Loshbough, B.E., executive director of ACTION Housing Inc., from a paper presented to a Conference on Poverty in America, University of California, Berkley, 1965.
2.
Hartman, C., 'Limitations of Public Housing; relocation choices in a working-class community', J.A.I.P., Vol. 24, 1963.
3.
Small businesses, like residents, are now given grants towards removal expenses and low interest loans are available to help them restart business elsewhere.
4.
See Gans H., The Urban Villagers, 1962.
5.
Housing and Home Finance Agency, 17th Annual Report, Washington D.C., 1963.
6.
A standard dwelling, as defined by the U.S. Census, has bath or shower, water closet, hot and cold water installations, and is not dilapidated.
7.
Anderson M., The Federal Bulldozer. M.I.T. Press, 1964.
8.
Johnson T.E., Morris J.R. and Butts, J.G., Renewing America's Cities, TheInstitute for Social Science Research, Washington D.C., 1962.
9.
Housing and Home Finance Agency, op. cit., Table B 23.
10.
City of Philadelphia, Office of Development Co-ordinator, Partnership for renewal, a working program , 1960.
11.
Hommann, M.S. , Neighbourhood Rehabilitation, Journal of Housing, Vol. 19, May 1962.
12.
The aggressive negro community organisation in Harlem which is administering anti-poverty funds.
13.
Hommann, M. S., op. cit.
14.
Needleman, L. in The Economics of Housing ( 1965) suggests the formula for judging the economic feasibility of rehabilitation should be whether the cost of rehabilitation plus the present value of the cost of rebuilding in a stated number of years ahead plus the present value of the difference in running costs is greater or less than the present cost of rebuilding. This assumes that the rehabilitated property will have the same standards of amenity as a new property, which is not necessarily the case.
