There is not complete agreement among the Sub-Panel members on how serious the code problem is, although it is agreed that the mere existence of at least 5,000 different local building codes does present an important barrier to the development of a broadly-based national housing industry. It is also agreed that far too many local codes still specify materials and methods rather than performance requirements. Probably the greatest weakness of the present system, from the technological point of view, is that most local code groups do not have adequate staffs and funds to investigate innovations in materials and concepts with sufficient vigor and competence to be able to keep the codes up to date. To this end, it has been a help to have public and private code groups in operation, with many jurisdictions having adopted one or the other of the "model" codes they offer. However, it is evident that until performance criteria development is well established, no intelligent decision can be made as to the nature of code desired, if any, or the most desirable auspices. Nevertheless, it is clear that the problems associated with dealing with a few code groups are considerably less trying than those associated with the same 5,000 codes independently arrived at by individual communities.*

Thousands of local jurisdictions also propose and administer zoning and subdivision regulations which affect new technology. There will continue to be variations because of local choice, but at present local choice is based on far too little real knowledge of minimum requirements and how to prepare codes and standards to assure their being met. If proper Government action provides a sound technical basis for establishing criteria for judging new innovations, definitions of performance requirements, and established methods of measurement, a sound basis will be provided for making local codes more intelligent and more uniform. 8. Government attitude toward innovation in its own housing construction.— The Government's own housing programs provide another avenue for stimulating innovations in the housing field. To a very considerable extent the Federal Government has leaned toward the use of established, old-time housing practices rather than leading the industry into the use of innovations. There are a number of good and valid reasons why it is difficult for the Federal Government to venture into radically new practices; but no other single large consumer of housing has the resources sufficient to justify the expenditures necessary to determine the desirability of innovations by actually building them into an adequate number of new structures.

Considering the number of residential buildings the Government constructssome 20,417 units of military housing in 1960, for example there is surprisingly little money available to the various agencies to study and experiment with ways and means of building better and more economically, and to determine the relationship between initial cost and long-time maintenance costs.

The Federal Government housing programs are of sufficient size that it should be an active leader toward the utilization of innovations, but to accomplish this end, radical changes in present philosophies and present operations would be needed. In particular, those agencies involved would need assurance that they would be provided the means to replace facilities which fail and to maintain facilities which do not perform as well as expected.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Sub-Panel's recommendations herewith presented for the consideration and approval of the Panel on Civilian Technology are set forth under the headings of two major Government functions: Science and Technology; and Education.

1. Science and Technology

a. The Sub-Panel recommends that the Government see that there is adequate technical activity directed toward developing knowledge, and establishing criteria and methods of test for use in the evaluation of innovations in housing technology, in order that worthy innovations may be approved for acceptance as quickly as possible. This activity should include not only establishing criteria for evaluating materials and components, but also activity concerned with the sys

As long as four different recognized model codes exist, however, as at present, there is still a basis for great variation in local codes through reference to one or another of the four model codes for different elements of a local code. There is, therefore, need for intensified efforts toward greater uniformity among the four presently recognized model

codes.

83-453 0-67-pt. 16

tems of construction by which the materials or components are assembled into a final structure. The funding of this work should be adequate to provide for the actual construction of complete buildings when necessary, and the development of methods by which the performance of such assemblies can be evaluated. It should be recognized that in many cases this work will require not only the construction, but also the destruction, of total buildings. In addition to conducting and supporting experimental work, full advantage should be taken of statistical information regarding the performance of existing structures to be gathered in accordance with recommendation number 1.d.

Such activities must provide a sound technical basis on which FHA and other regulatory agencies can base specifications, codes, and standards, and will, quite naturally, be strongest in the physical sciences and technology.

b. The Sub-Panel recommends that the Government support that body of research in the general public interest, and that body of research in the interest of the housing industry itself, which private companies alone cannot be expected to finance over the near term. Many aspects of "value" in a house and satisfaction in the living environment lie in the fields of the life sciences and the social sciences, including economics and finance. The development of knowledge, data, principles, and techniques in this area is also of major importance to progress in housing. Included should be a concern for those subjects earlier mentioned, such as:

1. Land use and development,

2. The relationship between the design and structure of a house and the comfort, well-being, and satisfaction of the occupants, and

3. The assembly of housing and commercial structures into healthful, pleasant, and stable neighborhoods and communities.

To a considerable extent this research will involve the analysis of data collected on existing structures, neighborhoods, and communities as set forth in recommendation number 1.d. However, the funding should be adequate to permit subsidizing those willing to experiment with new ideas and new concepts of land use and community planning, as well as those who would build and observe the considerable numbers of experimental houses that will be necessary to achieve the needed understanding of the less tangible elements of comfort, well-being. and satisfaction.

c. The Sub-Panel recommends that the Government lend financial support to such activities as are appropriate and necessary to permit a systematic and continuing study of building codes, zoning and subdivision regulations, and other regulatory devices, in order to identify in detail how they either assist or interfere with the development and adoption of new technology. This activity should encompass supplying scientific and technical information to assure that local authorities are appropriately equipped with sound technical information and data on performance characteristics, design and acceptance criteria, and testing methods which will, in turn, assist them in modernizing, upgrading, and making more uniform throughout the country these means of insuring the health and safety of the public. This work must be done by people and groups of the highest technical competence.

d. The Sub-Panel recommends that the Government undertake to obtain statistics which would advance housing technology but which cannot be obtained completely by the housing industry itself. In addition to information presently collected by HHFA, FHA, and the Census Bureau, for example, it would be very helpful to know much more about the kinds of houses in the current inventory and about how they have performed; it would also be helpful to know how materials move through the industry and into housing, what materials are involved, and what is the nature of their respective life cycles; what costs are, and how funds flow in and out of the industry; what the average American wants in his home, and what he likes and dislikes about his present home; and similar information.

A properly-organized information-gathering program would provide the Government with an excellent opportunity to make forecasts, set policy, and determine in detail the utility and efficiency of the FHA minimum standards, as well as assist the industry as a whole. As a nation, we should regard the 60 millionodd houses in the United States as a splendid statistical laboratory through the use of which one can judge the merits and consequences of past, present, and future actions.

There are many questions, both technical and non-technical related to the performance and marketability of houses, which, if answered, would help in setting courses of future action. Achieving the optimum between maintenance and capital costs, for example, is probably one of the more important goals in housing technology which could be aided in this way. It could be expected that such a wellplanned information-gathering program would, in a few years, begin to produce the kinds of data it is possible to obtain from one's experience.

This information-gathering program should be closely connected with the technical activities covered in recommendations 1.a. and 1.b. above. From the technological viewpoint, the type of information to be gathered should be determined in considerable measure by what is needed by the technical groups cited, to reach sound conclusions in their respective areas of responsibility.

e. The Sub-Panel recommends that the Government activity undertake to use some of its housing-procurement activities as a laboratory for both large- and small-scale experiments in technological innovation. The Government has traditionally undertaken expensive and marginal experiments which were deemed in the national interest and which were too risky, or too central to the Nation's security, to be left to private ventures. We believe that the same technique and logic should apply in civilian technologies such as housing. The Department of Defense, for example, could use some of its housing procurement funds and activities for large-scale testing of innovations in housing which have been previously subjected to the same careful engineering and performance analysis as now given to the components of a weapons system." If such experiments were successful, FHA and similar standards-setting bodies would then be on very sound ground in making significant changes, thus taking full advantage of the "new" which has been demonstrated. Such a forward-looking and positive program aimed directly at construction appears to be one of the most important contributions which the Government can make in this field. And to this end, perhaps up to 1⁄2 of 1 percent of military construction funds could be systematically set aside for this and similar scientific and technical activities.

The low-income housing demonstration program of HHFA, the experimental program of FHA, and similar programs of the constituent agencies of HHFA, are already pointing the way in this field of activity; these agencies should be encouraged to continue and to share their experience with others of the Federal establishment which may be able to embark on even more marginal experimental programs.

f. There is a class of large-scale experiments and information-gathering tasks related to housing technology which, to date, have been too expensive and too speculative to be considered seriously by private groups. The Sub-Panel does not feel it can unqualifiedly recommend that the Government undertake these activities either; yet, the conduct of such experiments and related tasks promises results so strongly in the public interest that some Government action seems justified.

Some of the areas of housing technology in which experiments might be conducted concern prevention of such disasters as large area fires or landslides, and protection of structures against these or the unpreventable (e.g., earthquakes, cyclonic wind forces). Some of the experimental or information-gathering research in these areas might be concerned with:

1. Measuring the cost of prevention (when possible) against that of protection, or of damage repair and replacement;

2. Determining more accurately the nature of destructive effects on structures, to guide private industry development work on how to "build in” damage resistance; and

3. Carrying on tests to measure the extent to which new technological innovations actually have value when subjected to these abnormal conditions.

Since this report was written, the Department of Defense announced the initiation of a program (designated Project 12) to test new construction techniques designed to increase productivity and reduce costs in the military family housing program. DOD's world-wide, extensive family housing program provides a unique opportunity for testing new techniques and materials. This program is unhampered by restrictions found in municipal codes and zoning regulations, as well as by the problems associated with marketing new end products. Cost-reducing and improved techniques resulting from such successful experiments will be passed on to the civilian housing industry which will collaborate in the program.

2. Education

a. The Sub-Panel recommends that the Government seek ways to foster and support the organization of inter-disciplinary activity concerned with building technology in colleges and universities. One precedent for such Governmental activity has been set by the establishment of materials institutes at several universities. Serious consideration should be given to the establishment of a similar program involving colleges and universities in a more direct support of building technology.

College and university activity in the field of building technology would be expected to:

1. Combine the efforts of professors and graduate students from different disciplines in developing scientific and technical information to assist technology in the building industry in ways not achievable by any of the disciplines operating independently.

2. Train professionals with a balanced background in the different disciplines necessary for successful innovation and invention in the housing field.

3. Provide means for organizing, at the regional level, short-time training or refresher courses for technical and commercial people in the utilization of the newest scientific information and technical inventions which can be applied to providing better and more economical housing. The pattern of organization and operation of inter-disciplinary activities in the academc institutions should be based not only on the background of the Department of Defense interdisciplinary institutes for materials, but also on the long and useful experience with the agricultural experiment stations in the land-grant universities and the activities of organizations such as the Small Homes Council of the University of Illinois.

b. It is recommended that a deliberate attempt be made to encourage the development of a technical literature and scientific tradition in housing technology. If the university community is to be partially mobilized to support a substantial increase in housing technology, then the mechanisms by which investigators can publish the results of their experiments must be provided. There exists adequate precedent for the Government to underwrite the editorship and distribution of such journals. Eventually, it might be expected that the growth in strength and number of participating technologists would serve to make such journals self-sustaining and independent of Government financing.

Particular attention should be given to Government activity or support in the field of abstracting, and of storage and retrieval of scientific and technical information of potential value to an expanding building technology. In this area, special attention should be given to making full utilization of the activities already being carried out by scientific and engineering societies and organizations in this field. Many of these organizations have developed highly-capable abstracting activities, utilizing the scientific competence of men thoroughly trained in the disciplines involved. In the past, these activities have been supported financially by membership dues and similar devices, but the mass of material now involved requires financing which is often far beyond the capabilities of the scientists and engineers themselves.

Attention should also be given to using the techniques the Department of Defense has developed in conection with its metals and plastics information centers.

c. Finally, it is recommended that the Government clearly state that it will look to the academic community for leadership in research on the important long-range social and economic problems of which housing policy is but a partfor example, urban-growth and transportation-policy problems. The Government should be prepared to supply funds to support these activities.

SUMMARY

It is the opinion of the Sub-Panel that the stage is set for a further significant rationalization of the housing industry during the next decade or so. This rationalization will be based in large measure on the adaptation and exploitation of technology currently available from other fields, but will require the development and exploitation of entirely new knowledge as well. Many of the traditional concepts of housing as an industry and as an end product will likely be put behind us.

Change will come through the development and application of new technology

to the problems of the housing industry. One of the keys to unlocking this flood of new technology is responsible and well-aimed Government action.

There is no need for Government to increase its regulatory role in the housing industry. It will clearly be necessary, however, to increase Government expenditures in support of research and experimentation in housing if the objectives herein established are to be achieved.

By revamping and expanding the role which Government plays in the support of research and experimentation in housing, the Government can, if it so desires, stimulate the national economy, and, at the same time, enable the nation to realize the benefits of its scientific and technical capability by creating better housing and a better living environment for all its citizens.

We expect that the Administration, in reviewing our recommendations, will want to give special attention to the administrative problems of a diversified and coordinated action program in which several agencies of Government will need to participate.

The Sub-Panel, in this report, has tried to present a broad, comprehensive program. The Sub-Panel recognizes, however, that all aspects of such a broad program cannot be organized, staffed, and funded immediately. Many aspects of the proposed program will require a great deal of further study and evaluation, perhaps even involving pilot programs to explore various possible ways of reaching the desired objectives before full-scale organization and funding might be provided. The Sub-Panel feels, however, that there are many situations where action is generally recognized as desirable and where well-accredited organizations are available to carry on those proposed activities effectively. In particular, the Sub-Panel feels that prompt action is urgently needed in the field covered by its recommendation 1.a regarding prompt Government action to expand and more fully fund technical activity directed toward developing knowledge and establishing criteria and test methods for use in the evaluation of innovations in housing technology in order that worthy innovations may be approved for acceptance as quickly as possible.

Members of Sub-Panel on Housing:

R. A. Charpie, Chairman, Manager, Advanced Developments, Union Carbide Corporation, New York, N.Y.

R. M. Dillon (Liaison), Executive Director, Building Research Advisory Board, National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Washington, D.C.

J. E. Lash, Executive Vice President, ACTION, Inc., New York, N.Y.

M. Meyerson, Director, MIT Harvard Joint Center for Urban Studies, Cambridge, Mass.

C. F. Rassweiler, Vice President for Research, Development and Engineering, and Member of the Board of Directors, Johns Manville Corporation, New York, N.Y.

[From International Science and Technology, September 1966]

EXHIBIT 216

TECHNOLOGY FOR THE CITY

By John P. Eberhard

The Modern City Is a Child of Technology, Undisciplined, Unhealthy, Unscrubbed, Without Charm, But the Fault Is Not Technology's IN BRIEF: A major contributing factor to our ability to build better cities is the technological base from which we work. But "the city" is many, many things-from its streets and telephones to its fire trucks and people, from a dot on a roadmap to the image in one's heart. Only when the "systems" character of a city is recognized can technological resources be coupled to the task of creating better cities. Once this is done-once we begin to see that cities are "continuous urban systems," not restricted by political boundaries, geographic boundaries, or existing technology-then we can create an enormous potential for high-technology, systems-oriented companies, companies with the capability to design and build the great cities of the future.-D.A.