The first governmental recognition of these facts was by the estab lishing of the Housing Division of the Federal Emergency Administra tion of Public Works. After a short period of trying to work through the medium of limited dividend corporations, the PWA itself entered into the large scale construction field and built 51 projects in various cities. These showed a great advance over earlier attempts at urban housing. The projects themselves were much larger ; much less land was covered by buildings than was customary for urban developments. Light and air were thus assured and recreation space and a measure of community facilities were provided. Standards of interior planning and of construction were high. More important still, the principle of "subsidy" was recognized and English and German methods of financ ing as well as planning were studied and tentatively adopted. In the case of the PWA, the subsidy took the form of a 45% grant of capital, with the balance loaned at low interest and the amortization period set at 6o years. This permitted the fixing of rentals far below those pos sible to private enterprise and served the double purpose of reaching a lower income group and of combatting the hue and cry against competition by the Government.
What the Housing Division set out to do for the cities, the Resettle ment Administration of the Department of Agriculture attempted to do for rural communities. Model villages or farm groups were planned and built, with varying degrees of success in their avowed purpose of rehabilitating stranded populations either on sub-marginal lands or in abandoned mining and industrial areas. As a further step, a Suburban Resettlement Division was set up in 1935 which planned four com plete new satellite towns. Three of these, Greenbelt, Md., near Wash ington ; Greenhills, 0., near Cincinnati ; and Greendale, Wis., near Milwaukee, were built ; the fourth, Greenbrook, N.J., on the fringe of the New York metropolitan area, encountered political opposition and was abandoned. All of these "greenbelt" towns exemplify various solutions of the same broad pattern: they are complete communities protected by a large belt of agricultural land, limited as to their pos sible future size by careful planning for the optimum use of utilities, schools and governmental features. All of the land is owned by the community and not by individuals. Under this system the maximum economies in site planning and the maximum provision of amenities are possible, and future control takes the place of haphazard growth. These towns represent the most advanced experiment in social archi tecture ever undertaken in the U.S. Another example of such com munity planning is the town of Norris, which was originally built to accommodate workers on the Norris dam of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Since the completion of the dam, Norris has become the residence of the professional and clerical workers of the Authority whose headquarters are at Knoxville some 20 miles away. its dams, The i is also carrying out the construction of other towns relation to ts dams, and camp sites and recreation areas throughout its territory.
Another Government agency concerned with the social aspects of hous ing is the Large Scale Division of the Federal Housing Administration. This agency does not do any building of its own but guarantees mort gage loans made by banks to private investors. In order to protect its guaranty the FHA set up standards for site development, light, air and provision of amenities which were far in advance of customary private practice. The result has been to carry over into the hitherto haphazard field of private rental projects some of the advanced social planning associated with low rental housing. The ultimate effect can not help but be beneficial.
The Housing Act of 1937 established the U.S. Housing Authority as a permanent agency to succeed the Housing Division of the PWA which had never been thought of as anything but an emergency agency. Unlike its predecessor, the USHA is a loaning agency only, providing both capital and subsidy funds for the erection of low rental dwelling projects by "local authorities" which own and operate them. The subsidy furnished under the Act provides for a 6o-year loan of go% of the cost and an annual subsidy which roughly covers the interest and amortization. The locality shares in providing 20% of this annual sum, generally by granting tax exemption to the projects. Here as in the case of the FHA, standards of site planning, light, air and accommodation are established as a protection for an investment which extends over 6o years. New York State again proved itself a leader in housing when, in 1939, it passed the Public Housing Law permitting State funds to be used for housing in a manner very sim ilar to that in which Federal funds are used by the United States Housing Authority. For this purpose the former State Board was reorganized as the Division of Housing of the State of New York. A forward-looking provision of the law makes co-operation with city planning commissions mandatory, thus recognizing the important rela tion between housing and city planning. The future stability of cities lies in the recognition of the fact that large scale housing is not merely a tool for eliminating slums, but is also a potent factor in shaping the future pattern of cities as satisfactory places in which to live. The drift away from cities and the resulting breakdown of their finan cial organization can only be controlled by remedying the underlying causes for dissatisfaction. The demonstration that people can be accommodated at adequate densities while still providing ample sun light and recreation space is the first great lesson that has been taught by public housing. The relation between housing and city planning is therefore obvious: city planning must reach out beyond the prob lem of mere transportation with which it formerly dealt almost exclu sively and realize that housing—which is specifically concerned with people living in the city—is where its future really lies.