country |
1938 |
1944 | |
|
|
(Cubic meters) | ||
|
Austria |
4.6 |
12.0 | |
|
Belgium |
19.9 |
8.5 | |
|
Czechoslovakia |
14.5 |
14.5 | |
|
Denmark |
9.6 |
9.6 | |
|
Finland |
11.7 |
11.7 | |
|
France |
7.0 |
7.0 | |
|
Greece |
9.9 |
6.2 | |
|
Ireland |
9.9 |
9.9 | |
|
Italy |
4.6 |
4.2 | |
|
Netherlands |
11.2 |
10.4 | |
|
Norway |
33.3 |
33.3 | |
|
Sweden |
25.8 |
28.2 | |
|
Switzerland |
22.3 |
22.3 | |
|
United Kingdom |
9.1 |
7.3 | |
|
|
Average |
13.7 |
12.8 |
Practically all countries have adopted stringent measures to reduce the use of timber in building construction. Measures of economy in the use of timber include treatment with effective anti-pest products and the application of more rational building principles. Another development is the standardization of joinery by fixing dimensions and limiting the number of types of components manufactured; several countries have now adopted stock types for doors, door frames, and easements which are being mass-produced.
In this connection the manufacture of prefabricated houses should be mentioned, which since the war has increased considerably. While prefabricated houses for a long time had been looked upon as temporary structures which were used only in emergencies, modern construction has enabled the prefabricated house industry in some countries, such as Finland and Sweden (see Table 3) to attain important proportions, and domestic consumption as well as the export trade of this product has been steadily rising since the end of the war.
Table 3. - Exports of prefabricated timber houses
|
Country |
1945 |
1946 |
1947 |
1948 |
1949 |
|
|
(In tons) | ||||
|
Finland 1 |
37.950 |
121.806 |
148.881 |
159.181 |
180.222 |
|
Finland 2 |
43.765 |
35.820 |
16.092 |
2.491 |
.... |
|
Sweden |
17.401 |
71.439 |
17.505 |
9.675 |
44.527 |
... Not available.
1 Commercial exports.
2 Finnish war reparation deliveries to the U.S.S.R.
Conclusion
The magnitude of the task of solving the European housing problem can be gauged by the feet that it will take some 50 years, on the average, to get rid of all houses which by present standards are considered unsafe and unhealthy - either as a result of war damage, obsolescence, or other causes - provided no further disturbances impede the execution of large-scale housing programs. The solution of the problem is dependent largely on the financial ability of the various governments to provide the necessary low-rent housing which is adjusted to the purchasing capacity of the working population.
The part which timber will play in the solution of the problem depends on a great number of imponderables such as price developments in timber and substitute materials, general financial and economic developments, future developments in the wallboard industry, and a great number of other factors. It is clear that demand for building timber in the next decades will continue to be strong; and in spite of all substitution and economy, timber will be called upon to play a major part in the solution of the European housing problem.
