The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Structure of the RESIDENTIAL BUILDING INDUSTRY in 1949 Novem ber 1954 Bulletin No. 1 17 0 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Jam es P. Mitchell, S ecre tary BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Aryness Joy Wickens, Acting Commissioner Structure of the RESIDENTIAL BUILDING INDUSTRY in 1949 Bulletin No 117 0 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Jam es P. Mitchell, Secretary BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Aryness Joy Wickons, Acting Commissioner Digitized forFor FRASER sa le by the S u p e r in te n d e n t of Do cu me n ts, U. S. G o v e rn m e n t P ri n t in g O f f i c e , W a s h i n g t o n 25 , D. C. Price 30 cents CO N TEN TS Page IN T R O D U C T IO N ................................................................................................................... 1 P A R T IC IP A N T S IN NEW H O M E B U IL D IN G ........................................................... C o n tr a c t v s . O p e r a tiv e B u ild e r s ............................................. O w n er In itia ted v s . B u ild e r In itia ted H ou sin g ............................................... 4 4 5 S C A L E O F O P E R A T IO N S ................................................................................................ 5 TH E G E N E R A L C O N T R A C T O R ...................................................................................... 7 TH E O P E R A T IV E B U IL D E R ......................................................................................... The 1- to 4 - H ou se O p e r a tiv e B u ild e r ................................................................. The O p e r a tiv e B u ild e r in N o n m e tr o p o lita n A r e a s ...................................... The M e d iu m - and L a r g e - S c a le O p e r a tiv e B u i l d e r ......................................... 8 8 9 10 B U IL D E R S WHO C O M B IN E D O P E R A T IV E B U ILD IN G AN D G E N E R A L C O N T R A C T IN G ........................................................................................ 11 A P A R T M E N T B U ILD IN G 11 ................................................................................................ S IN G L E -F A M IL Y HOUSE B U ILD IN G .................................... S P E C IA L IZ A T IO N IN R E S ID E N T IA L B U ILD IN G L O C A L IS M O F R E S ID E N T IA L B U ILD IN G ............................. IM P L IC A T IO N S O F TH E 1949 S T R U C T U R E A P P E N D IX A — SU R V E Y DESIGN A P P E N D IX B — G L O S SA R Y ........................................ 12 13 13 ............................................................................... 17 ............................................................................................ 18 A P P E N D IX C— L IS T O F T A B L E S ............................................... 12 .............................................................................. 19 iii STRUCTURE OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING INDUSTRY IN 1949 INTRODUCTION Residential building--the work of producing shelter--is one of the most impor tant activities in our society. It is the largest contributor to capital formation and a major consumer of goods and services. Insight into the structure and scale of residential building operations is of special concern, because the industry’s organization determines to a large extent the amount, kind, quality, and distribution of the new housing produced. Information about the industry structure is needed therefore to help in shaping and administering national housing policy. For example, the extension or modification of private home financing aids through such agencies as the Federal Housing Administration, the Veterans Administration, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and the Home Loan Bank Board, must take into account the scale and character of the operations of home builders. Private business is also aided by such knowledge. The large group of impor tant industries producing building materials and equipment need information about the characteristics, dispersion and size of builders using their products, to assist them in planning their production, sales, and distribution systems. Facts about the organization of homebuilding operations are useful tools to the residential builders themselves in their efforts to improve management, marketing, and financing practices, and to promote national housing policies consistent with broadening their markets and providing the kinds and quality of shelter the country needs. This report presents and interprets the final and complete results from the only nationwide study so far conducted to analyze the organization and scale of residential builders* operations . * 1 It presents facts for the first time in answer to the following fundamental questions: What share of all new housing is produced by professional, or commercial, build ers, i.e., those who build for a living or for profit, as distinguished from amateurs who build houses only for their own occupancy? 2 Which type of professional builder predominates? The custom builder (general contractor) who builds new housing on order, on someone else*s land and to another's spec ifications; or the merchant or operative.builder, who builds new housing to his own speci fications on his own land for unidentified future buyers or renters~ What share of the total market does each have, and how large is the respective scale of operations? Is there a substantial difference between large and small communities in the scale ol homebuilders’ operations and in the share of new house production by the various types of builders? * By Dorothy K. Newman and Adela L. Stuoke of the Bureau of Labor Statistics* Division of Construction Statistics* Edward M. Gordon directed the field survey upon whioh these findings are based, as well as tabulation of the results. 1 The study was a sample survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1951 with research funds provided by the Housing and Home Finance Agency; it covered residential builders * private housing opera tions in 19490 See Appendix A for a description of the survey methodology. .Preliminary findings were presented in a release issued in August 1951, "120,000 Firms in the Residential Building Industry in 1949," and in an article entitled "Structure of the Residential Building Industry, 1949," whioh appeared in the October 1951 issue of the Monthly Labor Review (pp. 454-456). 2 These are called "owner-builders," who, acting as their own general contractors, supervise the con struction of the project from start to finish; they may subcontract almost all of the work to special trades contractors, or perform a substantial amount of the construction themselves, with or without hired help. See also footnote 12 on p» 4 . 1 2 How do builders of 1-family houses differ from builders of apartments? Do residential builders serve only a local market? builders, if any, build outside their own communities? What proportion of such What other businesses do residential builders engage in when building is not their principal occupation? Answers to these questions in the past were usually generalizations based on fragmentary data, or rationalization and interpretation from personal experience. Although the literature on the building construction industry includes numerous discussions of the characteristics of residential building operations, 3 little additional information has been obtained about these activities since the limited field studies of the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 1938 and 19^0-^l,** with the exception of the recent work, Housebuilding in Transition, by Sherman J. Maisel.5 In the interim, Miles L. Colean in American Housing (19^ ) ^ had effectively summarized and interpreted available data, and Leo Grebler in Production of New Housing (1950)^ had- critically analyzed the problems and limitations inherent in the available information and had suggested how gaps in the data could be filled. Maisel's book has contributed greatly to a substantive knowledge of the residen tial building industry1s present organization, based on a comprehensive and scientific sample survey of builders in the San Francisco Bay area in 19^9-50. It differs from this study mainly because it describes the structure of 1- and 2 -family housebuilding opera tions exclusively, and its orientation is restricted to one large metropolitan area.® It also includes some observations about the scope and organization of 1- and 2 -family house builders nationally, however, based on a special tabulation of data from the Bureau of La bor Statistics study, the full results of which are presented in this report. The Bureau of Labor Statistics' sample survey was made in 1951* and, like most of Maisel's study, covered residential builders' private housing operations in 19^ 9 .3 59 * 3 The organization and seal® of residential builders * operations are discussed in many of the publica tions cited in the bibliographies of the following books: Miles L. Colean, American Housing: Problems and Prospects. New York, The Twentieth Century Fund, 1944 (pp0 441-455). Leo Grebler, Production of New Housing. New York, Social Science Research Council, 1950 (pp. 176-180). ^ See "’ Builders of 1-Family Houses in 72 Cities," Monthly Labor Review, September 1940 (pp. 732— 743); "Operations of Urban Home Builders," Monthly Labor Review, May 1941 (pp. 1283—1285); and "Builders of 1— Family Houses in 11 Areas, 1940 and 1941," Monthly Labor Review, April 1943 (pp. 801-807). Although these studies contributed to an understanding of residential builders* organization and have been widely quoted for over a decade, they were nevertheless restricted in value, because: (l) the cities or areas studied were limited in number and were chosen without attention to scientific sampling techniques; (2) in the first 2 studies, data were based on operations only within the city limits of permit-issuing places, although many builders operate both inside and oatside the city limits and some builders produce * housing in more than one city; in addition, these 2 studies made no allowance for possible overstatement of the number of builders resulting from duplicate counting of firms that obtained permits under more than one name; (3) no distinction was made between individuals or firms engaged in housebuilding as a business, and the amateurs or owner-builders. All persons or firms whose names appeared on the building permit as the persons or firms having the general contract, or the owners (in the case of operative or owner-built houses) were classified as builders; and (4 ) the incidence of contract or custom building, covered only in the second study cited, was overstated because a house was considered contract-built if it was contracted for before construction began, although developers may build some houses for specula tion and sell copies of these houses on order. The latter are not contract-built, in the sense that they are initiated and designed by the owner or his architect and built on the owner*s lot. 5 Sherman J. Maisel, Housebuilding in Transition. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1953. J- See footnote 3. ' See footnote 3. 0 In addition, Maisel describes the details of builders* management, production, financing, and market ing operations, subjects outside the scope of the Bureau’s studies. 'public housing production was excluded. Public housing accounted for 36,300 dwelling units in 1949, or 4 percent of all units started, and was produced largely by firms operating exclusively as general contractors. 3 The Bureau*s survey found that although commercial residential builders were substantially outnumbered by owner-builders in 19^ 9> the latter accounted for only a minor part of the new housing. In fact, despite the numerous owner-builders and the many firms in residential building in 19^9 whose principal occupation was in other lines of work, a substantial core of specialized producers of housing existed. These residential build ers --responsible for over half of all the new housing started that year--constituted a true residential building industry, readily distinguished from other segments of the con struction industry. Most of the commercially built new housing was produced by operative builders, even though they accounted for somewhat fewer of the residential builders in 19U 9 than did the general contractors. This reflects the relative size of operations of the two groups, with operative builders 1 production larger on the average than that of the general con tractors.. In apartment housing construction alone, however, general contractors 1 opera tions were larger, on the average, although their total production of apartment units was not as great. Although small producers predominated in commercial residential building, both in operative building and contract work, they accounted for less than half of the commer cially built housing. The very largest firms, those that started 100 dwelling units or more, comprised only 1 percent of the commercial residential builders but accounted for a third of the industry's output. The medium-size firms that started 25 to 99 dwelling units each in 19^9— only 3 percent of all the commercial residential builders— produced nearly a fourth of the dwelling units started that year. In fact, the scale of residen tial building operations had risen, on the whole, since the late 30 *s and early U0 *s, ac cording to the available evidence. Residential builders* scale of operations was substantially greater in metropol itan than in nonmetropolitan areas. Consistent with this is the fact that operative builders were somewhat more numerous than residential general contractors in metropolitan areas, but were far outnumbered by general contractors in the nonmetropolitan areas. How ever, operative builders nevertheless accounted for more of the commercially built output than general contractors even in the nonmetropolitan areas, where the latter predominated. The year 19^9 is a good reference point for a comprehensive view of the struc ture of the residential building industry. For the first time in the post-World War II period, costs were relatively stable, and the industry was free from governmental con trols, shortages, and critical financing problems. Residential builders were able to as semble efficient crews and develop their projects unhampered by restrictions over the type and size of structures they could erect, such as existed under the Veterans Emergency Housing Program in ItykS-bj, or by the delays and uncertainties resulting from the acute labor and materials shortages after the war, or by the rapidly rising costs and the tight ened mortgage market in 19^ 8 .10* Mortgage money was plentiful in 19*4-9; credit terms, especially for Governmentassisted (Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Administration) loans, were extreme ly l i b e r a l a n d there was extensive demand for new housing which even the relatively large production of 19^6-^8 had scarcely begun to meet. In fact, housing activity shattered all previous records in 19*+9- In that year, too, residential builders made sub stantial progress in effective group organization and action. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the basic postwar organization of the residential building industry was well established in 19U 9 . It is unlikely that any fundamental modifications in the residential building industry have occurred since then. Undoubtedly, some shifts have taken place since 19^9 in the scale of operations and the relative share of production among the vari- See Bureau of Labor Statistics Bulletin No* 941, Construction and Housing 1946-47, (pp© 18-23) and Bulletin No* 984, Construction* 1948 in Review* (pp. 28-33)* This was chiefly the result of revisions in Federal housing programs, under provisions of the Housing Acts of 1948 and 1949, whereby mortgage ceiling3 and loan-to-value ratios were raised, and the' funos of the Federal National Mortgage Association for buying FHA and VA loan3 were increased* k ous types of builders, but the extent of these changes cannot be gaged without statistical evidence. Conjectures about their direction attempted at the close of this report (p. 13) are based solely on an interpretation of historical events. P A R T I C I P A N T S IN NEW H OME BUI LDI NG Residential building is unique among major American industries in having a sub stantial group of amateurs in the activity. Professional builders were outnumbered over 2-to-l by owner-builders in 19*4-9 •121 3* The former, however, who constituted less than a third of those who built new housing, accounted for 70 percent of the new units started (table l). This report deals primarily with those who built housing as a business enter prise, since these builders--commonly referred to either as commercial or professional builders— define and shape the industry as well as account for most of the output. Never theless, because of its importance in the total production, owner-built housing will be discussed in the relevant context. C o n t r a c t v s . O p e r a t i v e B ui l de r s The common observation in the past has been that general contractors, in addi tion to contributing the largest number of commercial residential builders, accounted for the major share of new housing p r o d u c t i o n . D a t a obtained in this study, however, show that although general contractors in residential building were somewhat more numerous than the operative builders in 19*4-9, the latter built most of the commercially built housing. Less than half of the commercial firms were engaged exclusively in operative building in 1914.9 (I4.5 percent), but these firms nevertheless accounted for almost two-thirds of the new housing produced by firms. General contractors, who comprised most of the remainder of the commercial residential builders (*4-9 percent), accounted for 25 percent of the new com mercially built housing. A small group (6 percent) which engaged in both general con tracting and operative building, accounted for the remainder (l2 percent); most of this group's housing output was operatively built. Contract building is more prevalent within nonmetropolitan than metropolitan areas,11* where larger markets stimulate the speculative type of housing venture charac teristic of the operative builders. Nevertheless, although in the nonmetropolitan areas general contractors, or custom builders, far outnumbered the operative builders in 19^ 9* the latter accounted for more of the commercially built dwelling units. 12 Owaer-builders were those building for other than oonrnercial purposes, without the services of a gen eral contractor* Any part of the work could be done by speoial-trade contractors, each responsible only for the work of specific trades; or by the owner, with or without the help of family members or friends; or by workmen hired direotly by the owner; and any combination of these methods could be used* Almost all of the owner-builders were individuals who constructed one house only intended for use by their own families or close relatives. There were some instances of owner-building in whieh a man built a dwelling unit for his own family and another for relatives (ordinarily parents or children) either as Z separate houses, or in a 2-family building. In addition, this builder classification included a small number of other types of builders, widely diverse in their characteristics, e.g*, a man who acted as his own general contractor in building several houses for his children, each of whom had been married re cently, and an institutional home operated by a large fraternal organization which built a number of staff residences on its grounds, with the superintendent of the home directly supervising the construc tion. 13 Colean, on. oit.. p. 63; Grebler, op. cit.. p. 7. In the 168 standard metropolitan areas as defined in the 1950 Census* 5 O w n er Initiated v s . B u i l de r In i ti at e d H o u s i n g Custom building in one sense could be conceived to include all dwellings built specifically to the owner's design and specifications, and thus to comprise owner-builtx5 as well as contract-built housing. Admittedly, this does not conform to the popular con cept of custom building as including only houses built by a general contractor according to individual drawings and specifications, particularly if these are prepared by an archi tect . Many of the owner-built houses, particularly those priced at $15,000 or more (17 percent) were similar to custom- or contract-built homes even under the popular defini tion, since the owner-builder, acting as general contractor, in many cases employed an architect and subcontracted all of the construction1 16 * 5 . Owner- and contract-built housing were also alike in that both types were owner-initiated and constructed on the owner's land, according to his specifications and design. In this sense both types were custombuilt or "tailormade.” The general contractor, like the special trades subcontractors, performed a service function, carrying out the owner’s intention. Contract- or owner-built housing predominated in the nonmetropolitan areas in accounting for about 80 percent of the new housing started in these smaller places. In contrast, in the metropolitan areas, most of the new housing (60 percent of the 1family houses and 62 percent of all the new units) was put under construction by operative builders. In both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas combined, in 19^9, half the new housing was owner-initiated and half was producer-initiated. 19^ 9, Operative builders, producing for unidentified future buyers or renters, de termined the number of units to build, their design, quality, size, location, and price; frequently developed the land, and assumed the risk of selling or renting the dwellings. In many cases they reduced their risk by building sample houses and selling copies on or der. Whether they laid the foundations for all the units before signing contracts, or only as they sold copies from a sample few, they nevertheless produced a ready-made prod uct. Their mode of operations differed from those of the contractor and the owner-builder in much the same way as apparel manufacturing differs from custom tailoring or dressmak ing. SCALE OF O P E R AT I ON S In its 19^9 scale of operations, professional residential building consisted of a predominance of small producers accounting for less than half the total commercial pro duction, and a comparatively small number of large and medium-size firms producing the bulk of the output. In this respect, residential building resembled a number of major manufacturing industries 15 Although the term "owner-built" usually refers to single—f amily homes px-uduced by individual owner ocoupants, a few 2-family houses built by owners in 1949 were included in this category for purposes of this study; one unit usually was for the owner's family and the other was to be rented. In addition, a few units erected for staff or inmates by institutions acting as their own general contractors were also classified as owner-built housing. (See footnote 12 above, and table 2.) 16 The extent to which owners did some of the construction themselves is unknown. Available data on the valuation plaoed on the owner houses show that the homes ranged all the way from minimum shelter and shell houses to elaborate, high-priced structures. The large proportion of houses valued under $6,000 in the nonmetropolitan plaoes (39 percent) suggests that a significant number of the houses were of the type often erected in rural areas by an owner with the help of family members and friends. In such in stances, some of the work may be subcontracted. This procedure is usually followed in plumbing and electrical work, especially in those localities where separate plumbing and eleotrioal permits are re quired. It is likely that virtually all of the work on the more elaborate houses in value olasses above $15,000 was subcontracted, and the owner merely performed the managerial function of the general con tractor. The majority of these houses were in metropolitan areas where strict building codes are in opor rtion. (See table 6.) 6 The Bureau’s s u r v e y f o u n d that about 95 percent of the 19^9 professional residential building firms were small (fewer than 25 dwelling units started during the year), and that these firms accounted for only 1*5 percent of the commercially built new housing. The large firms (100 units or more) and medium-size firms (25 to 99 units) to gether accounted for only 1+ percent of the total number of commercial residential build ers, but produced 55 percent of the industry’s output. The large firms alone (l percent of all the professional residential builders) accounted for a third of the production. In contrast, more than *4-0 percent of all the firms building commercially, started only 1 house in 19^ 9> and they accounted for less than 10 percent of the commercially built units (tables 3 and. k) . Unlike other industries, however, residential building is a sideline of numer ous firms and individuals whose chief occupation is in other, though often related fields --such as building materials sales, special trades contracting, or the skilled trades. (See table 6 .) Occasionally these people build a single house, or a few houses, depending on their resources and the size of the venture which they regard as worthwhile. Some work on their houses themselves in spare time or between jobs, and others build as an inter mittent supplement to their business activities. This explains to a substantial degree the extensiveness of small-scale operations among the commercial builders.1® Since all previous studies have covered only 1-family housebuilding, and dupli cate counting of some builders in the BLS 1938 study tended to underestimate the size even of 1 -family housebuilding operations,1? there is no way of measuring accurately how much the size distribution of residential building firms may have changed, in terms of total private housing production, by using the BLS 19^-9 survey results. A crude but nevertheless suggestive measure of change in the scale of operations of residential builders may be made by using the results of the BLS urban surveys of 1938 and the study in 11 defense areas in 19^0 -1*1, and comparing them with the 19^9 data for metropolitan areas only, combining both owner-built and commercially built 1 -family houses in 19^ 9* as in the earlier reports .20 Admittedly, data for cities are biased in the direction of smaller scale operations than data for metropolitan areas ,21 and separate projects of the same builder that may have been authorized on separate building permits were combined in the 19^4-9 and 191*0 -4l surveys, but not in the 1938 study. Furthermore, data on the build ers r size of operations in 19^9 are in terms of all the dwelling units they started, in stead of only the 1-family houses they began .22 Nevertheless, the differences in the distribution of operations between 1938 or 191+O-Ul and 19^9 are sufficiently large to warrant the conclusion that they resulted in part from a change in scale of operations and not solely from variations in survey coverage. 17Based on Maisel’s classification as to scale of operations* Op* oit** p. 21* In this report, how ever, the classification, except where noted otherwise, applies to the total number of dwelling units builders started during the year, rather than to 1- and 2-family housebuilding exclusively, as in Maisel's study. Size of builder distributions using both criteria would not differ significantly, how ever, beoause of the predominance of single-family housing in total production in 1949— 4 to 1. See table 18. ^ S e e p* 8 for a discussion of the other business activities of residential builders in 1949 and the relation to small scale of operations. *9 See footnote 4. on — Maisel measured roughly the changes in scale of operations for 1— and 2-family housebuilding in ban Francisco using data for San Francisco collected in the BLS study oovering 1-family Urban operations in 1938. In addition, he used a special tabulation from the 1949 BLS survey, which showed the relation of total size of builder to the builders* 1- and 2-family housebuilding operations nationally, and compared the results with adjusted figures from the 1939 Census of Construction and from the 1938 BLS urban study. The comparison# revealed a substantial increase in average scale of operations and in the relative impor tance in the total output of the larger firms. Maisel. op. cit.» pp. 21-26; tables 5, 7, 85 and Appen dix B. 21Note, however, that a test made in Cleveland in 1938 showed" that inclusion of builders operating in the suburbs only, as well as those operating in both the city and the suburbs, did not materially change the builders' distribution by scale of operations, beoause of the small size of the strictly suburban builder group. (See "Builders of 1-Family Houses in 72 Cities,” in Monthly Labor Review, September 1940, pp. 732-43.) 22See footnote 17. In addition, see p. 11 and tables 13 and 18 where it is shown that most builders tended to specialize in either 1-family houses or multifamily structures and that the distribution by size of operations varied little as between 1-family house builders and all builders. 7 About 95 percent of the builders and individuals took out permits for fewer than single-family houses each in 1938 in urban places and in 19^0 and 19^1 in 11 defense areas. These small builders were responsible for 75 percent of the urban houses author ized in 1938> and for 56 and percent, respectively, of the houses in 19*4-0 and 19*4-1. In 19*4-9, 95 percent of the builders and individuals started fewer than 10 dwellings each, but in contrast to the earlier surveys, accounted for only a little over 25 percent of the 1-family house production. 10 The scale of residential building operations was substantially greater in me tropolitan than in nonmetropolitan areas in 19*4-9> obviously because of the vast differ ence in the markets. The large and fast growing populations of metropolitan areas makes mass housing developments and large apartment buildings feasible, whereas such operations would exceed the total demand of small local markets.* 2^ Thus, metropolitan areas claimed more than 80 percent of all the commercially built private dwelling units started in 19*4-9* but only 55 percent of the professional builders. There were no large builders at all (lOO or more dwelling units) in the non metropolitan places, and the median commercially built dwelling unit begun in 19*4-9 in these small localities was started by a builder of only 2 to k units. In contrast, the median unit in metropolitan areas was begun by a builder of 50 to 99 units. In other words, half the professionally built dwelling units in nonmetropolitan places were built by builders of fewer than 5 units in 19*4-9* whereas half the dwelling units started in 19*4-9 in metropolitan areas were built by builders of at least 50 units. Although most of the metropolitan area output (6*4- percent) was the work of medi urn and large builders (25 dwelling units or more), most of the residential builders in these populous centers were small in terms of total scale of operations. A third of the builders started only 1 house each in metropolitan areas, and another half began only 2 to 9 dwelling units. Using the Maisel classification, 9*4- percent of all the professional builders in metropolitan areas in 19*4-9 were small-scale builders (less than 25 units each) and they accounted for a little under *4-0 percent of the commercially built dwelling units. The medium-size builders (25-99 units each) were 5 percent of the total in metropolitan areas and began about 25 percent of the units. The remaining 1 percent of the metropoli tan-area builders--the very large-scale producers who began 100 units or more--construeted about *4-0 percent of all new private housing begun commercially in metropolitan places and for almost 35 percent in the country as a whole. THE G E N E R A L C O N T R A C T O R General contractors built on a smaller scale, on the average, than either the operative builders or the firms that did both general contracting and operative building in 191*9 . Although there were firms of each kind at every size level, proportionately fewer general contractors produced on a medium and large scale compared with the others, and middle- and large-size builders were responsible for a smaller share of the general contractors ’ output. Nearly 6 in 10 of the general contractors started only one house in 19*4-9* com pared with a little over 3 in 10 of the operative builders. Nine in'10 began fewer than 5 dwelling units, and virtually all began fewer than 10. These small contractors2** (less than 10 units each) accounted for about three-fifths of the general contractors’ 19*4-9 housing output. In operative building, firms of this size (86 percent of the operative builders) were responsible for only a fourth of the housing production (tables 3 and 4). 2^See Donald J. Bogue, Population Growth in Standard Metropolitan Areas, 1900-1950, Washington, D* C., Housing and Home Finance Agency, December 1953 (p» 13)} ana Maisel, op, cit* (p* 23)« 2**The size designation is in terms of their residential building operations alone, and not in terms of their operations in building construction as a whole, which may have been extensive* 8 The relatively small size of general contractors* homebuilding activities, how ever, was characteristic of their single-family house operations-rather than their apart ment building. They built larger apartment projects on the average than either the opera tive builders or those who did both operative building and contract work 2^ (p. 11, and table 5). The fact that very few general contractors started more than 10 single-family houses during the year clearly indicates that the widespread practice of building 1 -family houses to order, house by house, on separate sites limits the volume of production. In such operations, each owner furnishes the lot and house specifications. Changes are often ordered by the owner in the course of construction. In addition, the number of custombuilt individual homes that can be built at the same time by a single firm is severely li mited by the managerial force required to supervise the numerous details involved. 26 With the same amount of supervisory personnel the operative builder can initiate and carry through construction on many more houses at one time than the custom-building general con tractor. The construction of a group of operatively built houses can be planned and scheduled as a unit, because they can be erected at one site, with basically the same de sign, and with the entire bill of materials for a project known in advance. A few general contractors also started medium to large-scale single-family hous ing projects in 19*4-9 on a contract basis for others. In such cases, an individual or firm owned the land, submitted plans, and asked for bids on a project of single-family homes which they planned to sell or rent. The general contractors who won the contracts per formed the service function of building to the owners* order. The promoting groups, many outside of the industry, quickly liquidated their investment or earned a rental income. Smaller contract jobs for such promoting firms and individuals were even more common than the piedium-or large-size projects. Altogether, however, only 3 percent of the general contractors were engaged in building single-family houses for others to place on the mar ket, and the resulting projects constituted less than 10 percent of all the general con tractors* output of houses in 19*4-9* Thus, these speculative-type contract-built enter prises in 19*4-9 did not affect significantly the scale of 1 -family house operations of gen eral contractors. It is clear also that the amount of venture capital used for building 1-family houses in this manner was small. Capital for 1-family housebuilding was obtained chiefly from the intended occupants and their mortgagors, or the builders themselves. THE OPERATIVE B U I L D E R The 1- to 4 - H o u s e O p e r a t i v e B u i l d e r Although medium and large scale operations were much more characteristic of op erative builders than of general contractors, the operative builders* group also included numerous 1 -house entrepreneurs, and the great majority of operative builders started fewer than 5 dwelling units in 19*4-9 (table 3)* These very small merchant builders represented a third of all the professional builders and accounted nationwide for 10 percent of the com mercially built private housing production during the year. More of these small enter prises were in the metropolitan than in the nonmetropolitan areas, although they accounted for proportionately more of the builders and output in the smaller places. How do these small operative builders, especially those building only 1 or 2 houses in the year, make a living? 2? A large proportion of them actually engaged in resi dential building only as a side line. 28 The 1- to *t-house builders predominated among jpSee footnote 9. 2 Maisel found that, even among medium—sized firms in San Francisco, the principals usually had only one or two assistants in management activities. Op. cit., p. 210. Maisel found also (p. 218) that all ike San Francisco housebuilding firms surveyed were personally owned and financed. 'See Maisel, op. cit., p. 211. Maisel found that the median San Francisco builder completing 1 to 9 houses in 1949 received a net profit before taxes of about 5.7 percent of sales volume. The profit on two $18,000 houses at this rate would be about $2,000. Most houses built in 1949 sold for less than $12 ,000. 28This is true also of very small scale general contractors. 9 those entrepreneurs who reported that residential building was their subordinate business in 19^9. (See table 5») Many were special building trades contractors or journeymen, lumber dealers, or associated in one way or another with real estate operations, who built one or a few houses as a speculative venture to supplement their income (table 6). The low capital requirements for housebuilding, which is financed largely on credit and through loans secured by the property, is an inducement to many to enter the business as a brief speculation, particularly in a period of extensive demand as in 19^9* There is no other major industry in which a group normally outside, accounts for so large and produc tive a part. These small operative builders enter and leave the homebuilding industry in quick succession, accounting for a sizable share of the high business turnover for which construction is notable.23 ? They predominated among the UO percent of the operative build ing firms that in 19*+9 reported entering the residential building business within the year (table 7 )On the other hand, many of them probably built housing for their principal sup port since, as Maisel found, small builders often receive their income in the form of wages and not as a return on investment or as profits. The sense of independence derived from running their own business offsets the low return or, frequently, the lack of return, on their capital. 30 The O p e r a t i v e B u i l de r in N o n m e t r o p o l i t a n A r e a s As significant as the comparatively large number of very small operative build ers in the metropolitan areas, was the important number of merchant builders of substan tial scale in nonmetropolitan places/ remote from the wider and more stable markets of large centers. Fifteen percent of tne nonmetropolitan operative builders started at least 5 units during the year. These builders accounted for 25 percent of all the professionally built private units begun in those relatively small areas, and for 10 percent of all non metropolitan private housing starts, including the owner-built. In addition, over 1,000 operative builders began at least 10 dwelling units each in nonmetropolitan places in 19^ 9, accounting for 17 percent of the professionally built housing starts there, and 7 percent of chr total, including the owner-built. Several hundred middle-sized builders of 25-99 dwel ing units each, accounted for as much as 8 percent of the nonmetropolitan housing production by commercial builders, and 3 percent started by builders and owners together (taoles 1, 3> and ^). As recently as 19^ , Miles Colean wrote in American Hous ing that "Their (operative builders*) influence...has scarcely been felt in the smaller nonmetropolitan centers ."^1 The growth of their importance in small localities reflected the fast growing populations in many small nonmetropolitan places, and the increasing, even pressing, housing demand there, which resulted from extensive migration during the 19^0 *s away from farms, and from both farms and cities, toward small towns and villages in the West, and toward decentralized industrial and military installations throughout the country .^2 29oe© "Recent Business Population Movements," Survey of Current Business, u. S. Department of Commerce, Vol. 34, No. 1, January 1954 (pp* 11-16), and "Size Characteristics of the Business Population," op. Cit., Vol. 34, No. 5, May 1954 (pp. 15-24). These articles relate to contract construction only. Al though operative building is not classified under "Contract construction," but is classified with "Fi nance, insurance, and real estate," in these reports, in accordance with the Bureau of the Budget’s Standard Industrial Classification, it is believed that entry and discontinuance rates of the operative builders are similar to those of the construction contractors. 3°Maisel, op. oit., pp. 36-37. ‘31Op. cit., p . 143. 32Some of these places are in urbanized areas, according to the 1950 Census, even though they do not fall within standard metropolitan areas. See Donald J. Bogue, op. cit., pp. 45-50, for discussion of Mie relation between urbanized areas and the standard metropolitan areas and their urban fringe, and >p. 33-44 for comparison of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan growth in geographic divisions. 10 The Medi um- and L a r g e - S c a l e O p e r a t i v e B u i l d e r There were only a handful, comparatively, of operative builders who started 25 or more dwelling units in 19^9 in the country as a whole (2 ,950)> tut they were important producers of housing that year. They accounted for two-fifths of the commercially built private dwelling units started nationally and about half of those begun in metropolitan areas (tables 3 an& ^). All of the large merchant builders, and virtually all of medium scale, were in the metropolitan areas, where a huge backlog of effective demand was swelled by large and growing markets.33 Many of these operative builders sold their entire project from one or a few model houses, and whole apartment developments were rented well before comple tion. The largest producers built mostly to meet the single-family housing demand of middle-income families in the metropolitan areas. This was true also in urbqn places in 1938> when the large operative builders were concentrated in the middle-price housing field.^ The median price of the 1-family homes started by operative builders of 100 or more houses in 19^9 was a little over $8,500. (See table 8 .) For all other size groups except one-house builders, the median price was $ 9,000 or more. 35 In general, the price distribution of 1 -family houses started by operative builders of all sizes in 19^9 was indicative of considerable emphasis on the moderate to low-priced house. Nearly 6 in 10 of the operatively built 1 -familv houses were priced at less than $10,000, and the median price was $9,200. (See table 8 .) Prices were, of course, much higher in metropolitan than in nonmetropolitan areas, where costs and wages generally are lower and the effective demand is for smaller and less expensive houses than in larger places. Even in the metropolitan areas, however, the median price was under $ 10,000 ($9,500), influenced substantially by the moderate prices in mass housing projects. In 19^9, at least, it was no longer true that new housing was being built largely for a limited economic group, as it appeared in 19^0, according to the Temporary National Economic Committee, when conducting its investigations "Toward More Housing."36 In view of the extensive pressure for new housing in the metropolitan areas, it is surprising that large-scale housebuilding in the moderate-price range was not more prevalent and did not account for an even greater share of the production.^' In part, the answer lies in the relative youth of most firms Sn the residential building industry. The industry had in effect to be organized anew after almost complete inactivity during World War II. To illustrate, a third of the operative builders in metropolitan areas in 19^9 had been in the industry less than a year, and nearly 60 percent had been in the in dustry only since the close of the war. (See table 7*) Most of these firms began as sifcall enterprises. Relatively little time had elapsed before 19^9 in which to build a large-scale business with the managerial skill and experience and the hundreds of thou sands of dollars of working capital that are required. 33See p* 7 • 3^"Builders of 1-Family Houses in 72 Cities," Monthly Labor Review, September 1940, pp* 732-743* 35Maisel*s findings in the San Francisco area study were similar* Op* oit*, p* 28* Selling price in cludes the price of land* ^Monograph No. 8 (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1940), Part I, pp. xv— xvi. The construction cost of a typical single-family house a little more than doubled between 1940 and 1949, whereas family income rose nearly 1-1/2 times. About 45 percent of families in 1949 had wage or salary income of $2,500 to $5,000 and 17 percent had $5,000 or more, compared with 13 peroent and 2 percent, respectively, in 1939. See May 1953 supplement to Construction and Building Materials, p. 32, for historical data on residential construction costs compiled by E. H. Boeckh and Associates, Washington, D, C, . See also, U*S* Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Consumer Income: Income of Families and Persons inthe United States, 1949. Release Series P-60, No. 7, Table 12, p. 27. There is no satisfactory historical price index for new bouses. Construction cost is used, here in stead of a price index* See "Relationships Between an Index of House Prices and Building Costs" by David M. Blank in Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 49, No. 265, March 1954 (pp. 6778), for a rationalization of the interchangeability of the two. 3/There were 700 large operative builders (100 or more units) in 1949, Only around a third of these (something over 200) began 250 units or more each— either in single-family housing projects or in apart ment projects. 11 BUILDERS W H O C O M B I N E D OP E R A T I V E B U I L D I N G A N D G E N E R A L C O NT R A C T I N G The small group of residential builders (6 percent of the professional build ers) who interchanged their operations during the year and did both operative building and general contracting, were found mostly in metropolitan areas. Unlike the firms en gaged exclusively in general contracting or operative building in I9V 9, the majority of them started more than 5 dwelling units in the year. They were predominantly in the upper range of the small builders (5 to 2k units), and a third of them began at least 10 dwell ing units during the year. On the other hand, the output of large builders (100 units or more) accounted for a much smaller proportion of the units started by these operativegeneral contractor firms than by firms engaged exclusively in operative building. This group of builders, who built to order some of the time, and at other times initiated their own projects, appeared to be a substantial and relatively stable type of firm. Virtually all of them were engaged solely or principally in building construction in 19*+9* unlike a large proportion of the other residential builders, particularly the small ones who built 1 or 2 houses on the side to supplement their income from a regular business or job (tables 9 and 10). A P A R T M E N T BUIL DING Few builders specialized in apartment building in 19^9> a-nd even fewer'started both 1-family houses and apartments. The builders who did apartment building exclusively, however, accounted for most of the units in apartment structures (72 percent). (See tables 13, i^> and 15*) The great majority of the builders (88 percent) specialized in single-family houses in 19*4-9, reflecting the character of the total private housing output in which single-family homes predominated k to 1 . Most of the firms that specialized in putting up multifamily structures (2 or more units) were operative builders (8C percent). Although over half of these builders reported residential building as their principal or only business, a rather substantial group (one-third) reported it as just a side line (table 17)* This suggests that a siz able amount of apartment construction was initiated and completed in 19*4-9 by "speculative sponsors" rather than by long-term investors. General contractors started only a fourth of the apartment units begun in 19*4-9 (as well as a fourth of the 1 -family houses) and constituted only a sixth of the builders specializing in multifamily construction. However, their apartment projects were larger on the average than those of the operative builders (table 5 )* In both instances, however, the average number of units per builder specializing in multifamily structures, although far more than for the 1-family housebuilders, was less than 25 . It is not safe to conclude from these small averages, however, that "Even where 'large projects are most characteristic, housebuilding is usually a small-scale business,"^ because, taken by themselves, they are misleading. They were weighted heavily by the numerous builders who started 2 to k units in multifamily buildings in 19*4-9* These build ers were more like the small single-family housebuilders of similar scale. 0 They con stituted three-fourths of all the builders who specialized in multifamily structures in I 9U 9, and their average production was only 2 dwellings in 1 building (table 18). In contrast, the 8 percent of the firms that specialized in apartment construc tion and also started 25 units or more, averaged 1*4-6 units per builder, and accounted for three-fourths of the units produced by all the multifamily-structure specialists, and well 3®These are producers and merchandisers of rental housing, whose interest is in the profit from the construction job and from capital appreciation after building up occupancy and high rent rolls, after which the project is sold to a permanent investor. See discussion of such operations in Production of New Housing by Leo Grebler, pp. 118-122. P Colean, op. cit., p. 77. °Maisel, in fact, combines all 1- and 2-family housebuilders into a single group, which he defines* simply as ’’housebuilders.” 12 over half (5^ percent) of all the multifamily units started by all types of builders (tables 15 and 19). In addition, three-fourths of all the units started in 5-or-more family structures were produced by builders of 100 or more units in I9I+9 . Most of them were produced by builders specializing in apartment building. Only a fourth of all the units in 1 -family and 2-k family houses were the product of large-scale builders (100 or more units). It appears, therefore, that apartment-house building of the type usually conceded as such (in structures accomodating more than k households) was at least of medi urn, and more commonly of large scale in 1 9 ^ 9 Virtually all of it was in the metropoli tan areas (table l 6) . S I N G L E - F A M I L Y HOUSE B U I L D I N G Because 1-family housing predominated so greatly in housing activity during the structure and scale of operations of the homebuilding industry as a whole tend to reflect the activities of single-family housebuilders. 19^ 9> Although no new conclusions come to light, it is worthwhile examining briefly some facts about 1 -family residential building by itself. For example, the scale of op erative builders 1 1 -family house building was relatively much greater than that of the other builders. Most of the operatively built houses (6 in 10) were the product of firms that started at least 25 single-family houses in 19^9 (table 20^. When contract-built houses are added, however, the proportion declines appreciably. 2 The proportion of onefamily houses begun by builders of moderate to large size (25 or more houses) drops fur ther, of course, if owner-built homes are added, to around 30 percent. Conversely, the proportion begun by builders of less than 5 houses rises sharply, from about a fourth to one-half. Because of their larger scale operations, operative builders started a much greater proportion of the commercially built 1 -family houses in 19^9 than the general con tractors, even though the latter predominated among residential builders who specialized in 1 -family-house construction (tables 13 and 15). S P E C I A L I Z A T I O N IN RE S ID ENT I AL B U I L D I N G It has been assumed widely that most housing is not built by a special class of producers, but rather by builders who also construct stores and offices, and other similar structures, or by firms interested chiefly in such activities as the real estate or lumber business, or by artisans or the home owners themselves. ^3 Data obtained in this survey indicate that a large volume of housing was in fact built by owners and artisans and by firms and individuals not engaged principally in residential building for a livelihood in 19^ 9 * In addition, however, they show that there was a substantial core of specialized producers of housing that year, which constituted a bona fide residential building indus try. Available data suggest that more than half the private 19^9 housing was produced by homebuilding specialists. Li Such specialists were found among all types of commercial residential builders. The large proportion of operative builders who reported residential building as their sole business in 19A 9 comprised more than a fourth of all the professional builders who started private housing that year, and produced nearly half of the commercially built dwelling Large-scale apartment building was stimulated in 1949 as a result of the renewal late in 1948, after a lapse of several months, of the liberal financing arrangements under wartime Title VI (Sec. 608) of the National Housing Act. The already liberal provisions of Sec. 608 were further liberalized after the close of World War II. The 90-percent loan-to-value ratio of the original legislation (1942) had re mained the same, but mortgage ceilings were raised after the close of World War II. The appraisal basis was changed from "reasonable replacement cost" to "necessary current cost," and, in 1948, to cost pre vailing on December 31, 1947. . 1+2 See tables 15 and 19. Scale of operations in single-family house production alojie* is available only for operative builders (table 20) and for builders specializing in single-family housebuilding in 1949 (tables 16, 18, and 19). The 1-family houses started by builders of both 1-family houses and. other types of units constituted 7 percent of all the 1—family houses started in 1949, and 11 percent of those com mercially built. ^3Colean, op. cit. (pp. 63-64). 13 units. To this group may be added many of the general contractors who reported that building construction (including nonresidential as well as residential building) was their sole occupation, and most of the builders who shuttled from residential operative building to general contracting. (See tables 9 and 10.) LOCALISM OF RESIDENTIAL B U I L D I N G Residential builders serve local markets almost exclusively. The house is fixed to the ground, and the limited managerial staff of firms that build to order precludes building single houses or apartment projects in widely separated places. Even large op erative builders find it too costly and risky to build in new localities, where the char acter of building ordinances, geographic pattern of growth, land assembly problems, and taste and requirements in housing may be unfamiliar to them.1^ Detailed analysis of the residential building operations of firms in 2*4- metro politan areas among the sample places studied in the 19*4-9 survey showed that in all but 3 of the places (Boston, Mass.; New Haven, Conn.; and Lancaster, Pa.), less than 2 percent of the builders operated outside as well as inside their home metropolitan area. Two of these three places were in New England where densely populated places of relatively small area are contiguous with one another. Even in those places, however, well over ninetenths of the firms confined their housing activities to the home metropolitan area. In addition, the amount of outside-area residential building was small. The figures shown in tables 21 to 26 are based on the number of commercially built dwellings started within each of 2k selected metropolitan areas. However, even if outside-of-area homebuilding by the builders in each of the selected metropolitan areas is included, -the average scale of commercial builders* residential building operations is unchanged for all areas except Dallas, where the average increases only from 11 to 12. The outside activi ties of Dallas builders were located several hundred miles from the home area, thus sug gesting a much wider radius for out-of-area operations in the West where populous communi ties are more widely separated, than that of firms in the more densely populated Eastern States whose outside work was in nearby localities. Broadly speaking, data relating to the 2k metropolitan areas reflect the na tional pattern in the structure and scale of operations of the residential building indus try in 1 9*4-9 . For example, small firms predominated in most of the areas, but accounted for a small proportion of the output; the average number of units begun by operative builders usually exceeded the average for general contractors; production of operative builders generally was well above the combined output of all the other commercial build ers; and apartment builders had larger-scale operations than the single-family house builders. Nevertheless the areas differed widely in many respects. To cite just 2 extreme examples, the proportion of owner-builders ranged from nearly 3 in 10 in Dallas to over 7 in 10 in Detroit, and the ratio of general contractors to operative builders ranged from about 1 to 3 in Miami, Tulsa, and Washington, D. C. to almost 3 to 1 in Lancaster. These and other differences did not appear to be related to population size or geographic loca tion of the areas. They reflected the unique configuration of each individual housing market at the time.^ IMP LI CAT IONS OF THE 1949 S T RUC TU RE Among the more significant influences that shaped the organization of residen tial building operations in 19*±9 was the relation of housing production to population growth in the preceding two decades. A sharp drop in homebuilding during the depression 30 *s, and again in the wartime *4-0*s, had resulted by 19*4-9 in large, accumulated housing needs which required only favorable conditions to be translated into effective demand. ^ S e e Maisel, op. olt. (pp. 216-217), See also Grebler, op. cit. (p. 16), ana Colean, op. cit. (p. 80). ^5 See Chester Rapkin, Louis Winnick, and David M. Blank, Housing Market Analysis: A Study of Theory aqd^Methods, Washington, D, C, f Housing and Home Finance Agency, December 1953. Exact figures are not available, but some concept of the extent of the latent pressure on housing in 19^9 roay t>e had from the fact that abbut 3*3 million more new nonfarm house holds11® occupying separate quarters* 4? were formed, compared with the Q.b million new per manent nonfarm dwelling units supplied, in the two decades from 1930. This already large potential market for new housing was augmented by married couples living with relatives, and the returned World War II veterans whose housing requirements were met only to a limited extent by the recovery in housing production immediately after the war 0 These forces, together with very high postwar birth rates, high incomes, and easy Government guaranteed and insured credit, created tremendous housing demands. Consequently, builders had an assured market in 19^9* They could sell or rent as many dwellings as they could produce. There were numerous incentives, and little risk for individuals in other lines of work to take a small flyer in residential building; for individuals or groups to aban don a less profitable business and build houses; and for building firms to multiply their previous scale of operations. Efficient and inefficient alike survived and flourished, and deficiencies in site selection or house design had little effect on sales and often went unnoticed, or were disregarded. This complex of circumstances explains both the numerous small merchant builders in business that year, as well as the increased number and relatively large output of the medium and large entrepreneurs. To some extent, it explains also the importance of the entrepreneurial organization in 19^ 9 Do any of the same influences persist in 195^+ and what changes have occurred in the residential building operations that might affect the structure of the industry? A n swers to these questions could help suggest the nature of the present organization of the residential building business, in the absence of precise current statistics. Many conditions have changed since 19^9* Market pressure has diminished from the almost explosive force that it was during the immediate postwar years and following entry into the Korean conflict (19^6-50). Credit has not been as easy since imposition of Regulation X in October 1950 and the Treasury-Federal Reserve Board accord in March 1951> and although the hard money policy of early 1953 has since been modified and mortgage funds are readily available, mortgage interest rates are higher. Construction costs have risen, and the shift from a seller’s or landlord’s market to a buyer’s or renter’s market has necessitated active marketing of new housing and the provision of improved housing values. These factors conceivably could have the effect of reducing the total number and proportion of operative builders, because greater competition for a more selective market would eliminate the marginal entrepreneurs building as a speculative venture. The impact, however, would be quite variable, falling heaviest on the small operative builders of single-family houses, especially those producing fewer than 5 houses. The latter would not be as readily attracted to residential building in the first place, as they were when marketing was no problem. Moreover, it is unlikely that these small builders will have sufficient capital to permit a standing inventory of even 1 house. They require quick turnover to stay in business. Conversely, the medium- and large-scale operative builders of 1-family houses in I9I+9 who remained in the industry, and the well-established firms of moderate to large size who may have entered it since 1950, are likely to be firmly entrenched, and, if they have not expanded, at least they need not have reduced their operations. This conclusion is supported by the following considerations. Includes single-person Households and households consisting of unrelated individuals living together, as well as new married couples, and other family groups. This figure was derived using BLS estimates of the number of new nonfarm dwelling units started (see Construction During Five Decades, BLS Bulletin 1146, table 1, p. 3), and unpublished revised estimates obtained from the Bureau of the Census, showing the number of nonfarm households based on a consistent definition of the urban area, and of the house hold. 4?Including trailers and shacks and other temporary facilities, as well as converted units and new dwellings. 15 First, private housing activity has been maintained at well over the 19^9 lev el ,^8 because of continuing extensive demand sustained by a growing and mobile population, and a prosperous and basically stable economy. In addition, the terms of Governmentassisted financing of owner-occupied housing have continued to favor the middle- ta lowerincome groups and moderate-cost homes,^ for which demand is greatest and which are sup plied largely by operative builders. Operative builders also are benefiting from a varie ty of advances that have been made in the industry in techniques and management which con tribute directly to efficiency. For example, significant strides have occurred in mech anization, standardization, and simplification in homebuilding, involving the more exten sive use of new materials and prefabricated parts and assemblies.^° Advances have o c curred also in the design of project houses,to provide greater livability without increas ing costs; in community and site planning; and in market analysis and merchandizing. Product manufacturers, architects, and builders, through their associations and trade journals, have worked separately and cooperatively toward these ends to expand the housing market. Assistance has come also from universities, acting independently, or with the sponsorship of private trade associations, or utilizing research funds provided by the Federal Government under provisions of the Housing Acts of 19*4-9-52 • These aids have been more influential in maintaining the mass market of the op erative builders than the custom market of the general contractors. General contractors require the flexibility of individualized operations, and thus cannot take advantage of the economies of multi-unit scheduling, purchasing, and erection. To be sure, improve ments which affect the cost of single units and the level of bids, tend to broaden the custom market. The total amount of custom building, however, depends a good deal on eco nomic conditions and the number and proportion of families in the higher income groups, which supply the bulk of the demand for contract-built homes. The number and proportion of such families, as well as the middle-income families, has been i n c r e a s i n g , w h e r e a s construction costs have not risen commensurately,52 so that a substantial custom market exists. Operative builders, however, have been effectively competing for this market, as well as for the middle-priced market. Some of these builders in metropolitan areas have produced groups of distinctively styled and even elaborately equipped houses which, al though utilizing basically the same design, have different exteriors, and are erected on attractive and well-located sites. To the extent, then, that there have been organizational changes in the industry since 19*4-9> it would appear to be in the direction of fewer medium- and large-scale opera tive builders who may be producing a larger share of the commercially built single-family housing. These builders may be accomplishing this mostly at the expense of the very small operative builders, who, along with marginal firms of all sizes and types, are less likely to enter the business in the first place than they were in 19*4-9> or, if they do enter, to remain in the business for long. Number of new private nonfarm dwelling units started in: Year 1-f amily structures 2-family structures Multifamily structures 161,700 1949 34,700 792,400 159,200 42,300 1950 1,150,700 87,500 1951 40,400 892,200 83,500 1952 45,900 939,100 94,000 1953 41,500 932,800 *4?By permitting higher mortgage loan-to-value ratios, the lower the price of the house. 5°See Maisel, op. cit», pp. 49-50* See also, Cost Savings Through Standardization, Simplification, Specialization in the Building Industry, prepared for Foreign Operations Administration, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 1953. Mimeo. 5* See U. S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-60; Numbers 7, 9, 12, 15; Table 1. 52 See footnote 37. IT APPENDIX A - S U R V E Y DESIGN The S a m p l e The sample of the Survey of Residential Builders was a highly stratified dualstage design in which the primary sampling units were standard metropolitan areas and non metropolitan counties. Stage 1: The metropolitan areas were stratified by geographic region, and, within regions, into 2 strata, characterized by high and low population increase between 19^0 and 1950. Twenty-nine primary sampling units were selected from the universe of metropolitan areas* which was arranged to achieve strata of approximately equal size in terms of nonfarm population. The sample of 18 nonmetropolitan areas was a subsample of the sample of nonmetropolitan counties, used by the Bureau in its surveys of dwelling units started in 96 nonpermit-issuing rural nonfarm c o u n t i e s . H o w e v e r , the residential build er sample design did not include areas to represent the smallest counties (composed mostly of farm population, and accounting for 10 percent of the rural nonfarm dwelling units standing in 19^0 ), which were eliminated before sample selection also from the 96-county universe. Stage 2: The final units of sampling in all sample areas were the dwelling units started by a single builder in sample areas where building permits were not issued, or, in permit-issuing places,^ the "permit unit." The latter consists of a group of building permits issued at one time to a single individual or firm. Whenever possible, permit units issued to identical individuals or firms were combined in advance of sample selection.55 Dwelling units started and permit units were stratified by type of struc ture. Permit units were stratified also by number of dwelling units, and disproportionate sampling was used to give the larger permit units a greater probability of selection. A p proximately 12,000 elementary sampling units were selected in all primary sampling areas. There was an intermediate step in the case of the New York metropolitan area, in which a subsample of minor civil divisions was selected. Before selection, the minor civ il divisions were stratified according to number of dwelling units authorized by building permits in 19^ 9 * Es ti mat ing Method Ratio-type estimates were used at the primary sample level. For the metropoli tan areas, the ratio was the total characteristic being estimated for sample areas, di vided by the number of dwelling units started, or authorized by permits, in the sample areas. The result was then applied against a known total of dwelling units started or authorized in all metropolitan areas in 19^9* In the nonmetropolitan areas, the denomina tor was nonfarm dwelling units standing in sample places in 19*+0 , and the known total was nonfarm dwelling units standing in all nonmetropolitan counties in 19^0 . A major problem of estimation occurred at the within-area level because of the overexposure of some individuals or firms. If a builder obtained building permits at dif ferent times under different names, it was not possible to combine his operations in ad vance of sample selection. Thus the probability of selection of some builders was greater than that of others. This was overcome by a system of weighting which took account of all permit units obtained by the builder during the survey period. This problem of overex posure was also encountered between primary areas because some builders operated in more than one primary sampling unit. A similar technique of weighting was used to adjust for this additional situation, of possible duplication. 53See "Estimating National Housing Volume," in Monthly Labor Review, October 1947, pp. 410-416. 5**These are places that require permits to build under their local building ordinances. ^Relevant building—permit information (name and address of the builder, the number, of dwelling units authorized by eaoh permit unit, and a desoriptionvof the projeots involved) was transcribed from build ing-permit records in each of the sample building—permit-issuing localities in the 29 sample metropolistan areas, by trained field agents, supervised by personnel permanently employed in each of the 5 BLS regional offices (Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, New York, and San Franoisco)0 18 Reliability The sample as a whole was designed to produce a minimum error at a fixed speci fied cost. Optimum allocation (to achieve maximum reliability within the cost ceiling) was used at all stages of selection. Consideration was thereby given to costs of survey work, to differences in variance between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, and b e tween minor civil divisions within primary sampling units, and to variation due to size of builders’ operations. Unfortunately, curtailment of resources before analytical phases of the work had progressed beyond the preliminary stages, precluded computation of the sampling error over the whole range of the results. Analyses of the variances which led to initiation of the sample design used, however, clearly indicated that neither the large percentages (cer tainly those in excess of 10 percent) nor the averages applying to major characteristics could be affected substantially by sampling variation. Caution should be exercised in us ing small percentages, of course, or the averages or figures for small groups. The like lihood is that the response error or bias may be of greater consequence than the error due to sampling variability. There is no way of measuring the former, except that insofar as the schedule design was adequate and the conduct of the interview survey carefully planned and supervised, such errors and biases were kept to a minimum. S u r v e y Method The survey was conducted by personal interview, using a pretested schedule, by over 250 field agents trained by construction technicians of the Bureau’s Division of Con struction Statistics. Full-time construction analysts assigned to the Bureau’s 5 regional offices directed operations in the field through a network of supervisory personnel who were in touch almost daily with the interviewers. The interviews were made in the spring of 1951, and information was obtained from about 12,000 builders and owners about their private nonfarm residential building op erations in 19^9- The completed schedules were edited and coded in the regional offices under the immediate direction of the regional construction analysts, who operated under the guidance of the technicians in Washington. Regional operations at this stage permit ted prompt transmittal and correction of schedules in the field, whenever inconsistencies, errors, or omissions were detected. The schedules were reviewed again in Washington b e fore tabulation. APP ENDI X B - - G L O S S A R Y Professional builders. Also commercial builders. Those who build for a living or for profit. Owner-builders. Also amateur builders or amateurs. Those who build for other than commercial purposes, without the services of a general contractor. Any part of the work may be done by special trade contractors; or b;y the owner, with or without the help of family members or friends; or by workmen hired by the owner. Any combination of these methods may be used. The types of owner-builders, as defined in this study, are described in footnotes 12 and 15, on pages ^ and 5 * General contractors. Also custom builders. Those who build housing to order, on someone else’s land and to another’s speci fications . Operative builders. Also merchant builders or entrepreneurs. Those who build housing on their land to their own specifications, for unidenti fied future buyers or renters. 19 A P P E N D I X C--TABLES 1. R e s id e n tia l b u ild e r s and p r iv a te n o n fa rm d w e llin g u n its s ta r te d : D is tr ib u tio n b y type o f b u ild e r and b y a c tiv ity in m e tr o p o lit a n and n o n m e tro p o lita n a r e a s , 1949 2. R e s id e n tia l b u ild e r s and p r iv a te n o n fa rm d w e llin g u n its s ta r te d : b u i ld e r s ' o p e r a tio n s , c o m m e r c i a l - and o w n e r -b u ild e r s , 1949 D is trib u tio n b y s iz e o f 3. C o m m e r c ia l r e s id e n t ia l b u ild e r s : D is trib u tio n by type o f b u ild e r , b y s iz e o f o p e r a tio n s , and b y a c tiv ity in m e tr o p o lit a n and n o n m e tro p o lita n a r e a s , 1949 4 . P r iv a te n o n fa rm d w e llin g u n its s ta r te d b y c o m m e r c ia l b u ild e r s : D is tr ib u tio n b y typ e o f b u ild e r , b y s iz e o f o p e r a t io n s , and by a c tiv ity in m e tr o p o lit a n and n o n m e tro p o lita n a r e a s , 1949 5. A v e r a g e n u m b er o f p r iv a t e d w e llin g u n its s ta r te d p e r c o m m e r c ia l b u ild e r , by type o f b u ild e r , b y b u i ld e r 's t y p e - o f - s t r u c t u r e s p e c ia liz a t io n and exten t o f a c tiv ity in b u ild in g c o n s tr u c tio n , in m e tr o p o lit a n and n o n m e tro p o lita n a r e a s , 1949 6. P e r c e n t d is tr ib u tio n o f f ir m s that d id not d e r iv e th e ir in c o m e s o le ly as o p e r a tiv e r e s i d en tia l b u ild e r s o r as g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r s , b y type o f s u p p le m e n ta ry b u s in e s s o r o c c u p a tio n , 1949 7. P e r c e n t d is tr ib u tio n o f o p e r a tiv e b u ild e r s in 1949, b y y e a r o f e n try into o p e r a tiv e r e s i d en tia l b u ild in g , in m e tr o p o lit a n and n o n m e tr o p o lita n a r e a s 8. P r iv a te 1 -fa m ily h o u s e s s ta r te d by o p e r a t iv e - and o w n e r -b u ild e r s : D is trib u tio n b y p r i c e c l a s s , b y a c tiv ity in m e tr o p o lit a n and n o n m e tr o p o lita n a r e a s , and b y s iz e o f o p e r a t iv e b u ild e r s ' 1 -fa m ily h ou se o p e r a t io n s , 1949 9. C o m m e r c ia l r e s id e n t ia l b u ild e r s : D is tr ib u tio n by type o f b u ild e r , b y e xten t o f a ctiv ity in b u ild in g c o n s t r u c t io n , in m e tr o p o lit a n and n o n m e tro p o lita n a r e a s , 1949 10. P r iv a te n o n fa rm d w ellin g un its s ta r te d b y c o m m e r c ia l b u ild e r s : D is tr ib u tio n b y type o f b u ild e r , b y exten t o f b u ild e r s ' a c tiv ity in b u ild in g c o n s t r u c t io n , in m e tr o p o lit a n and n o n m e tro p o lita n a r e a s , 1949 11. C o m m e r c ia l r e s id e n t ia l b u ild e r s : D is tr ib u tio n b y s iz e o f o p e r a t io n s , b y exten t o f a c t iv i ty in b u ild in g c o n s t r u c t io n , in m e tr o p o lit a n and n o n m e tr o p o lita n a r e a s , 1949 12. P r iv a te n o n fa rm d w e llin g un its s ta r te d b y c o m m e r c ia l b u ild e r s : D is trib u tio n b y s iz e o f o p e r a t io n s , b y exten t o f b u ild e r s ' a c tiv ity in b u ild in g c o n s t r u c t io n , in m e tr o p o lit a n and n o n m e tro p o lita n a r e a s , 1949 13. C o m m e r c ia l r e s id e n tia l b u ild e r s : D is trib u tio n b y typte o f b u ild e r , by b u ild e r s ' t y p e - o f s tr u c tu r e , s p e c ia liz a t io n , and b y a c tiv ity in m e tr o p o lit a n and n o n m e tro p o lita n a r e a s , 1949 14. P r iv a te n o n fa rm d w e llin g un its s ta r te d b y c o m m e r c ia l b u ild e r s : D is trib u tio n b y b u ild e r s t y p e - o f - s t r u c t u r e , s p e c ia liz a t io n , and b y a c tiv ity in m e tr o p o lit a n and n o n m e tr o p o lita n a r e a s , 1949 15. P r iv a te n o n fa rm d w e llin g u n its s ta r te d by c o m m e r c ia l b u ild e r s : D is trib u tio n by type o f b u ild e r , b y a c tiv ity in m e tr o p o lit a n and n o n m e tro p o lita n a r e a s , and b y type o f s tr u c tu r e , 1949 16. P r iv a te n o n fa rm d w ellin g units s ta r te d b y c o m m e r c ia l b u ild e r s : D is trib u tio n b y s iz e o f o p e r a t io n s , b y type o f s tr u c tu r e , and b y a c tiv ity in m e tr o p o lit a n and n o n m e tro p o lita n a r e a s , 1949 20 a ppen d ix c --Tables 17. C o m m e r c ia l r e s id e n tia l b u ild e r s : D is trib u tio n by b u i l d e r s ’ t y p e - o f - s t r u c t u r e s p e c ia li z a tio n , b y exten t o f a ctiv ity in b u ild in g c o n s t r u c t io n , by type o f b u ild e r , and b y m e t r o p o l itan and n o n m e tro p o lita n a r e a s , 1949 18. C o m m e r c ia l r e s id e n tia l b u ild e r s : D is trib u tio n and a v e r a g e n u m b e r o f u n its s ta r te d p e r b u ild e r , b y s iz e o f o p e r a tio n s , b y type o f r e s id e n tia l s tr u c tu r e s s ta r te d , and by a c t iv i ty in m e tr o p o lit a n and n o n m e tro p o lita n a r e a s , 1949 19. P r iv a te n o n fa rm d w e llin g units s ta r te d b y c o m m e r c ia l b u ild e r s : D is trib u tio n b y s iz e o f o p e r a tio n s , b y b u i ld e r s ' t y p e - o f - s t r u c t u r e s p e c ia liz a t io n , and by a ctiv ity in m e t r o p o l itan and n o n m e tro p o lita n a r e a s , 1949 20. P r iv a te 1 -fa m ily h o u s e s s ta r te d by o p e r a tiv e b u ild e r s : D is trib u tio n by s iz e o f o p e r a tiv e b u ild e r s ' 1 -fa m ily h ou se o p e r a t io n s , in m e tr o p o lit a n and n o n m e tr o p o lita n a r e a s , 1949 21. N u m ber o f r e s id e n t ia l b u ild e r s : p o lita n a r e a s , 1949 P e r c e n t d is tr ib u tio n b y type o f b u ild e r , s e le c t e d m e t r o 22. N u m ber o f p r iv a te n o n fa rm d w e llin g u n its s ta r te d : e r , s e le c t e d m e tr o p o lit a n a r e a s , 1949 P e r c e n t d is tr ib u tio n b y type o f b u ild 23. C o m m e r c ia l r e s id e n t ia l b u ild e r s and p r iv a te n o n fa rm d w e llin g u n its s ta r te d : c P e r c e n t d is tr ib u tio n b y s iz e o f b u ild e r s ' o p e r a t io n s , s e le c t e d m e tr o p o lit a n a r e a s , 1949 24. C o m m e r c ia l r e s id e n tia l b u ild e r s and p r iv a t e n o n fa rm d w e llin g u n its s ta r te d : P e r c e n t d is tr ib u tio n b y type o f b u ild e r and by b u i ld e r s ' t y p e - o f - s t r u c t u r e s p e c ia liz a t io n , s e l e c ted m e tr o p o lit a n a r e a s , 1949 25. A v e r a g e n u m b er o f d w e llin g units p e r b u ild e r ,, b y type o f b u ild e r and by b u i ld e r s ' t y p e o f -s t r u c t u r e s p e c ia liz a t io n , s e le c t e d m e tr o p o lit a n a r e a s , 1949 26. C o m m e r c ia lly b u ilt p r iv a te n o n fa rm d w e llin g u n its: P e r c e n t d is tr ib u tio n by type s tr u c tu r e and b y type o f b u ild e r , s e le c t e d m e tr o p o lit a n a r e a s , 1949 of 21 Table 1.— Residential builders and private nonfarm dwelling units started: Distribution by type of builder and by activity in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 1949 Total, United States Percent Number distri bution Type of builder Metropolitan areas Percent Number distri bution Nonmetropolitan areas Percent Number distri bution Percent in-Total United States Metro politan areas Nonmetro politan areas 100 100 100 100 42 55 59 49 58 45 41 51 100 100 100 73 36 74 27 64 Residential builders All types of builders.. Commercial builders... Operative builders... General contractors.. Operative buildersgeneral contractors Owner builders ...... Unknown ............. 387,800 109,800 48,800 54,000 7,000 266,800 11,200 100 28 12 14 2 69 3 16 k, 600 100 223,200 60,100 28,800 26,200 37 ^9,700 100 22 18 16 20,000 27,800 12 5,100 96,200 8,300 3 58 5 1,900 170,600 2,900 9 1 76 1 26 Private nonfarm dwelling units started All types of builders.. Commercial builders... Operative builders... General contractors.. Operative buildersgeneral contractors Operative operations Contract operations. Owner builders ...... Unknown ............. 988,800 698,200 100 71 440,900 45 171,700 17 85,600 51,100 9 5 34,500 k 270,600 20,000 27 2 692,900 295,900 100 41 55 120,600 60,400 18 48,800 577,600 100 8k 380,500 122,900 Ik,200 11 11,400 4 44,800 29,400 7 6,300 5,100 2 2 172,400 58 2,900 1 98,200 17,100 k Ik 2 20 16 100 100 100 100 70 83 100 100 100 100 100 86 30 17 14 72 28 87 13 88 12 85 36 85 15 64 15 Percent distribution may not add to 100 because of rounding. Table 2.--Residential builders and private nonfarm dwelling units started: Distribution by size of builders* operations, commercial- and owner-builders, 1949 Size of operations' All types of (dwelling units builders started in 1949) Number Commercial builders Owner builders Percent distribution Commercial All types of Owner builders builders builders Residential builders Total .............. 1 unit ........... 2-4 units ........ 5-9 units ........ 10-24 units ...... 25-49 units ...... 50-99 units ...... 100 or more units.. * 387,800 310,750 42,850 11,950 6,900 2,000 1,250 900 109,800 266,800 46,500 40,550 264,250 11,700 6,900 2,000 1,250 900 2,300 (1) 0 0 0 0 100 82 11 100 100 42 37 3 11 6 2 1 1 99 l (2) 2 1 (2) (2) 0 0 0 0 Private nonfarm dwelling units started Total .............. 1 unit ........... 2-4 units ........ 5-9 units .... . 10-24 units ...... 25-49 units ...... 50-99 units ...... 100 or more units.. **988,800 310,750 112,750 71,850 95,050 67,350 75,100 235,950 698,200 270,600 100 100 46,500 264,250 (l) (1) 32 7 15 107,850 70,400 95,050 67,350 75,100 235,950 0 0 0 0 See footnotes on p. 3b . * Includes 11,200 builders who could not be identified by type. ** Includes 20,000 units started by unidentified types of builders. 12 7 10 10 14 7 8 10 11 24 34 100 98 (2) (2) 0 0 0 0 22 Table 3«— Commercial residential builders: Distribution by type of builder, by size of operations, and by activity in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 19k 9 Size of operations Number of builders (dwelling units Total, Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan areas areas United States started in 19^9) Percent distribution Total, Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan United States areas areas All commercial builders Total........ . 1 unit.......... 2 -k units...... . 5-9 units....... 10-2k units..... 25 -k9 units..... 50-99 units..... 100 or more units 109,800 k6 ,500 to, 550 11,700 60,100 k9,700 20,k00 26,100 22,850 7,600 17,700 k,100 6,900 5,350 1,550 2,000 1,850 1,250 1,150 (1) (1) 900 900 0 100 k2 37 11 6 2 1 1 100 3k 38 13 9 3 2 1 100 53 36 8 3 (2) (2) 0 100 27 kl 12 10 k 3 2 100 k3 k2 9 5 (2) (2) 0 100 k8 35 11 5 (2) (2) (2) 100 100 100 0 (2) Operative builders Total............. 1 unit.......... 2-k units....... 5-9 units....... 10-2k units..... 25 -k9 units..... 50-9ST units..... 100 or more units to, 800 28,800 20,000 16,500 20,050 7,900 11,750 3,550 2,950 1,150 8,600 8,300 5,k50 3,850 1,350 900 700 800 700 1,900 900 (l) (1) 0 100 3k kl 11 8 3 2 1 General contractors Total............. 1 unit.......... 2-k units....... 5-9 units....... 10-2k units..... 25-k9 units..... 50-99 units...... 100 or more units 5k , 000 30,000 18,150 3,900 l,k50 (1) (i) (1) 26,200 12,500 27,800 17,500 9,150 9,000 2,800 1,250 1,100 (1) (1) 0 0 (l) (1) (1) 100 56 3k 7 3 (2) (2) (2) 63 32 k (2) (2) 0 0 Operative builders-general contractors Total.......... . 1 unit.......... 2-k units........ 5-9 units....... 10-2k unit8 ..... 25 -k9 units..... 50-99 units..... 100 or more units 7,000 0 2,350 2,350 1,600 (1) (1) (1) See footnotes on p. 38 . 5,100 0 1,900 1,950 1,250 (1) 1,100 (1) (1} 0 0 1,200 (1) (1) (1) 0 100 0 3k 3k 23 (2) (2) (2) 0 38 25 2k (2) (2) (2) 58 (2) (2) 0 0 23 Table k .— Private nonfarm dwelling units started by commercial builders: Distribution b y type of builder, by size of operations, and by activity in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 19*+9 Size of operations Number of private nonfarm dwelling units Percent distribution Metropolitan Nonmetropoli tan (dwelling units Total, Total, Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan United States areas areas United States areas started in 19^ 9 ) areas Units started by all commercial builders Total............. 1 unit.......... 2-1+ units....... 5-9 units....... 10-21+ units..... 25-^9 units...... 50-99 units..... 100 or more units 698,200 1+6,500 107,850 577,600 20,1+00 67,350 60,550 1+9 ,1+00 78,450 61,350 75,100 235,950 71,500 235,950 70,1+00 95,050 120,600 26,100 47,300 21,000 16,600 6,000 3,600 0 100 7 15 10 ll+ 10 11 3^ 100 100 1+ 10 9 11+ 11 12 1+1 22 39 17 ll+ 5 3 0 100 2 8 6 11 11 li+ 1+8 100 ll+ 36 100 10 20 11+ 11+ 5 8 29 100 Units started by operative builders Total...... ...... 1 unit....... . 2-1+ units....... 5-9 units....... 10-21+ units..... 25-1+9 units..... 50-99 units..... 100 or more units 1+1+0,900 380,500 16,500 52,550 33,250 7,900 54,350 46,550 55,800 181,900 30,700 23,^50 ^3,350 1+1,000 52,200 181,900 60,1+00 8,600 21,850 9,800 11,000 5,550 3,600 0 100 1+ 12 8 12 11 13 1+1 16 18 9 6 0 Units started by general contractors Total............. 1 unit.......... 2-1+ units....... 5-9 units....... 10-21+ units..... 25 -1+9 units..... 50-99 units..... 100 or more units 17i ; 700 30,000 1+6,200 2l+,550 18,750 6,700 122,900 12,500 2 l+,250 17,750 16,650 6,250 9,700 9,700 35,800 35,800 1+8,800 17,500 21,950 6,800 (1) (1) 0 0 100 17 27 ll+ 11 1+ 6 21 36 ^5 Ik (2) (2) 0 0 Units started by operative builders-general contractors Total............. 1 unit.......... 2-1+ units....... 5-9 units....... 10-21+ units..... 25-1+9 units..... 50-99 units..... 100 or more units 85,600 0 9,100 12,600 21,950 Ik,100 9,600 18,250 See footnotes on p. 38 . 7l+,200 0 5,600 8,200 18,1+50 ll+,100 9,600 18,250 11,1+00 0 (1) l+,l+00 (1) (1) (1) 0 100 0 11 100 0 8 11 100 0 26 16 25 21 13 25 (2) (2) (2) 15 11 19 (2) 39 0 24 Table 5 .— Average number of private dwelling units started per commercial builder, by type of builder, by builder’s type-of-structure specialization and extent of activity in building construc tion, in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 1949 Average number of dwelling units started per builder Total, Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan areas United States areas Item All commercial builders.............................. Operative builders................................. General contractors................................. Operative builders-general contractors ♦............ 6 9 3 12 10 13 5 15 2 3 2 6 Builders of 1-family houses only.................. Operative builders................................. General contractors................................. Operative builders-general contractors ..... ...... Builders of 1-family and multifamily structures....... Operative builders......................... ....... General contractors................................ Operative builders-general contractors •.. >........ Builders of multifamily structures only............... Operative builders................................. General contractors....... .......... .............. Operative builders-general contractors ............ 5 7 2 10 24 36 13 7 11 3 11 28 39 15 28 2 3 2 5 7 (1 ) (1 ) (1 ) 5 5 (i) (i) 2k 15 13 21 (1 ) Builders having building construction3 as sole business Operative builders................................. General contractors................................. Operative builders-general contractors ...... . Builders having building construction3 as principal business.............. ................ Operative builders................................. General contractors................................ Operative builders-general contractors ............ Builders having building construction3 as subordinate business.............................. Operative builders.... ............................. General contractors........... ..................... Operative builders-general contractors ............ 18 17 22 (1 ) k 11 17 5 2 12 Ik 6 8 10 12 16 3 3 2 (i) 7 11 k 18 2 3 2 9 3 k 6 21 2 2 2 (1 ) 3 k 2 (l) See footnotes on p.38 • Table 6.— Percent distribution of firms that did not derive their income solely as operative residential builders or as general contractors, by type of supplementary business or occupation, 1949 Total, United States All types.......................................... 100 100 100 Special trades contracting......................... Carpentry....................................... Masonry.......................... . ............. Other.......................................... . Building materials dealers*........................ Real estate and land development................... Farming**........................................ Others***........................................ . Unknown.......................................... . 42 33 43 32 5 6 7 15 1 41 36 2 3 14 3 13 15 14 k 5 10 9 7 19 13 Metropolitan areas Nonmetropolitan areas Business or occupation 23 11 * Mostly lumber dealers. ** Represents persons whose chief occupation w a s ,farming, but who produced nonfarm housing in 1949 . *** Includes a wide range of activities, none of which was significant enough numerically to classify separately, such ass architecture, insurance, officials or employees in retail trade and manufacturing, medicine, the ministry, resort or theater operation, and a number of others. 25 Table 7»— Percent distribution of operative builders in I9I+9, by year of entry into operative residential building, in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas Total, United States Year B e f o r e I9 3 O .................................... 10 12 18 8 22 1*0 12 Before 1 9 3 5 . . . .................................................................... . ................................................. ............................................................. I9I4.6-U 8 ........................................ ............................. ........... B e fo r e 1 Qi+O ....................... I9I4.Q............................................ ............................................. Unknow n , T t 11- - -«t T •- •*•-1- - ■ - <- •- - *.............. Nonme tropoli tan areas Metropolitan areas 12 1I421 10 26 7 9 Ik 1+ 16 33 51 10 15 Table 8.— Private 1-j.amily houses started by operative- and owner-builders: Distribution by price class, by activity in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, and by size of operative-builders * 1-family-house operations, 19^9 Percent of houses in specified pricedclass— $15,000 $ 6,000 $7,500- $10 ,000 Under or more $6,000 7,1*99 9,999 ii*,999 Item All price classes All operative-builders..... In metropolitan areas.... In nonmetropolitan areas.. 100 100 100 6 2 39 16 Ik 36 38 33 16 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 28 (2) 20 11 Ik 13 9 15 17 21 Size of operations (1-family houses started In 19U9) 1 house................ 2-b houses............. 5-9 houses...... ...... 10-21+ houses..... ..... 25 -1+9 houses........... 50-99 houses........... 100-21+9 houses......... 250 or more houses..... All owner-builders......... In metropolitan areas.... In nonmetropolitan areas.. 100 100 100 100 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 23 28 6 11 7 39 6 Unknown 27 30 9 7 8 7 8 (2) (2) (2) 27 (2) (2) 19 2k 2k 30 33 35 13 12 13 10 10 11 30 3k 1+8 51 39 28 11 12 10 19 23 17 19 21 Median price $9,200 9,500 6,1+00 8,800 9,000 9,700 10,200 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 10 17 25 22 19 8,900 11,600 16 6,700 12 9,600 9,100 8,700 8,600 See footnotes on p. 38 . Table 9.— Commercial residential builders: Distribution by type of builder, by extent of activity in building construction, in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 19^9 Type of builder All commercial builders.................... Operative builders....................... General contractors..... ................ Operative builders-general contractors;... Number of builders 109,800 1+8,800 5*+,000 7,000 Percent of builders having building construction's — Percent for whom extent of building Principal Subordinate Sole activity was business business business unknown Total, United States 66 62 68 81 9 9 9 11 20 25 18 1+ 1+ 1+ (2) (2) 18 21+ ll+ 5 5 5 (2) (2) Metropolitan areas All commercial builders.................... Operative builders....................... General contractors...................... Operative builders-general contractors.... 60,100 67 28,800 62 26,200 70 78 5,100 10 9 11 12 Nonmetropolitan areas All commercial builders.................... Operative builders....................... General contractors...................... Operative builders-general contractors;... See footnotes on p. 38 . 1+9,700 20,000 27,800 1,900 66 62 67 89 9 10 8 26 22 2 2 3 (2) (2) (2} 23 26 Table 10.— Private nonfarm dwelling unite started by commercial builders: Distribution b y type of builder, b y extent of builders* activity in building construction, in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 19^9 Type of builder Number of dwelling units Percent of dwelling units started by builders having building construction-^ as— Sole business Principal business Subordinate business Percent of units for which extent of builders' activity was unknown Total, United States All commercial builders.................... Operative builders....................... General contractors...................... Operative builders-general contractors.... 698,200 1440,900 171,700 All commercial builders...... ......... . Operative builders.............. ........ General contractors................... . Operative builders-general contractors.... 577,600 380,500 122,900 85,600 12 11 12 78 78 76 78 8 8 9 6 16 2 3 3 (2) Metropolitan areas 74,200 12 11 II4 79 80 78 77 6 6 5 5 18 3 3 3 (2) Nonmetropolitan areas All commercial builders.................... Operative builders....... ............... General contractors...................... Operative builders -general contractors.... 120,600 60,14-00 148,800 11,1400 16 9 11 7 73 73 71 85 15 20 (2) (2) (2) (2) 0 (2) See footnotes on p. 38 . Table 11.— Commercial residential builders: Distribution by size of operations, by extent of activity in building construction, in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 19^9 Size of operations (dwelling units started in 19^9 ) Number of builders Total..................................... 1 unit.................................. 2-1+ units.............................. . 5-9 units............................... IO-2 I4 units............................. 25 -I49 units............................. 50-99 units.............................. 100 or more units........................ 109,800 Total..................................... 1 unit.................................. 2-14 units............................... 5-9 units................................ IO-2I4 units............................. 25-149 units............................. 50-99 units......... .................... 100 or more units........................ Percent of builders haying building construction5 as-Sole business Principal business Subordinate business Percent for whom extent of building activity was unknown Total, United States 66 61 61+ 85 71+ 9 8 11 6 li+ 20 27 20 6 10 2,000 81 1,250 900 85 80 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 60,100 67 62 146,500 1+0,550 11,700 6,900 1+ 1+ 5 (2) ( 2) ( 2) ( 2) ( 2) Metropolitan areas 20,1+00 22,850 7,600 900 1+9,700 66 26,100 60 17,700 i+,100 1,550 (5) (5) 0 67 97 56 5,350 1,150 18 26 8 11 9 11 62 79 79 79 81+ 80 1,850 10 (2) ( 2) (2) 20 . 8 5 1+ 7 (*) (2) (2) (2) ( 2) ( 2) ( 2) ( 2) ( 2) Nonmetropolitan areas Total..................................... 1 unit.................................. 2-1+ units............................... 5-9 units............................... 10-214 units............................. 25-^-9 units.......................... 50-99 units............................. 100 or more units....................... See footnotes on p.38 . 1 10 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) 0 9 8 , 0 23 29 20 ( 2) (?) ( 2) ( 2) 0 2 3 (2) ( 2) ( 2) ( 2) (2) 0 27 Table 12.--Private nonfarm dwelling units started by commercial builders: Distribution b y size of operations, by extent of builders' activity in building construction, in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 19^9 Size of operations (dwelling units started in 19M-9) Number of dwelling units Percent of dwelling units started by builders having.building construction ^ as-Principal business Sole business Subordinate business Percent of units for which extent of builders' ac tivity was unknown Total, United States Total............... ....... 1 unit.................... 2 -if units......... ....... 5-9 units................. l0 -2if units............... 25-^9 units............... 50-99 units...... .......... 100 or more units......... 698,200 if6,500 107,850 70 ,if00 95,050 67,350 75,100 235,950 78 60 69 85 7 76 Ik 12 10 Ik 81 85 82 2 8 28 18 6 12 8 10 7 (2) («) (2) 3 (2) (2) (2) (2) 2 2 6 26 17 7 7 (2) ( 2) 3 (2) (2) (2) ( 2) ( 2) ( 2) 2 2 16 Metropolitan areas Total...... . ....... ....... 1 unit.................... 2 -if units................. 5-9 units................. 10 -2 *4- units........ ...... 25-if9 units............... 50-99 units............... 100 or more units......... 577,600 79 12 20,400 60,550 49,400 78,450 61,350 71,500 235,950 62 (2) 67 11 10 80 11 79 79 8*f Ik 10 Ik 82 Nonmetropolitan areas Total....... ............... 1 unit.................... 2 - k units................. 5-9 units................. 10 -2 units.......... . 25 -J+9 units............... 50-99 units............... 100 or more units......... 120,600 26,100 73 60 9 (2) V7,300 71 96 57 10 18 (2) (2) (2) (2) 25 (2) (2) (2) 21,000 16,600 6,000 3,600 0 29 (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 See footnotes on p. 38 .. Table; 13.--Commercial residential builders: Distribution by type of builder, by builders* typeof-structure specialization, and by activity in metropolitan and ndnmetropolitan areas, 19^9 All Type of builder bnl1dera Number I Percent All commercial builders.. Operative builders... General contractors.... Operative buildersgeneral contractors.. Residential builders starting— 1-family 1-family and multiMultifamily houses only family structures structures only Number | Percent Number | Percent Number l Percent Total, United States 109,800 If8,800 5*f,000 100 100 100 9 6 ,6 5 0 if0,150 5 0 ,7 5 0 7,000 100 5 ,7 5 0 88 82 9*f M 50 1 ,5 5 0 1,700 82 1,200 8,700 7,100 1 ,5 5 0 8 15 3 (1) (2) 6,500 5,000 1 ,^ 5 0 17 6 18 (1) (2) 2 2,200 2,100 (1) if 10 (1) (2) if 3 3 17 Metropolitan areas All commercial builders.. Operative builders... General contractors.... Operative buildersgeneral contractors.. 60,100 28,800 26,200 100 100 100 49,950 2 2 ,4 0 0 2 3 ,4 0 0 5,100 100 4 ,1 5 0 A13 commercial builders.. Operative builders... General contractors.... Operative buildersgeneral contractors.. if9 ,7 0 0 20,000 27,800 100 100 100 if6,700 1 7 ,7 5 0 2 7 ,3 5 0 9*i 89 98 (1) (2) (2) 1,900 100 1,600 8if (1) (2) See footnotes on p. 38. 83 78 89 3 ,6 5 0 l,if00 1 ,3 5 0 81 900 NonmetroiDolitan areas 800 (1) 6 5 5 11 (2) 28 Table ll+.— Private nonfarm dwelling units started by commercial builders: Distribution by builders* type-of-structure specialization, and by activity in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 19^9 Type of builder Total number All commercial builders.. Operative builders.... General contractors.... Operative buildersgeneral contractors Dwelling units started by builders of-Multifamily 1 -family and multifamily structures structures only only Total Total Total Percent Percent Percent number number number Total, United States All dwelling units started 1 -family houses Percent 698,200 1+1+0,900 171,700 100 100 100 1+61+, 500 292,150 117,250 85,600 100 55,100 18 21 67 106,500 55,700 22 ,1+00 15 13 13 127,200 66 68 61+ 28 ,1+00 33 (1) (2) 57 100,750 55,150 20,1+50 17 15 17 117,050 83,150 31,850 20 22 26 63 25,150 3^ u) (2) 10,150 8 16 93,050 32,050 19 Metropolitan areas All commercial builders.. Operative builders.... General contractors.... Operative buildersgeneral contractors 577,600 380,500 122,900 100 100 100 359,800 62 21+2,200 70,600 61+ 74,200 100 1+7,000 Nonmetrojjolitan areas All commercial builders.. Operative builders.... General contractors.... Operative buildersgeneral contractors 120,600 60,1+00 1+8,800 100 100 100 104,700 49,950 46 ,630 87 83 96 5,750 (i) (1) 5 (2) (2) 11 ,1+00 100 8,100 71 (1) (2) 9,900 SCI) (2) ( 1) (2) See footnotes on p . 38. Table 15.— Private nonfarm dwelling units started by commercial builders: Distribution by type of builder, by activity in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, and by type of structure, 19I+9 Type of builder Total, United States Metropolitan areas Nonmetropolitan areas Number of Percent Number of Percent Percent Number of Percent Percent dwelling dwelling distri of total Iwelling distri of total distribution bution units units U. S. bution units U. S. All dwelling units 698,200 100 577,600 1+1+0,900 171,700 63 25 380,500 122,900 85,600 12 All commercial builders.. Operative builders.... General contractors.... Operative buildersgeneral contractors 520,850 324,900 125,550 100 62 21+ 70,400 11+ All commercial builders.. Operative builders.... General contractors.... Operative buildersgeneral contractors 57,900 37,100 ll+,800 100 61+ 6,000 10 All commercial builders.. Operative builders.... General contractors.... Operative buildersgeneral contractors 119,^50 All commercial builders.. Operative builders..... General contractors.... Operative buildersgeneral contractors See footnotes on p . 38. 26 100 66 21 120,600 60,1+00 1+8,800 100 50 17 11+ 1+0 28 11 ,1+00 10 13 107,600 50,200 1+7,800 100 21 ^7 1+1+ 15 38 60,800 86 15 2 -1+ family structures 9,600 9 lb 46,100 100 80 26,900 13,800 58 30 73 93 11,800 10,200 100 86 20 27 83 86 72 7l+,200 13 87 1 -family houses 413,250 274,700 77,750 100 67 19 79 85 62 (l) (2) (2) 5,400 12 90 ( 1) 5 -or-more-family structures (2) (2) 118,250 100 99 100 78,900 31,350 67 31,350 100 66 26 26 100 100 9,200 8 8,000 7 87 78,900 (l) (1) (1) (2) ( 2) ( 2) ( 2) ( 2) (1) ( 2) (*) 29 Table l6.--Private nonfarm dwelling units started by commercial builders: Distribution by size of operations, by type of structure, and by activity in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 19*+9 Size of operations (dwelling units started in ±9k^) Total................ 1 unit............. 2 -1+ units.......... 5-9 units.......... 10 -21+ units........ 25-49 units........ 50-99 units........ 100-21+9 units...... 250 or more units... All dwelling units started Number Percent distri bution 698,200 100 46,500 7 15 107,850 70,1+00 95,050 67,350 75,100 95,350 11+0,600 10 11+ 10 11 Ik 20 Dwelling units in-2 -1+-family houses structures Percent Percent Number distri Number distri bution bution Total, United States 1 -family 520,850 1+6,500 89,100 62,700 76,450 100 57,900 9 17 0 51,500 64,950 10 12 12 67,500 13 62,150 12 15 18,750 5,000 7,600 8,850 (1) - 8,900 6,250 100 0 32 9 13 15 (3) 15 11 5 -or-more family structures Percent Number distri bution 119,1+50 0 0 (1) 11,000 7,000 10 ,1+00 21,500 66,850 100 0 0 (2) 9 6 9 18 56 Metropolitan areas Total................ 1 unit............. 2 -1+ units.......... 5-9 units........ .. 10 -21+ units........ 25-1+9 units........ 50-99 units........ 100-21+9 units...... 250 or more units... 577,600 20 ,1+00 60,550 1+9 ,1+00 78,1+50 61,350 71,500 95,350 11+0,600 100 1+ 10 9 ll+ 11 12 17 21+ 5 1+6,100 0 11 10 13,250 i+,8oo 62,150 15 6,500 100 0 29 10 11+ 50,450 58,550 64,950 12 11+ 16 16 3,900 (i) 8 (2) 8,900 6,250 19 Ik 413,250 20,400 47,300 41,950 100 67,500 118,250 0 0 (l) 9,800 7,000 10 ,1+00 21,500 66,850 100 0 0 (2) 8 6 9 18 57 Nonmetropolitan areas Total................ 1 unit............. 2 -1+ units.......... 5-9 units.......... 10 -21+ units........ 25 -1+9 units........ 50-99 units........ 100-21+9 units...... 250 or more units... 120,600 26,100 100 22 1+7,300 39 17 ll+ 5 3 See footnotes on p. 38. 21,000 16,600 6,000 3,600 0 0 0 0 107,600 26,100 1+1,800 20,750 H +,300 (i) 3,600 0 0 100 21+ 39 19 13 (2) 3 0 0 11,800 0 5,500 (1) (1) M50 0 0 0 100 0 1+7 (2) (2) 1+2 0 0 0 (1) 0 0 (1) (1) 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 (2) (2) 0 0 0 0 30 Table IT.— Commercial residential builders: Distribution by builders* type-of-structure specialization, by extent of activity in building construction, by type of builder, and by metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 19**9 Type of residential structure started Number of builders Percent of builders having building construction 3as— Sole business Principal business Subordinate business Percent for whoa extent of building activ ity was unknown All commercial builders All dwelling units..................... 1 -family houses only................. 1 -family and multifamily structures... Multifamily structures only.......... 109,800 96,650 4,450 8,700 66 67 7^ 53 20 20 9 9 13 7 1* 3 (2) (2) 3° 10 9 25 21* 2 (2) (2) (2) (2) 31* 10 18 18 1* 1* Operative builders All dwelling units..................... 1 -family houses only................. 1 -family and multifamily structures... Multifamily structures only.......... 1*8,800 1*0,150 All dwelling units..................... 1 -family houses only................. 1 -family and multifamily structures... Multifamily structures only.... ..... 51*,000 1,550 7,100 62 61* 72 51 10 1* General contractors 50,750 1,700 1,550 68 68 76 65 Operative All dwelling units..................... 1 -family houses only................. 1 -family and multifamily structures... Multifamily structures only.......... 7,000 81 5,750 1,200 83 73 (1) (2) 9 9 (2) (2) (2) (2) builders-general contractors (2) 11 10 (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Metropolitan areas All dwelling units..................... 1 -family houses only................. 1 -family and multifamily structures... Multifamily structures only.......... 60,100 49,950 3,650 6,500 All dwelling units..................... 1 -family houses only................. 1 -family and multifamily structures... Multifamily structures only.......... 49,700 67 68 77 51 10 10 (2) 8 18 18 5 1* (2) (2) 28 13 Nonmetropolitan areas See footnotes on p. 38. 46,700 800 2,200 66 66 9 9 (2) (2) (2) 61 23 23 2 (2) (2) (2) 36 3 31 Table 18.— Commercial residential builders: Distribution and average number of units started per builder, by size of operations, by type of residential structures started, and by activity in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 1949 Average number of dwelling units started per builder of— Multi1 -family 1 -family Multi1 -family and multifamily Total and multifamily houses family family structures structures units only only only structures structures Total, United States Percent of builders starting— Size of operations (dwelling units started in 1949) Total units 1 -family houses only 100 0 100 0 6 1 5 24 15 1 0 76 3 3 4 10 32 25 4 5 3 26 16 100 100 34 38 13 9 41 34 100 0 10 1 12 8 100 0 28 28 73 9 24 6 5 10 8 3 7 15 95 Total................ 1 unit............. 2-4 units.......... 5-9 units.......... 10-24 units........ 25 or more units.... 100 100 42 37 48 34 11 6 Total................ 1 unit........... '.. 2-4 units.......... 5-9 units.......... 10-24 units........ 25 or more units.... 20 8 8 8 6 14 91 Metropolitan areas 6 6 14 74 14 0 2 6 16 108 146 7 28 0 18 0 2 1 3 7 15 109 3 6 14 75 7 16 179 Nonmetropolitan areas Total........... . 1 unit............. 2-4 units.......... 5-9 units.......... 10-24 units........ 25 or more units.... 100 100 53 36 56 33 8 8 3 3 (2) (2) 100 0 (2) (2) (2) (2) 100 0 88 (2) (2) (2) 2 1 2 1 3 5 3 5 11 (1) 11 (i) 7 5 0 (1) (1) (1) (1) 0 3 (i) (1) (1) See footnotes on p. 38 Table 19 .--Private nonfarm dwelling units started by commercial builders: Distribution by size of operations, by builders1 type-of-structure specialization, and by activity in metro politan and nonmetropolitan areas, 19^9 Size of operations (dwelling units started in 1949) Number of dwelling units started Percent of dwelling units started by builders of— by builders of— MultiMulti1 -family 1 -family 1 -family 1 -family family Total Total and multiand multifamily houses houses family structures units family units structures only only only structures only structures Total, United States 698,200 46 ,500 107,850 Total............... 1 unit............ 2-4 units......... 5-9 units......... 10-24 units....... 25 or more units... 70,400 95,050 378,400 Total............... 1 unit............ 2-4 units......... 5-9 units......... 10-24 units....... 25 or more units... 577,600 20 > 0 0 60,550 1+9,400 76 ,1+50 368,800 464,500 46 ,500 86,950 59,050 67,950 204,050 106,500 0 5,000 7,100 16,300 78,100 127,200 0 15,900 100 4,250 10 10,800 96,250 l4 54 359,800 20 ,1+00 100,750 0 3 A 50 6,600 13,050 77,650 117,050 0 11,250 100 4,200 100 10 100 0 19 13 15 44 5 7 15 73 100 6 100 0 10 13 9 14 64 11 3 7 13 77 7 15 100 0 12 3 9 76 Metropolitan areas 1+5,850 38,600 55,150 199,800 10,250 91,350 3 15. 55 100 0 10 4 9 78 Nonmetropolitan areas Total............... 1 unit............ 2-4 units......... 5-9 units......... 10-24 units...... . 25 or more units... See footnotes on p. 120,600 26,100 104,700 5,750 26,100 0 47,300 41,100 20,450 21,000 16,600 9,600 38 . 12,800 4,250 (l) (1) (l) (l) 10,150 0 100 22 100 25 4,650 (1) (1) 39 17 14 20 12 4,900 8 4 39 100 0 (1) (1) (1) (1) 100 0 46 (1) (1) 48 32 Table 20 .— Private 1 -family houses started by operative builders: Distribution by size of operative builders* 1-family house operations, in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, 19*4-9 Total, United States Percent Number distribution Size of operations (l-family houses started in 19**9 ) 1 house............. 2 -k houses.......... 5-9 houses.......... 36,760 31,330 10-2*4- houses........ 51,260 2 5 -*4-9 houses...... . 50-99 houses........ **5,350 79, *4-20 **7,780 33,750 100-2*4-9 houses..... . 250 or more houses... 5 306,630 10,170 11 2^,530 100 3^2,260 16,610 Total................. Metropolitan areas Percent distribution Number 10 35,630 3 16 6,kk0 12,230 6,050 **,380 2,700 3,830 0 11 0 15 Ik 75,590 1+7,780 33,750 Ik 100 8 8 25,280 1*6,880 1*2,650 9 15 13 23 Nonmetropolitan areas Percent Number distribution 25 100 18 3** 17 12 8 11 0 0 Table 21 .--Number of residential builders: Percent distribution by type of builder, selected metropolitan areas, 19**95 Metropolitan area Number of builders Percent distribution Commercial builders All types of builders Atlanta, G a ........... Binghamton, N. Y ...... Boston, Mass.......... Chicago, 111....... *... Cleveland, Ohio....... 2,185 370 3,010 6,715 2,565 100 100 100 100 100 Dallas, Tex. ......... Dayton, Ohio.......... Denver, Colo.......... Detroit, Mich......... El Paso, Tex.......... 1,070 6*4-0 100 100 100 100 100 Grand Rapids, Mich. ... Lancaster, P a ......... Los Angeles, Calif. ... Miami, Fla............ Mobile, Ala. ......... New Haven, Conn....... New York, N. Y ........ Philadelphia, P a ...... Pittsburgh, Pa ........ San Francisco, Calif. . Seattle, Wash......... Stockton, Calif....... Tulsa, Okla.......... . Washington, D. C ...... See footnotes on p. 38. 1,600 5,105 335 1,065 *4-20 12,055 2,920 ^30 1,160 13,355 3,2*4-0 2,605 2,700 2, *+15 3**5 760 1,700 Total Operative builders General contractors 12 11 15 Operative buildersgeneral contractors Owner builders 35 30 20 kO 19 13 17 18 13 3 3 6 3 5 29 17 29 17 33 20 12 10 22 10 1 k 1 (2) 10 19 6 3 16 k 9 17 2 8 18 k 70 28 18 22 22 12 kl 57 71 26 3 3 2 10 12 2 66 18 k 55 9 11 3 *+ 63 3** 35 72 38 *+5 28 ko 100 100 100 100 100 32 29 100 100 100 100 100 30 53 *+3 29 59 100 100 100 100 3** **5 37 **7 kl 37 30 16 18 16 7 21 26 12 15 23 20 23 25 32 1 65 70 60 66 65 28 62 55 72 60 68 71 59 63 70 kl 53 33 Table 22.--Number of private nonfarm dwelling units started: Percent distribution by type of builder, se lected metropolitan areas, 19^ 9 5 Metropolitan area Population (1950 census) Number of All dwelling types of units started builders Percent of dwelling units started by-Commercial builders Operative Owner Operative General buildersTotal builders builders contractors general contractors Atlanta, Ga.......... Binghamton, N. Y ..... Boston, Mass......... Chicago, 1 1 1 ......... Cleveland, Ohio ..... 671,797 18*+,698 2,369,986 5,^95,361+ 1,465,511 1 0 ,21+0 1 ,0 2 5 8,170 26,1+00 1 1 ,8 0 0 100 100 100 100 100 87 76 76 81+ 85 69 1*7 1+6 39 5i* 13 12 21 31 10 5 17 9 ll+ 21 13 21+ 21+ 16 15 Dallas, Tex.......... Dayton, Ohio ........ Denver, Colo......... Detroit, Mich..... . El Paso, Tex......... 6 1 4 ,7 9 9 4 5 7 ,3 3 3 563,832 3 ,0 1 6 ,1 9 7 194,968 9,060 2 ,0 7 0 6,500 3 1 ,81+0 1 ,7 9 0 100 100 100 100 100 97 81 86 87 88 61 1+1+ 69 80 69 15 35 7 6 17 21 2 10 1 2 3 19 13 12 Grand Rapids, Mich. .. Lancaster, Pa. ...... Los Angeles, Calif. .. Miami, Fla..... L.... ..... Mobile, Ala. 288,292 2 3 4 ,7 1 7 >♦,363,911 495,084 2 3 1 ,1 0 5 2 ,61+5 1,030 71,000 1 5 ,8 7 0 1 ,0 3 5 100 100 100 100 100 72 67 89 88 71 29 li+ 61 55 21 13 33 16 ll+ 31 30 20 12 19 19 28 33 11 12 29 New Haven, Conn...... New York, N. Y .6 ..... Philadelphia, Pa ..... Pittsburgh, P a ....... San Francisco, Calif J 2 6 4 ,6 2 2 1 2 ,9 1 1 ,9 9 4 3 ,6 7 1 ,0 4 8 2,213,236 2 ,2 4 0 ,7 6 7 2 ,21+0 83,1+1+0 2 2 ,2 0 0 9 ,5 2 0 2 0 ,2 1 0 100 100 100 100 100 63 92 92 79 93 32 73 77 55 1*7 21 ll+ 11 16 29 10 5 1+ 8 17 37 8 8 21 7 Seattle, Wash........ Stockton, Calif...... Tulsa, Okla.......... Washington, D. C.®.... 7 3 2 ,9 9 2 2 0 0 ,7 5 0 251,686 1 ,4 6 4 ,0 8 9 6 ,6i+o 1 ,1 5 5 5 ,1 7 5 32,1+80 100 100 100 100 71 81+ 89 97 36 56 67 57 25 19 7 31* 10 9 15 6 29 16 11 3 See footnotes on p. 3 8 • Ik 34 Table 23 ._Commercial residential builders and private nonfarm dwelling units started: Percent distribution by size of builders* operations, selected metropolitan areas, 1949 ^ Size of 1949 operations (dwelling units started) Metropolitan area All size groups 1 2-4 5-21+ 25-^9 50-100 100 or more Percent distribution of builders San Francisco, Cal1f ,7 .... Seattle Wash• Stockton CalJf. Tuls**-, OkTa....... . Washington, D. C . 8 ........ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Atlanta, Ga. Binghamton, N. Y ........... Boston, Mass. ••••••«••••••• Hhl fAffn. Til. .............. Cleveland, Ohio •••••••••••• Tinl 1as Tev. ............... TlAvtnn. Ohio ............... TipnvPT. Colo. .............. Detroit, Mich. "pn Paso * Tex. .............. M i ch.* ***••••« TAnnAR+,6T. Pa. ............. Ta o AncreTea Calif. ........ Ml ami. Fla• ................ Mnh-f Ip n Ala................ rlUUXlvj -ucfc• •♦•♦••••••••••* iipu flaven Conn. ........... Y o r k ilCW J L v N. 41• YA . •^ .......... ••••••••••* Philadelphia. x uiXOUiCxj^uxai, Pa. *w • ......... .......... PIi+iRhiiriffh. P a . ............ Con T no nr*1 a n r \ .7 ..... gau fPxauuxDwu, • * ..... Rpat.tIs. Wash. ............. Rtnf’ D IiU^aktfin u UU, Calif. vC*XJ.a . ........... Tnl s a Olcl a. ............... Washington, D. C. 8 ........ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Binghamton, N. Y ........... Mnh-fl Ala.......... ..... New York/N. Y.6 .......... 29 21 21 22 25 30 28 30 29 1+2 31 1+2 36 36 32 39 31 30 36 40 33 1+0 20 39 43 37 1+8 23 39 1+0 39 16 29 1+1 20 33 33 1+1+ 31 45 3^ 29 29 31 29 39 20 27 53 40 24 26 1+1 27 33 26 29 28 25 34 23 29 35 26 18 14 26 23 14 15 37 27 4 1 2 5 5 3 4 2 8 4 2 2 2 5 2 2 2 4 4 2 1 2 4 5 2 1 (l) 2 3 3 (1) 2 4 5 1 0 1 2 0 (2) 4 3 3 1 (2) 1 5 3 2 1 (2) 2 1 2 (2) 1 4 2 (2) 0 2 2 2 (2) 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 6 Percent distribution of dwelling units started See footnotes on p. 3$ • 2 6 7 3 3 3 k 5 1 3 5 6 3 2 7 10 3 2 k 3 11 6 2 1 9 19 21 8 9 8 15 11 17 29 35 25 23 27 42 11 4 9 17 17 9 18 3 28 21 22 57 57 21 19 34 31 13 13 8 15 16 1+ 8 17 18 9 9 16 26 9 8 10 12 16 17 6 2 26 22 27 22 28 8 10 10 19 6 14 9 17 6 10 17 7 5 11 10 4 9 8 8 15 19 16 52 34 20 32 29 38 18 14 30 5 0 6 10 0 5 19 13 22 9 3 11 32 45 27 6 0 55 46 3^ 11 50 5^ 21 47 38 33 26 28 6 79 35 Table 2 k .— Commercial residential builders and private nonfarm dwelling units started: Percent distribution by type of builder and by builders* type-of-structure specialization, selected metropolitan areas, 19^9 5 Metropolitan area Binghamton, N. Y ....... Grand Rapids, Mich..... Los Angeles, Calif. .... New York, N. Y.6 ...... . philftctplphi a, P a ....... Pittsburgh, P a . ........ San Francisco, Calif .7 .. Seattle, Wash» ......... Stockton, Cal1f. ....... 'TillRPL Ok! A . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, D . C . 3 .... A+ lflivhfi- CIpl............. .. Binghamton, N» Y T . . . . . . ■Rnct.nn Mafia . .......... J( 1.• •. •. •. *. .• .• .• .• .• .■ vHV Uvlv C'*Be ^r vn^. T1 XJixi. f*1o v b 1« nr? . Oh In . . . . . . . . f l « 11 B e . T f i y . . . . . . . . . . . . Tiavton. Ohio T le m vP t' Col n. T J e + m l +•.. M 4 o h . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Tex . . . . . . . . . . . Grand Rapids, Mich..... tjn P o R n . T a rK ’ li.R t.fiT . P a . . . . . . . . . . Los Angeles, Calif..... KHrwiI PI a ............. Mrthi1g Ala . . . . . . . . . . . . Wa u Haven . Conn • . . . . . . . Ne w YX ov ir X kV.j N. ...... ilC n JL1 • Y.^ i> • « •«•••• Philadelphia, Pa. . . . . . . Pi t.t.RVniTfTh P a . . . . . . . . . San Francisco, Calif.7 . . e Wh r Vi - . . . . . . . . . Stockton, Ca1if. ....... Tnls?a Okla . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington, D. C . 3 .... See footnotes on p. 38. All commercial builders 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Commercial builders starting 1-family houses only Operative buildersGeneral Operative Total general contractors builders contractors Percent distribution of builders 8^ 87 96 95 92 86 86 81 96 8k 99 93 62 60 78 95 73 9k 86 77 91 71 87 88 k6 k9 k6 35 k9 30 30 37 51 35 38 8 8 13 9 12 13 69 Qk TJ k6 k Ik 19 60 3k 3^ 50 23 27 38 50 29 6 2 0 20 10 5 2k 2k 52 59 35 50 38 37 33 33 38 37 1*2 28 53 32 61 30 53 55 36 k2 k5 52 Uk 32 9k 58 9k 65 86 22 5 8 li* 23 75 79 57 70 89 87 97 86 82 5*+ 73 16 13 35 36 52 60 30 18 18 k 2 12 (2) 7 6 12 5 6 8 7 23 58 Percent distribution of dwelling units started k2 All other commercial builders 53 35 57 81 71 kO 21 35 17 37 U6 60 33 35 3^ ko 69 18 8 9 19 26 11 12 20 6 7 16 18 k9 8 7 19 32 7 9 1^ 12 11 16 k 2 k 7 10 15 22 Ik 2 1 1 0 39 20 5 10 8 13 1 k 7 11 9 9 13 2 k 16 1 7 38 40 22 5 27 6 Ik 23 9 29 13 12 58 31 16 23 25 21 ^3 30 11 13 3 ik 55 k8 ‘56 18 1+6 27 k6 k2 k6 35 Ik 78 Table Metropolitan area number of dwelling units per builder, by type of builder and by builders type-of-structure specialization, selected metropolitan areas, 19^ 9 * Average number of dwelling units started per builder Commercial builders starting All Operative 1-family houses only General Operative commer Operative builderscial Operative General general builders contractors buildersTotal Total general contractors builders builders contractors contractors Atlanta, G a ........... Binghamton, N. Y ...... Boston, Mass.......... Chicago, 111.......... 13 8 5 10 Cleveland, Ohio ...... Dallas, Tex........... Dayton/ Ohio ......... Denver, Colo.......... 11 11 7 8 Detroit, Mich......... El Paso, Tex.......... Grand Rapids, Mich. ... Lancaster, P a ........ . 18 Los Angeles, Calif. ... Miami, Fla............ Mobile, Al a........... New Haven, Conn....... 12 13 6 1+ New York, N. Y.6 ..... Philadelphia, P a ...... Pittsburgh, P a ........ San Francisco, Calif.7. 11 15 9 Seattle, Wash......... Stockton, Calif....... Tulsa, Okla........... Washington, D. C.®.... See footnotes on p. 38. 25 .--Average 11 6 5 1 8 19 17 5 11 9 10 5 7 6 17 7 9 3 3 3 2 19 13 5 10 33 17 21 13 51 20 15 5 7 39 5 11 17 12 6 5 2k 2k k k 3 k 11 0 11 11 1+8 9 69 9 0 0 3 7 1+ 5 9 11 3 1+ Ik 3 5 2 2 13 17 15 15 13 19 11 19 27 6 Ik 2k 2 3 3 3 i+0 8 12 9 1 10 9 2l+ 12 9 15 1^ 19 11+ 3 1+ 6 2 k k 8 26 21 5 5 16 3 1+ 5 8 16 12 Ik 16 6 6 k 5 5 11 11 1+ 7 k 2 ^3 ^9 5 10 17 30 12 13 1+ 3 5 7 9 9 15 11 8 11 6 8 7 13 5 6 i+ 8 1+ 5 3 • 6 3 8 Ik 16 12 7 28 Ik 16 36 37 26 9 11 5 53 2k 3 2 3 5 5 1+ 1+ 7 10 Operative General builders contractors 8 8 6 11 17 9 6 13 18 All other commercial builders k 6 3 3 1+ 1+6 7 7 18 k 21 17 1+6 3k 32 5 16 10 53 11 12 38 Ik 11 5 16 13 1+1 60 Operative buildersgeneral contractors 33 1+1 21 38 20 1+6 0 13 0 16 51 26 19 55 66 18 20 68 31 26 16 9 97 30 23 26 18 Ik 32 28 16 26 17 9 12 156 1+6 18 7 12 l+ 68 139 8 15 232 689 3^ Table 26.— Commercially built private nonfarm dwelling units: Percent distribution b y type of structure and b y type of builder, selected metropolitan areas, 19**9 5 Metropolitan area All commercially built dwelling units All types of builders Percent distribution 1-family houses started by Dwellings in 2 -or-more-family structures started by Operative Operative General General Operative buildersAll types buildersOperative general general contractors builders of builders builders contractors contractors contractors 19 27 5 10 10 15 51 22 15 19 1*1* 8 5 8 6 2 8 10 1 12 2 1 ^3 55 1*0 68 11 13 22 6 21* 19 3 10 22 13 35 1 3 20 2 1 3 16 20 7 15 13 86 75 1*1 21 7 18 18 1 1 1*1 28 6 6 (2) 3 6 l* 0 0 (2) 1 (2) 2 0 1 (2) 1 60 88 52 1*1 19 1*1 11 8 21 33 10 15 20 lk 27 36 1*0 12 17 21 11 9 6 9 23 1 1* 6 6 2 100 100 100 100 59 80 60 75 1*8 67 37 1*1* 8 9 15 1*1 20 1*0 25 32 16 3 l* 8 15 33 7 7 3 5 15 2 1 2 3 100 100 100 100 63 83 91 27 1*0 53 71 21 11 20 5 3 12 10 15 3 37 17 9 73 10 13 5 37 2l* 3 3 33 3 1 1 3 *+9 36 8 78 85 5k Ik 81 56 39 100 100 100 100 78 * 87 65 81* Detroit, Mich..... . £1 Paso, Tex........... Grand Rapids, Mich. .... Lancaster, P a ....... . 100 100 100 100 9k Los Angeles, Calif..... Miami, Fla.......... . Mobile, A l a ............ New Haven, Conn........ 100 100 100 100 New York, N. Y. 6 ...... Philadelphia, P a ....... Pittsburgh, P a ......... San Francisco, Calif.7.. Seattle, Wash........ . Stockton, Calif........ Tulsa, Okla............ Washington, D . C .8 .... Atlanta, G a ............ Binghamton, N. Y ....... Boston, Mass........... Chicago, 111........... 100 100 100 100 Cleveland, Ohio ....... Dallas, Tex............ Dayton, Ohio .......... Denver, Colo........... 100 97 73 6k 1*8 16 0 1 See footnotes on p . 38 • u> <1 38 Footnotes 1 Insufficient 2 Less number to shov separately. than 0.5 percent of total. 3 With overall responsibility, as an operative residential builder or a general contrac tor, or both; special trade contracting is not classified as building construction for purposes of these tables. ^Includes price of land. For owner-built houses, data are based on owner’s best esti mate of reasonable value of the house at time of completion. 5 The estimates of the average size of builders, the distribution of firms by type of builder and by type of structures built, and other ratios shown in these tables for 2^ se lected metropolitan areas, are based on the number of dwelling units started according to sample data collected in the ”1949 Survey of the Residential Building Industry.” For some areas, previously published data on dwelling units started, obtained from Bureau surveys conducted for other purposes, may differ from the basic starts information used in this study, because of differences in the sample. See May 1951 Supplement to Construction, monthly publication of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and BLS Bulletin 1115, New Housing in Metropolitan Areas, 1949-51* In addition to the privately owned dwellings shown, the following numbers of units in public housing projects were started in 1949: Atlanta, 16; Binghamton, 166; Boston, 4,970; Chicago, 851; Denver, 88; II Paso, 48; New Haven, 8l; New York, 20,813; San Fran cisco, 28; and Washington, 128. 6Data for New York are affected materially by exclusion of public housing from this survev, since a substantial amount of public housing was begun there in 1949* (See footnote 5.) The average size of builders' operations, especially in the case of the general con tractors, and the importance of general contractors' output in the total are thereby mini mized. 7Results presented here for the San Francisco area, for the most part, are generally in agreement with Maisel's findings. Exact comparisons should not be attempted, however, b e cause the Maisel study covered housing completed in 1949 and the survey upon which this report is based, covered housing started. 8Data for Washington, D. C. reflect an extraordinary amount of large elevator-type apartment building in 1949 by general contractors. Note: Where percent distributions are shown, components may not always add to 100 b e cause of rounding. U. S. G O V E R N M E N T P R IN T IN G O F F IC E : 1954 0 — 3 2 4 3 4 7
@FedFRASER