Housing is an essential factor in determining the quality of lives, the stability of communities, and the health of national economies. Its importance to society is underscored by the fact that--in the United States, for example--housing accounts for roughly one-fourth of personal consumption expenditures and about the same proportion of gross private domestic investment. The status of the housing sector is a leading indicator of economic activity, especially in the United States where the health of the housing industry is extremely sensitive to monetary and fiscal conditions and policies. Issues involving housing span numerous areas, including architecture, economics, health, law, finance, and city planning. In all of these fields, the fundamental housing issue remains--as it has been over the past 50 years--the provision of adequate shelter at affordable prices in suitable locations for all sectors of the population. Despite considerable progress in this direction over the last century, housing problems continue to plague large numbers of the populations of most countries. In the United States and other industrialized countries where housing quality is high, affordability has become a major issue. In developing countries, longstanding problems of low quality and high relative cost have been exacerbated by high rates of population growth and country-to-city migration, and by urban infrastructures that are ill equipped to accommodate residential growth. Direct government assistance for housing in both industrialized and developing countries generally has been more extensive than in the United States. With the adoption of the Housing Act of 1949, however, the United States formally pledged itself to the goal of providing "a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family." Nevertheless, the definition of what is "decent" has varied according to economic conditions, political climate, and prevailing tastes. Furthermore, in the United States the responsibility for producing housing and delivering housing services remains almost exclusively in the private sector. In market economies, the goals of government intervention in housing have been multiple and often conflicting. They have included elimination of market inefficiencies and discriminatory practices; reduction in the shelter expenses of low-income households; stabilization of the home finance market; stimulation of the housing construction industry during recessionary periods; and promotion of home ownership among all income groups. In nonmarket economies governments have been primarily concerned with housing production. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES From colonial days through the early 19th century, the U.S. housing stock was constituted largely of privately constructed single-family dwellings, and a significant proportion of both urban and rural housing was self-constructed by the original residents. Industrialization and Urban Growth In the 19th century, industrialization, improved transportation, and large-scale immigration led to the rapid expansion of urban areas. Between 1840 and 1850 alone, the urban population of the United States almost doubled. In major industrial cities much of this growth was accommodated in tenement flats and other multistory structures. For example, New York City's "railroad flats" (so called because the individual flats, or apartments, had no inner halls, and a room could be entered only by going through another) were typically 5 to 7 stories high, erected on narrow, shallow plots measuring 7.6 m by 30.5 m (25 ft by 100 ft), with four rental units per floor. Ventilation and light were inadequate, and because sanitary facilities, water, and--in many cases--heat were not provided, public-health conditions deteriorated rapidly. Even in cities where lower-density construction dominated, overcrowding and poor sanitary provisions were prevalent. Despite widespread public recognition of worsening urban housing problems and frequent calls for reform, only after the Civil War were government efforts undertaken to improve housing conditions. In 1867 the New York state legislature enacted the first tenement-housing legislation, which regulated the construction of railroad flats by establishing minimum construction standards. The continued influx of immigrants, however, resulted in the proliferation of overcrowded tenements and deplorable public-health conditions. Attempts to improve housing were spurred by the writings of such reformers as Jacob \TRiis\t and Lawrence Veiller in the 1890s, as well as by the first federal report on housing conditions, issued in 1894. Nevertheless, it was not until 1901 that a law permitting enforcement of housing standards was enacted. The landmark New York City "New Law" required building permits and inspections, prescribed penalties for noncompliance, and created a permanent city housing department. The New Law was copied in other U.S. cities and provided an impetus for housing legislation at the state level in the early 1900s. By 1930 many state and local governments also had adopted city planning, \Tzoning\t, and subdivision regulations to guide the development and location of new residential areas. The company town, a phenomenon of the period of great industrial growth that began after the Civil War and continued into the 20th century, was a town built and controlled by a private company in order to house workers near new industrial sites. The towns ranged in size and quality from the generally cramped and dismal coal-mining communities of the east-central anthracite regions to such model towns as Pullman, Ill. (1881), and Hershey, Pa. (1903). Between the two World Wars, many such towns were built in the South to house textile workers. The most successful company towns were those in which workers were allowed to buy houses. From the mid-19th century to the Depression of the 1930s, virtually no government or reform efforts focused on rural housing. Passage of the \THomestead Act\t in 1862 and development of the railroad system encouraged settlement of inland areas of the country. Because land for residential development in rural or frontier areas was plentiful and relatively cheap, the overcrowding and health problems associated with urban tenements did not materialize. Structurally, however, rural housing was much inferior, on the average, to the urban stock. In 1926 the state of New York, enacting the first housing subsidy program in the United States, authorized the creation of tax-exempt limited-dividend housing corporations to construct homes for moderate-income families. Under the program, Sunnyside Gardens, the pathbreaking model housing project on Long Island, was built in 1926. Radburn, a planned town in New Jersey, was built two years later (see \Tgarden city\t). These communities were the exception, however. In general, urban housing until the mid-20th century exhibited extensive overcrowding and substandard structures, compared to today's standards. Although historically high levels of production were reached in the mid-1920s, new construction plummeted after 1929 as the country slid into the Great Depression. The Depression Era With home building almost at a standstill and the rate of foreclosure on home mortgages at an intolerably high level, emergency programs were enacted by the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations to provide jobs in the construction industry, improve housing conditions, and extend financial assistance to people threatened with the loss of their homes. The Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC, 1933) furnished financing to homeowners in default on their mortgage loans, and also funded housing rehabilitation. The \TPublic Works Administration\t (1933) was authorized to construct low-cost housing and undertake slum-clearance projects. In addition, the Resettlement Administration tackled rural housing problems, moving destitute farm families from the Dust Bowl to new farms on federal land. It also sponsored three \Tgreenbelt\t towns on the outskirts of existing metropolitan centers: Greenbelt, Md., a suburb of Washington, D.C.; Green Hills, Ohio, outside Cincinnati; and Greendale, Wis., near Milwaukee. The Rural Electrification Administration (1935) attempted to improve farm life through the extension of electric power to most of rural America. Passage of the National Housing Act (1934) established the \TFederal Housing Administration\t (FHA), which revolutionized prevailing \Tmortgage\t lending practices by developing the level-payment, insured mortgage loan. Unlike the mortgage loans that had been standard until the 1930s, FHA-insured loans required only a small down payment, and the repayment period could be stretched over 20 or 30 years. With the advent of government insurance against default on mortgages, lenders were now willing to participate in the FHA program. (Twelve years later the Farmers Home Administration began serving rural families in a somewhat similar fashion.) The federal role in housing was further broadened under the Housing Act of 1937, which established the U.S. Housing Authority as a permanent agency charged with building subsidized, low-income housing. More than 1.5 million dwelling units have been erected under this act. By World War II the federal role in promoting housing construction and stable housing markets had been established, and a burgeoning commitment to low-income housing was evolving. Despite these unprecedented federal efforts, in 1940 the first national census of housing conditions revealed that almost two-fifths of the nation's 37 million dwelling units needed major repairs. Nearly half of these deteriorated units also lacked some or all plumbing facilities. Only 44% of the nation's households were owner-occupied, the lowest percentage in five decades. Although urbanization had continued unabated for almost a century, in 1940 more than 40% of all dwelling units were classified as rural. It was in this sector that a disproportionate number of substandard units were to be found. Housing in the Postwar Era During World War II, private housing production had almost ceased, as national resources were diverted to the war effort. At the war's end, pent-up demand resulting from more than 15 years of inadequate production, plus the housing needs of returning military personnel, resulted in a severe postwar housing shortage. The mortgage insurance programs of the FHA and the guaranteed home loans provided by the Veteran's Administration helped reduce the shortage, and by 1950 new construction exceeded the levels of home building achieved in the 1920s. The vast majority of new dwelling units were single-family homes constructed at the urban fringe. The nature of this suburban development was influenced by FHA subdivision guidelines and by the construction of Levittown, Long Island, a community of 17,000 homes begun in 1947. Utilizing \Tprefabrication\t and other mass-production techniques, the builder William Levitt was able to offer homes at relatively low prices. Levitt's projects, and the numerous similar developments they helped to spawn, offered the home-buyer entirely new communities with amenities--such as playgrounds, shopping areas, and schools--that rarely had been provided by builders of earlier projects. A second generation of new communities emerged in the 1960s with the construction of the \Tnew towns\t of Columbia, Md., and Reston, Va., as well as many retirement and vacation developments. Postwar federal involvement in housing had grown so large and complex that it became necessary to create a new federal body to administer the various housing programs. The U.S. Department of \THousing and Urban Development\t was established in 1965. One of its many innovative efforts was the federal new-town program (1968-73), which initiated development of 13 new communities throughout the country. Nearly all of these failed in the early stage of construction, and except for the privately developed Irvine Ranch in California, the U.S. new-town movement seems dormant. The idea of a planned community still persists, however, in the so-called planned unit developments (PUDs) where housing is integrated with recreational and public facilities to more efficiently utilize large tracts of land. A variant on this theme is found in central cities where mixed-use facilities containing residential, office, and commercial uses have been built within a single or linked series of structures. On the private side, new forms of housing have become important. \Lmobile home\ls, for example, which were not even counted as permanent housing in the 1960 Census, constituted more than 12% of the new units added to the urban housing stock between 1970 and 1980; in nonmetropolitan areas they accounted for 25% of new homes built. They have become an important mode of housing solely because of their low price. In 1980, while the average value of all owner-occupied homes built within the previous decade stood at $67,000, the comparable figure for mobile homes was only $10,000. Virtually all new, low-priced homes are now mobiles, and they are penetrating higher-priced market sectors as consumer and community acceptance of them grows. The \Tcondominium\t, which brings the tax advantages of home ownership to apartment dwellers, was rarely seen prior to 1960 but grew steadily in importance during the 1970s. Condominium apartments and cluster developments contributed 4% to the new housing stock, and many existing apartment structures were converted to condominium ownership as well. Problems of Urbanization Perhaps the most significant postwar trend was the decentralization of U.S. cities, a phenomenon that had begun long before but that accelerated when massive highway-building programs permitted greater suburban growth. At first, suburbanization was seen as an answer to overcrowding in city centers. It became apparent, however, that only middle- and upper-income white households could afford to buy in the \Tsuburbs\t, while low-income groups, particularly racial minorities, were left behind. City governments became concerned as tax bases eroded and city revenues shrank (see \Tinner city\t). Suburban residents were equally worried as they saw urbanization eat up open space and prime agricultural land. Total urbanization of once open land in the period 1950-80 amounted to about 10 million ha (25 million acres). The federal government began to respond to central-city concerns with the passage of the Housing Act of 1949. This legislation authorized government subsidies for the redevelopment of blighted urban neighborhoods and established the goal of providing decent homes for all U.S. households. In the 1960s, legislators began addressing the needs of a larger spectrum of housing-deprived groups. The elderly and those with moderate incomes were added to the low-income sector as target groups for housing subsidies, and attempts to improve housing for racial minorities culminated with the passage of the 1968 Civil Rights Act and subsequent Supreme Court decisions. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, however, sharply reduced new construction subsidies and shifted the emphasis for low-income housing to the use of housing allowances and vouchers for renting already existing housing. Although there have been several shifts of policy since 1974--most recently a severe curtailment of federal programs to meet the housing goals set out in the 1974 act--the broad outlines of the legislation remain intact. Present Conditions, Problems, Policies In the three decades 1950-83, the U.S. housing inventory doubled, reaching 93.5 million units. The single-family detached home was still the dominant housing type, accounting in 1983 for 63% of all occupied units. Earlier problems of substandard conditions and overcrowding are all but eliminated and the quality of the overall housing stock continues to improve. Although housing prices vary widely in different markets, in general prices have risen precipitously as the result of strong demand, tax advantages, and mortgage availability. Affordability is therefore the major housing problem for many income groups. The cost of housing has risen in excess of increases in income. In 1982, the median price of new home was $69,300. In early 1987, this figure had risen to $100,700. The rate of home ownership in the United States dropped for the first time, falling from 65.5% in 1980 to 63.5% in 1985. If some housing experts are correct, the problem of affordability may prevent half of those under age 30 in 1987 from ever owning a home. Further, the proportion of income spent on housing is increasing. Current housing expenses consume, on the average, 25% of the family budget, but may take more than 50% of the disposable income of low-income families. Renters spend a higher proportion of their income on housing than do home owners. Other important housing problems remain. Housing equality for racial minorities has not been achieved. Housing abandonment continues in sections of many central cities, while the return of high-income households to other central city neighborhoods has displaced lower-income residents. The social environment of many urban neighborhoods is regarded by residents as a serious problem. Urban \Thomelessness\t, which had not been a major problem since the 1930s, has again become a matter of concern. Perhaps the most pressing housing issue is still the one that brought the federal government into the housing arena initially: the shelter problems of the poor. As the federal government withdraws from active participation in housing financing and production, the amount of housing built for or filtered down to low-income households is increasingly inadequate. Assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development--such as rent supplements and loans to developers--is also declining. Public housing accommodates only 1% of the nation's population. With roughly half a million families on waiting lists for subsidized apartments, public housing construction, in the late 1980s, came nearly to a standstill. HOUSING IN OTHER COUNTRIES Worldwide depression during the 1930s and the destruction of existing homes during World War II resulted in severe housing shortages in Europe (where more than one-fifth of the prewar housing stock was destroyed or rendered uninhabitable), the \TUSSR\t, and Japan. By the early 1950s, extensive housing programs had begun in most European countries and in Japan. The scope of government intervention has varied, however. Among Western industrialized countries, Great Britain has had the most extensive long-term commitment to public housing. More than 30% of all British homes until recently were owned and operated by local housing authorities, although that proportion has been declining due in part to the sale of some homes to their occupants. In France, Sweden, Germany, and Eastern Europe, nonprofit organizations (often evolving from labor unions) accounted for about one-third of housing production. Both Great Britain and France have established new towns to serve national economic objectives, such as the decentralization of economic activity. In Japan, although the solution to many housing problems is left to private industry, the government has intervened in order to eliminate certain barriers to housing production. For example, the public sector now finances and assembles more than 30% of all development sites, for the scarcity of land presents formidable obstacles to private developers. Housing policy in most Communist countries reflects the presence of a centralized planning apparatus and a strong national commitment to decent housing. The \TUSSR\t is perhaps the most doctrinaire socialist state in housing matters, mandating government construction standards, financing, and forms of ownership. Housing production has been consistently high, and since the early 1960s more than 2 million housing units per year have been constructed. By U.S. standards, most of these units are of minimally acceptable quality (workmanship is often shoddy and many amenities are lacking), but they represent a substantial improvement over prewar housing. Households in the \TUSSR\t and in other Eastern European countries have turned increasingly to cooperative arrangements where individuals construct their own housing to state standards, utilizing private funds and some state financial assistance. Rent levels vary markedly across the socialist bloc. They are kept artificially low in the \TUSSR\t and Poland where they absorb less than 6% of family income. In Yugoslavia, on the other hand, 71% of all households own their homes, and the price of housing is comparatively high. Most Third World countries have yet to make fundamental improvements in housing conditions, particularly those countries where massive waves of migrants from rural areas have inundated cities ill-equipped to accommodate an influx of new residents. The result has been acute housing shortages and deplorable living conditions in illegal squatter settlements on the outskirts of urban areas. Unlike U.S. slums, however, many of these settlements have vibrant social environments, and residents have gradually improved their housing. In recent years, cooperation between residents and governments in some settlements has produced such previously lacking necessities as public water systems and fire protection. Moreover, in fringe areas ripe for invasion by squatters, some governments now try to provide land and a minimum infrastructure to low-income families, who then assume the responsibility for housing construction. \TWilliam\t G. GRIGSBY AND \Tamy\t \TWilson\t Bibliography: Ericson, Jon, and Wilhelm, Charles, eds., Housing the Homeless (1986); Grigsby, William, and Rosenberg, Louis, U.S. Housing Policy (1975); Haar, Charles M., ed., Housing in the Eighties (1984); Johnson, M. B., Resolving the Housing Crisis (1982); McGuire, Chester, International Housing Policies: A Comparative Analysis (1981); Pynoos, Jon, et al., eds., Housing Urban America (1980); Solomon, Arthur P., The Prospective City (1980); Stegman, Michael A., ed., Housing in New York: Study of a City (1985); Sternlieb, George, and Hughes, James W., eds., America's Housing: Prospects and Problems (1980); U.S. Government, Report of the President's Commission on Housing (1982) and Housing--A Reader (1983). See also: \Tcity\t; \Turban planning\t.