Sydney Slum-clearance Work Is Tardy, Piecemeal
By
a Staff Correspondent
One
home in every ten in the Sydney metropolitan area is what has been termed a
“sub-standard dwelling.”
This
proportion has been arrived at from State and municipal surveys made in recent
years. The Cumberland County Council estimates that there are more than 40,000
sub-standard homes in Sydney in need of immediate replacement. The Housing Commission
of New South Wales, more conservatively, places the figure at 30,000.
NOT
all of these sub standard homes are actual slum dwellings, and not all of them
are in slums; but very many of them are.
Sydney
has a number of slum areas, the worst being in Paddington, Erskineville,
Redfern and Darlington. Other slums exist in Glebe, Surry Hills, Woolloomooloo,
Mascot, Waterloo and Alexandria.
The
Cumberland County Council condemns a house as sub-standard if it does not have a
certain adequacy of lighting, ventilation, air and living space, and space for
children; if it is obsolete or in a bad state of repair; if it does not have
bathroom facilities or utility services like running water; if it is damp, cold
or unhealthy.
It
has been estimated that the infant mortality in slum areas is 56 in 1,000,
whereas the average for the whole of the metropolitan area is 24 in 1,000.
Slums Are Costly
The
problem of Sydney’s slums has worried civic and religious leaders, sociologists
and town planners for more than 40 years.
Slums
have been proved to be the breeding ground of crime, and. they are socially
costly in other ways. They reduce the productivity and efficiency of the worker,
and burden the nation with big bills for sickness: American communities have
found that the cost of slum clearance schemes is more than repaid by reduced
health, crime and fire bills and greater industrial productivity.
But
the simple, main argument for wiping out slums concerns the actual living
conditions in them. Families exist in damp, gloomy, unhealthy shacks, badly ventilated
and poorly lighted. Some of these buildings are in the last stages of decay and
do not even provide adequate shelter.
The
only organisation at present undertaking slum clearance on any scale in Sydney
is the Housing Commission of N.S.W.
The
commission’s slum clearance scheme began in 1946, when it drew up plans for
extensive clearance in Redfern, Surry Hills, Paddington, Glebe, Waterloo and Erskineville.
‘
The
commission was empowered to resume land in slum areas so that it could demolish
the existing houses and build new, modern dwellings. The commission usually
comes to agreement with the owners of the land about its value, but appeals are
heard by the Valuer-General.
Late
in 1947 the first bulldozers moved into the slums near Cleveland Street,
Redfern, and the following year rebuilding began on the cleared land.
The
commission plans eventually to replace all the 30,000 sub-standard homes it
estimates exist in Sydney. But since the scheme began it has demolished only
642 homes, and built only 426 homes on the land cleared. At this rate of progress
it would be 300 years before Sydney were rid of even the slums the Housing Commission
has listed.
What
is the reason for this exasperatingly slow progress in Sydney’s slum clearance?
The
secretary of the Housing Commission, Mr. J. M. Bourke, pointed out to me that
the commission’s postwar construction has faced two severe handicaps: acute
shortages of manpower and materials and, more recently, lack of finance.
“We
have accordingly had to restrict the rate at which we can demolish buildings in
sub-standard areas and erect new homes in their place,” he said.
“But
these days lack of finance is not restricting us.
“The
main trouble is that, although slum clearance is a vital and necessary work
that should have been undertaken years ago, it is limited by the extent to which
the commission can house the displaced families.
“Our
number one difficulty is the almost insuperable problem of immediately
rehousing these people”
“With
the housing shortage so acute in this State as it is, it would obviously be
wrong to undertake more demolitions and intensify the shortage.
“We
have had to concentrate on putting up new houses rather than pulling old ones
down.
“Families
living in tents and tin shacks, or without anywhere to live at-all, need
accommodation more urgently than people living in slum areas. Slum clearance has
just had to take second place.” Mr. Bourke said that the commission could
not expedite slum clearance until there was a fall in the demand for emergency
accommodation.
“When
might this be? I don’t know. It may be 12 to l8 months at least.” The way
in which slum clearance has been relegated to second place in the commission’s
building programme is shown by the fact that, since building began on land
cleared in slum areas, the commission has constructed 18,793 homes, of which
only 426 have been in the cleared areas.
It
is more than two years since any extensive demolition of slums has taken place.
The
commission-has so far spent £964,000 on the construction of homes in cleared
slum areas, exclusive of homes still under construction and the cost of land
resumption and demolition.
Work
has so far concentrated on the Redfern area, where 196 flats have been built
and 21 are under construction; and the Surry Hills area, where 83 flats have been
completed.
At
Erskineville 78 dwellings have been completed and six are under construction;
at Glebe 45 completed and 27 under construction; at Waterloo 24 completed; and
at Paddington 33 under construction.
Most
of the dwellings are flats of one and two bedrooms in multi-unit buildings.
Some two storey semi-detached dwellings and single-storey semi-detached dwellings
have been included to relieve the monotony of the bigger blocks.
About
755 families have been displaced because of the commission’s slum clearance
activities.
Of
these more than 600 are now living in permanent commission homes, while others
are in community housing centres waiting for homes. Few of the families displaced
have wanted to return to the districts in which they formerly lived.
Mr.
Bourke said the commission plans shortly to begin building 20 flats on land
already cleared at Redfern and 50 on cleared land at Surry Hills, But critics
of the commission, including residents of commission flats in those areas,
maintain that it has shown untoward tardiness in building on the cleared land available.
At
Redfern, for instance, where there are several acres of cleared land ready for
use, only one block of 21 flats is under construction.
Yet
to build on this land would not involve any displacement of families, and the commission
has said that lack of finance is not holding up its building projects.
In
a walk around the commission’s projects at Redfern and Surry Hills I found only
nine men at work, and eight of these were on the block of flats under construction
at Redfern.
Huge
boulders and rubble still fronted the main block of flats at Redfern, which was
completed more than six months ago. What was supposed to be the children’s playground
and backyard at the rear of the block was a mass of weeds, refuse, broken
bottles, and burning garbage.
Incomplete Project
Although
work on the latest building completed in the Devonshire Street, Surry Hills,
project ended more than eight months ago, there is still no sign of the
remaining buildings in the project or the “grassed courtyard, volley ball,
and tennis courts, and community centre” that were to be included in the
scheme.
The
Housing Commission maintains that a change in the plan by the Sydney City Council,
which is providing the parks, playgrounds and children’s facilities in the
project, has caused the delay.
Critics
of the commission also maintain that the buildings it has erected in the slum
areas are of such a poor standard that they themselves will be slums within a few
years.
But
residents of these homes to whom I have spoken disagree, although they complain
of the poor, rather “slapdash” finish given to them.’
“This
is wonderful after what we had before,” said one young wife, who is living
with her husband in a one-bedroom flat. “They don’t do much for you here,
but if you use a bit of paint yourself, you can make things nice.”
“Disillusioned”
Another
housewife who was pegging out clothes on a rotary clothesline was not so “We
thought it
was
lovely” when we first came here, but we’ve got a bit disillusioned since,”
she said.
“The
workmanship’s very rough, and everything seems to fall to pieces. The towel
rack fell to bits the other day, and the lines in the windows keep on breaking,
and the stove’s no good. And, another thing, mildew seems to come through the
walls.
“Everything’s
the cheapest and, for the rent, 1 think they should do something about it. We
pay
£3/6/6
a week for two bedrooms, a lounge-room, bathroom and kitchen.
“But
of course it’s much better than we used to have.”
The
general verdict of the people living in the commission flats seems to be that, although
the rents are high for the rough workmanship and economical fittings and finish
of the flats, they provide good homes for those who are willing to look after
them.
Source: The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 –
1954), Wednesday 17 February 1954, page 2