Soon after the turn of the century, our population and the numb will have doubled. That means that in some 40 years, we will the housing and jobs and schools and factories and cars and every a new United States equal to or greater than the United States

Now, the figures are not mine. They come from De] Commerce, Department of Labor Statistics, Departmen

The reason I am here today is that in title II of th legislation, there is a glimmer, but just a glimmer, of a p tion to the problem which I think is the greatest that co country today.

I am not here to comment on title I. I have my own I notions of what is wrong with the cities and whether solution at all for them. And my notion is simply the smart enough to have a solution, although everybody e think that we have got to come to an end now of the me of suburbs stretching out farther and farther from t employment.

In this statement, you will find a quotation from Dr. N who is a sociologist with the General Electric Co. He it perhaps better than anyone I have seen so far.

He says in effect that people must now work where t live where they work. And he defines a noncommuter › who goes home for lunch.

Yesterday, I drove to my office which is only about 20 mally from my house. A single truck was overturned on way. And by police count this morning, some 350,000 substantially delayed in getting to the place of employn of this single truck.

We have reached a point now where I see no furth for either the cities or the extension of the cities or t satellite communities. What I propose and which is so ther detailed in this statement, although sketchily, is the not new towns, but entire new cities which, of course, in thing.

It includes, not only housing on which I have spent a the wherewithal for these people in those houses to exist sist. And I do not think it is possible, at all possible, Federal Government being an active participant.

I visualize, for instance, cities of perhaps 100,000 pop a rather quick estimate, the construction of such a city is borhood of a billion dollars. A great portion of that bi will be employed by private industry. But private in not begin to go out into the middle of nowhere, purchase put in the utility systems, all of which must be done be habitable building could go up.

You have got the vehicle for handling this. It is FHA. I remember in 1934 when FHA was first established. peration measure because private bank interests would not FHA came in as an insurance company to safeguard pri from loss.

Today, there is no earthly reason why FHA could no just on housing, come through in much larger quantity th proposed, to not only insure mortgage loans on land ut

HOUSING LEGISLATION OF 1966

275

et cetera, et cetera, which you do in modest fashion, but in sufficient fashion to make the program realistic.

I frankly do not know where 200 million people more are going to live and work if you take the existing places and simply pile them on top of each other."

I think, for instance, the permission of the city of New York to permit a Pan American Building to be built in Grand Central Station was nothing short of criminal. It is wrong to dump 50,000 people at lunchtime on the streets in addition to the hundreds of thousands that are there already.

I think the development of Park Avenue in New York is the shame and disgrace of our cities.

But New York is not alone. Philadelphia is imitating it. Philadelphia is developing its Penn Center which is a very, very small place and putting up just as high buildings as they humanly can.

Mr. Tate has his hands full, and I do not envy him his position. That was all I came here for today, gentlemen. If you have any questions, Senator Sparkman or Senator Proxmire.

Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Proxmire?

Senator PROXMIRE. No, thank you very much.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you. It is a very interesting statement that you have given us and not the first time you have given

us such a statement.

Mr. LEVITT. That will be it. Thank you.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much. (Mr. Levitt's statement follows:)

STATEMENT BY WILLIAM J. LEVITT, PRESIDENT, LEVITT & SONS, INC.

I have testified before this committee many times-ever since the start of the Federal housing program back in the thirties. The legislation you are considering today is, in my opinion, the most important yet-the most far reaching in its potential effects and also the most urgently required.

Circumstances have changed since the 1930's. The needs in the past, and the legislation of the past, have dealt largely with the kind of housing to be built and how it would be financed. But these problems have largely been solved. This Nation is able to produce all the housing it needs and we have developed sound and economic ways of financing it.

What we are talking about today goes beyond the mere building of houses and apartments. What we must now do is shape the structure of our communities and the way they work. This touches the very fabric of American life and will determine how our citizens will live for generations to come.

Parenthetically, I want to emphasize that this proposed legislation, in concept, is not and must not be thought of as a boondoggle for special interests. It is not a measure for the housing industry, for material suppliers, for homeowners, for renters, or for the city dweller as opposed to the farmer, the rich versus the poor, the big builder as against the little builder, or this group againts that group. It is legislation that affects us all because it attempts to deal with a problem that touches us all. It gets at the basic question of what's wrong with the way Americans live today-the accelerating failure of our overgrown cities to provide a decent environment. It suggests a way of making things better. Population in the United States today is about 195 million. Most of these people live in cities or in suburban areas close to cities-what we call major metropolitan areas. Reams have been written about what's happened to those cities. Briefly and bluntly, they're too crowded, noisy, dirty and expensive. At best, they're no fun for most of us to live in. At worst, they're unhealthy and even dangerous. Millions of middle-class families have moved to the outer perimeters of our cities and flooded into the suburbs. This has created a whole new chain of related problems: urban sprawl, inadequate municipal services, destruction of natural beauty, choked freeways and intolerable commuting.

Consider the wasteful paradox of millions of people spending ho a high percentage of their useful working lives, herded like catt trains, buses, and automobiles, inching through interminable their jobs in the morning and then back home again at night. The big cities are unmanageable now. Their problems are ins big city is going the way of New York. It's as sure as death a every day, until far-reaching and positive steps are taken to mak our cities will get worse. I don't say this as a prophet of doom a there's nothing longhair or mysterious about this. It's simple ari one who can read numbers can tell the story.

Historically, the United States has been a country of wide-oper our population has been growing rapidly and it has been growin rapidly in our major urban centers. Now, right now, it is incr rate of 3 million people a year-no ifs, maybes, or guesswork happening. In the 15 years from 1950 to 1965, population jump In the next 15 years it will increase even more, by more than 50 and every year for the next 20, 30, 40 years, it will increase greater than it did the year before. Soon after the turn of the population-and the number of families-will have doubled. T some 40 years, we will have to create the housing and jobs an factories and cars and everything else for a new United States equa than the United States of today.

Where and how will these people live? Certainly not in the which have failed to cope with the growth of the past generation dering under their present burdens. Generally speaking, the bigg worse shape it's in. If our cities can't provide a workable and v vironment for the people who are here today, how can they even b modate the 50 million additional who will be here by 1980, let a 200 million who will be here in the year 2010?

I don't know of a single program now in progress that show of improving the situation. That's why the proposed legislati unprecedented and climactic importance. Title II indicates the follow to find a solution.

Some people may be opposed to the legislation as it stands b too far. I believe it must fail of its purpose because it does not enough. What this country must do is disperse its industry, build the middle of nowhere. We must build these cities, many of the size, well planned, in which future generations may live and w play, grow up, raise families and enjoy-really enjoy-all the go benefits that this wealthiest of all nations can so fully provide.

That's why I believe the proposal in title II to provide for new doesn't go far enough. As drafted, it does not call for really new self-contained, with all the functions and facilities that proper identity and character. Rather it would provide, as I see it, fo of smallish satellite communities, accretions and encrustations megacities that are engufing us. It compounds the problem, does the long run.

Secondly, as a corollary point, I believe the sum of $25 millio the maximum mortgage amount for any one new development is inadequate. The kind of program I'm talking about is not to bu ing developments in the suburbs of existing cities. We must bu This can't be done with pennies. I estimate that it would take $1 billion to build a city for 100,000 people-houses, streets, scho water systems, plants, factories, office buildings and shops, polic tions, parks, playgrounds, and all the rest.

To commit all of that money is beyond the ability of private in ing new cities requires the help and participation of the Federa Just as Congress years ago created a system to insure the financin dwelling units, now it can create a similar system to insure the fir cities. It is the only way the job can be done, and planning for imperative.

Building new cities from scratch as the only way of our prese new or original with me. I have no false pride of authorship. 1 ful person who has faced the problem-scholar, planner, business servant-knows that dispersal of industry and population is nec nessmen have been coping with these problems for years. The gr

HOUSING LEGISLATION OF 1966

277

trial parks is a reflection of this. But more and more now, industry leaders are thinking and talking in terms not simply of moving out of town but actually of moving into a new town and locating their plants and offices as the economic center and focus of new cities that will grow up around them.

Dr. Nelson N. Foote, a sociologist and head of consumer research for General Electric Co., who has studied this subject for years, has charted what may be the blueprint for the first such new cities to be built. I quote here from a recent treatise by Dr. Foote titled, "Soul and System of the City":

"We now have emerging across the United States a pattern of urban development which seems likely to replace the pattern of urban development that has characterized the past 20 years. Residential suburbs plainly cannot be extended ad infinitum, with their mounting evils of wasted land, transportation troubles, cultural barrenness, inadequate tax base to support services, lack of employment for women, and runaway land costs. Instead, there is rapidly coming into view a pattern of new communities planned to be complete in themselves, not mere bedrooms for nearby cities***.

"Manufacturing is no longer forced to locate near waterways or railways. Thanks to trucking, the automobiles of employees, and the ease of energy transmission, factories can be situated almost anywhere, especially with completion of the great new Interstate Highway System * We may be on the eve of widespread dispersion of primary employment. Hence the creation of new cities deserves as much attention as the renewal of old ones #

"If cities can be almost anywhere, and if their primary employment can be almost anything, then a most interesting further possibility comes into view. This is the possibility that some kind of optimum size for cities will emerge. This optimum would not be entirely set by the growth of primary employment, but by the eventual determination of a ceiling to growth by the residents of the city-the point at which further growth tends to diminish rather than add to the joys of living there

"I suspect that as the idea of optimal city size emerges, one key component in its determination will be that virtually everyone who works there be able to live there, and almost everyone who lives there be able to work there. Thus there would be no commuters in a city of optimum size. (A noncommuter, by Dr. Foote's practical standard, is a jobholder who is able to come home for lunch.)

"A city of the magnitude implied seems more manageable than many large examples which could be mentioned. From the standpoint of the citizen seeking to govern his environment, it likewise seems on a more human scale. From the standpoint of an employer, it would seem to offer the rewards of locating within a city without too many of the penalties. From the standpoint of getting control of the greatest destroyer of bigger cities-the automobile-it offers promise of doing so without losing the benefits the automobile has conveyed * * *.

"Considering the rates of American population and economic growth, considering that many new industries are being born while manufacturing goes the way of agriculture in becoming the vocation of a dwindling minority, it seems possible that well within this century we shall be thinking of America no longer as divided between country and city, but of cities everywhere, each with adequate open space within it and around it to provide ideal conditions for the health and recreation of its residents."

We have at hand a proven and time-tested mechanism to build these new cities. It's the same system of Federal insurance that Congress authorized in 1934 to provide long-term financing so people could own their own homes. The same system of mortgage guarantees that works for individual homes or apartment houses, can be used to provide the long-term financing needed to build whole new cities.

It may be argued that this is risky. I believe not but, even if it is, the risk we take in such a venture is a far better choice than the certainty of galloping disaster if we stand pat. We must face the fact that environment in America today-the quality of living-is sliding downhill and the longer we wait to reverse the trend, the faster and further it will slide.

Now, let's assess this question of risk. When the FHA home loan insurance program was started more than 30 years ago, it was considered risky and with some justification. But it was needed, of course, because private lenders would not tackle the job. As events proved, it developed that the risk never materialized. Over and above the tremendous social and economic benefits resulting

from the home loan insurance program, the FHA on a hard-nose b has been a tremendous moneymaker.

Business and industry, as well as population, are expanding every is no reason why the Nation's growth should not be planned and ca such a way as to promote the general welfare. There is every e businessmen would welcome the opportunity to build for the future and rational basis if only because that way is more efficient and ecc makes all the sense in the world to structure our communities so th business of living-work, getting to work, and leisure can be s pleasant, and fun.

If we fear or hesitate to cope with our problems, if we consider and ignore the needs and the challenge and the opportunity, we gi heritage by default, and we will turn over to our children a worse A our parents gave to us.

It seems to me we have no choice in view of our national goals. build a great society, or even a good one, unless we create an envir measures up. A poor environment will not grow good citizens; and cannot build a great society. If we can go to the moon, if we can p and our rivers, if we can heal the sick, provide for the elderly, and he privileged, then we must certainly also do what is necessary to crea ties in which our citizens can live and work in decency, dignity, and Senator SPARK MAN. Mr. David W. Mullins, president of ersity of Arkansas, representing the collegiate world.

May I say in this connection that Senator Fulbright to be here to present Dr. Mullins to us. I have copy o ment that he had prepared to make. I should like to read record.

Senator Fulbright, speaking, would say:

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to introduce m friend, Dr. David W. Mullins, president of the University of Ar Mullins is appearing in behalf of seven important organizations and of higher educational institutions. He will discuss with the commit ity of the Federal Government familiarly known as the college program.

I am sure the chairman will recall the many legislative battles h fought together to create and maintain their successful and very n gram. I remember particularly the 1st session of the 84th Cong I invite the attention of this committee to its own hearings in t 1955, to its report on the housing bill of that year, and to the debate regarding the situation which then existed with respect t housing loan program.

In the preceding 2 years-1953 and 1954-the program had bee reduced. The action of the Congress in 1955 when it revived the ing loan program was attributable in large measure to the informa cooperation which we received from the organizations represent Dr. Mullins.

I do not represent that the condition of the program is in any wa to the situation in 1955. I understand, however, that the leaders educational institutions are disturbed by some of the legislative pr ing before this committee, and they are equally disturbed by the provide decent shelter for ever-growing numbers of college students I ask the committee to be mindful of the motivation of Dr. Mu institutions which he represents. The assistance they seek is, in no less vital to the growth and development of our society, than the this Congress will appropriate for national defense. Indeed, the s would be saved by defense dollars would be pitifully poor if the r be neglect of facilities at our institutions of higher learning.

Mr. Chairman, it is my honor and privilege to present to you I Mullins, president of the University of Arkansas.

I should like to add to that before going to the University of A Mullins was an essential part of Auburn University in Alabama. very glad to have you, Dr. Mullins, to appear on this very impor you have. We are glad to have you here.