Very little is known about the rented dwellings in which most of the families had lived, though a few are known to have occupied both upper and lower stories. After the fire only 41 rented their homes and lived elsewhere. They were not housed in as large buildings as before the fire, but at the time of the investigation were settled fairly comfortably in their own homes.
The number of rooms occupied by the families before and after the disaster varied but slightly.
TABLE 90.—NUMBER OF ROOMS PER FAMILY OCCUPIED BEFORE AND AFTER THE FIRE BY FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE GRANT AND LOAN PLAN[216]
| Number of rooms occupied | FAMILIES OCCUPYING EACH SPECIFIED NUMBER OF ROOMS | |
|---|---|---|
| Before fire | After fire | |
| 1 | 25 | 10 |
| 2 | 59 | 52 |
| 3 | 181 | 203 |
| 4 and less than 7 | 590 | 613 |
| 7 and less than 10 | 35 | 14 |
| 10 and less than 13 | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 891 | 893 |
[216] Of the 896 families investigated, five failed to supply information relative to the number of rooms occupied before the fire, and three, relative to the number of rooms occupied after the fire.
The number of families that sublet rooms to others or kept roomers both before and after the fire was small in comparison with the number of bonus applicants who rented rooms.[217] Before the disaster 179 families, or 20 per cent, added to their income by subletting; at the time of the investigation only 74, or a little more than 8 per cent, did so. The reason is that the grant and loan applicants were themselves to a large extent living in rented rooms before the fire, and afterwards in houses that contained no more rooms than were called for by the family needs.
[217] See [Part IV], [pp. 250]-[251].
Before the fire 382 families, or 43 per cent, did not have a bath in the house. In the new homes built with the aid of a grant or loan 355, or 40 per cent, were without this convenience. There is no question but that it would have been a great gain to families if, through the instigation of the housing committee, all could have been brought to install baths in their new houses. Practically all the houses were connected with the city water supply. Toilets were installed, but a few were on the outside, not within the houses. Most of them were connected with the regular sewerage system and but a very few houses had cesspools attached. The plumbing, though simple and cheap in quality, was found to be in fairly good condition and to have served its purpose satisfactorily.
The houses were either painted or, as in the greater number of instances, shingled on the exterior. They presented a neat appearance. At the date of the investigation, most of the houses, having been erected but a very short time, were in good repair and afforded ample shelter to the families occupying them. For the most part they were one-story buildings. A few, however, were one and one-half and two stories. All were built of wood, and a majority stood on wooden foundations. Some few stood on either a new or an old concrete or brick foundation. Some had basements which were sublet as living quarters or were used for storage purposes. It is difficult to determine whether the housing committee should have prevented the building and use of basements as dwellings. Some were unfit for habitation, but not infrequently, as the houses were built on the side of a steep hill, the basements were well-lighted and drained. A few of the families used their houses for the joint purpose of residence and business, but not so large a number as before the disaster. Individual thrift and enterprise were shown by many of the applicants, who for not more than $700 had been able to build and furnish their houses within and without in an artistic and attractive way. The woodwork in some cases was well-finished and had been painted by a member of the household. The houses so improved had an attractive, homelike appearance.
Much disappointment was felt by some applicants who had had houses built for them by the committee’s contractors, when they compared their houses with those built at no greater expense by applicants who had used their own plans. As a rule, most of the latter houses were well built. They were more solid, warmer, and more satisfactory as far as cost and specifications were concerned. However, some of the houses that were built for the applicants by contractors were almost as unsatisfactory as those built by the committee’s contractors. The contract houses for the most part showed poor workmanship, with inferior lumber and finish. Most were considered “finished” when they, mere shells, had but few doors and windows, no shelves, no steps, no ceilings, and no adequate foundations. A few did not have building paper placed on the sides of the house between the rough boards and the shingles or other outer finish to keep out the rain and the wind. To remedy these defects and to make many needed improvements, such as plastering, painting, the building of porches, and other additions necessary to render each house a habitable home, the owner had to make a heavy outlay. A few of these “beginnings” which served as homes, cost without plumbing about $200 to $300.