soon see that their civic centre is worthy of them. Now what is it that stands in the way of this proper housing? It is nothing but the idea that it is necessary for the benefit of some person or some class that the maximum number of houses possible shall be crowded upon every acre of land. If this is not done, we are told that building will not pay. It seems so obvious that the more houses you put upon an acre of land, the more economical use are you making of the land that few consider the question further; and, if you asked people generally what would be the effect of halving the number of houses allowed to be built on any acre of ground, they would tell you that you would ruin the builder, and divide the landowners' returns by two.
Both builders and landowners have been very much disturbed by the powers given in the Town Planning Act to limit the number and character of the buildings which may be put upon each acre of ground; I think it can be shown that these fears are not justified, but on the contrary that the greater the number of houses crowded upon the land, the less economical is the use being made of it, the higher rate must the occupier pay for every available yard of his plot, and the smaller will be the total return to the owners of land in increment value due to building operations.
That we may have some definite figures let us compare two actual schemes of development, each covering 10 acres of ground. (Fig. 6.) No. 1 we will develop with approximately the maximum number of houses of a frontage of 16 feet each, which can be built to comply with the present Manchester By-laws. We will take the cost of the front roads to be
