efforts to maintain rail service on the shoreline route of the Chicago, Milwaukee, and North Shore Railroad; in establishing a heliport, and a recreational boat harbor on Lake Michigan; and in developing more effective solutions to the ever-increasing volume of vehicular traffic which funnels through Evanston on its way to other suburbs. Solutions to our traffic problems will involve studies covering not just Evanston and Chicago but parts of our States-Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan.

The architectural profession in these four States, as a public service, already has formed a Lake Michigan Planning Committee which is doing all that a powerless private group can to encourage coordinated planning for the complex region which surrounds this great lake. Its work can be supported and greatly assisted by a national Department of Urban Affairs.

According to Webster, the term "urban" denotes either "city" or "town." An important phase of the HHFA's work, the 701 program, deals with the correlated planning of small towns and rural communities, some of which contain as few as 2,000 to 3,000 persons. Many of these towns are in agricultural areas others are rural nonfarm towns such as are found in the river valleys of Pennsylvania and West Virginia, in the mining districts of southern Illinois and similar pockets of chronic unemployment elsewhere throughout the Nation. The 701 program must be expanded and broadened and put on a continuing basis. And it must be "co-related" to the population growth of surrounding neighborhood areas and regions. While my city of Evaston is relatively large, as compared with many U.S. cities, I readily recognize that the problems of the smaller community require the attention of a helpful Federal department.

There are, of course, numerous other potential advantages to be accrued under a Department of Urban Affairs. One of these is the opportunity to develop a major, consolidated research program on urban planning and development problems, including all phases of housing, material, and construction research. Such a research program also would involve broad studies into the new design and redesign of communities in order to improve knowledge and techniques in the building and rebuilding of our cities and towns.

The AIA and its members, by the very nature of our profession, have been closely associated with the development of building codes, housing codes, zoning and subdivision control ordinances and other regulatory measures affecting the design and construction of all building types in all types of locality. We know that many of these must be updated but regretfully often find it impossible to accomplish the necessary and long overdue modernizations and improvements. The Federal Government, with its expanding responsibility of assisting urban areas, also is vitally concerned with these matters. We foresee in a Department of Urban Affairs a new vehicle under which concerted efforts can be directed toward a better national comprehension of the need to improve and develop uniform national regulatory measures on which both Federal and local programs must be predicated. The Nation pavs heavily for the waste inherent in the thousands of conflicting local building codes.

We believe through the strengthening of the urban housing and planning functions of the Federal Government that inevitably would occur under a Department of Urban Affairs, a more comprehensive,

consistent, and effective program will be obtained locally, resulting in better urban design and urban building throughout the country.

An English critic, whose name unfortunately I cannot recall, once said that America builds the most beautiful buildings and the ugliest cities. This statement, together with my own observation, causes me to wonder about the policy statement which appears in the proposed bill. It speaks of the needs of our Nation in terms of decent homes, employment opportunities, stable tax base, growth, and security. Nothing, however, recognizes the human craving for beauty and true amenity in our environment. Efficiency, order, and productivity are, indeed, all worthy goals. Yet I would hope that beauty might also be an objective, that in the building and rebuilding of our cities we might create an environment which we can show to the world with pride as a proper product and true image of our great democratic Nation, so that the words, "America the beautiful," now a pious hope, may some day state a proud reality.

Chairman DAWSON. Mr. Fascell?

Mr. FASCELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Will, I gathered three important points from your testimony. I was particularly interested in your statement that the position of the association was not lightly taken, and it has been a position which has been registered over a number of years.

Mr. WILL. Correct.

Mr. FASCELL. I assume, of course, that I am correct in stating that you probably have many shades of political thinking in your organization, with many thousand members?

Mr. WILL. I feel that you are right. There is nothing more individual than an architect.

Mr. FASCELL. During the discussion of this particular program has there been any evidence of a division along party line thinking of Republican or Democratic?

Mr. WILL. None that I am aware of. The endorsement to propose the Department of Urban Affairs was taken at a convention, and to the best of my recollection, that action was unanimous, or very nearly

So.

Mr. FASCELL. I was also very much interested in the definition, and I am glad that you found Webster, by the way, because there seems to have been confusion in the minds of some of our witnesses about the scope of the legislation.

There was not in my mind, but I am glad that you put me back on the right side about the definition of "urban," meaning "city" and "town," and that covers all of the small towns as well as the large metropolitan areas.

That certainly is my understanding. In other words, you see, the need is just as great in the small farm community or the nonfarm rural community as it is in the large metropolitan area.

Mr. WILL. May I illustrate?

It happens that I spend summers in a very small community in the lower peninsula of Michigan. It was a very nice summer resort area. The principal town has a population of something under 2,000, rather a poor town. As a matter of fact, summer business is really what supports the town. It is in danger of becoming what I would describe as a resort slum. They lack the funds or the technique to do planning, but they have begun to recognize that they do have a prob

lem. There are some young people in the community who are now approaching the State and saying, "Is there not something we can do to save this lovely area from destruction?" They have a planning problem.

Mr. FASCELL. Finally, I would certainly agree with you on your emphasis on a study. We are only here a short time, and our environment might as well be lovely as any other way.

Mr. WILL. Many of our citizens travel abroad and see the great cities of the world elsewhere. I think there should be reciprocal traveling from there to this country to see the beauties of this country. I do not mean to say that there are none.

Mr. FASCELL. We can, of course, always do better.

Mr. WILL. We can always do better. We are dedicated to that. Mr. FASCELL. Thank you.

Chairman DAWSON. Mr. Anderson.

Mr. ANDERSON. I have one question, Mr. Will. I was interested in the statement that you made on page 4 that:

We foresee in the Department of Urban Affairs a new vehicle under which concerted efforts can be directed toward a better national comprehension of the need to improve and develop uniform national regulatory measures on which both Federal and local programs must be predicated.

I take it from that that your association would be in favor of Federal building codes and national building codes; is that right? Would that be as a precondition to the extension of, let us say, Federal assistance in the form of urban renewal loans and grants, or do you foresee that under the vehicle of this Department, we might have those codes generally without respect to whether or not it was accompanied by the dispensation of Federal aid, grants, or loans?

Mr. WILL. I would not feel as a precondition-the preparation of a national building code would involve years of study. The whole program would have to wait, if it were preconditioned.

A national building code, as we see it, would allow for local variation. We still have climate in this country which varies substantially. There are reasons for particular provisions in various localities. Nevertheless, there is a lot that is meaningless and causes tremendous costs to industry, which has to manufacture the products to meet all of these various codes. It does make housing far more costly than it should be. I think you will find this has been, or will be, supported by those in the housing industry. This is something I would like to proceed on whether or not we have a department.

If we have a department, I think it will more likely happen. Mr. ANDERSON. You feel that it would come about quicker under the aegis of a department?

Mr. WILL. Yes.

Mr. ANDERSON. One more question that occurs to me on the same page, the expression that you use here of potential advantages under this proposed department. In other words, you really foresee this as merging into something far greater than what may be stated in your organic act that has been introduced here, do you not?

Mr. WILL. I think that the history of most departments would justify that expectation, yes.

Mr. ANDERSON. That is all I have.

Chairman DAWSON. Thank you, Mr. Will.

Mr. WILL. Thank you very much.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Will, do the architects consider themselves as a part of the overall real estate industry?

Mr. WILL. No, I would say not.

Mr. ROCKWELL. Well, I would agree with that.

Mr. WILL. I think that we would find ourselves on the opposite side of the fence as much as we are together.

Mr. HENDERSON. But you do have to work closely with the real estate industry, do you not?

Mr. WILL. We frequently do, but not as closely as sometimes we would like.

Mr. HENDERSON. Do you have to consider financing and things like that?

Mr. WILL. Yes; we do.

Mr. HENDERSON. And such problems?

Mr. WILL. Yes.

Mr. HENDERSON. So that certainly the American Institute of Architects is not likely to be taking a position which is by itself?

Mr. WILL. We are not interested in defending a prerogative of any special group. Sometimes I think we even act against our own selfinterest. The architect, as I see it, has to be creative, first. Our concern right now is not simply with individual building; we are deeply concerned on the larger scale planning problem.

The members of our profession have given of their personal time and the time of their staffs to setting the pattern for central business districts in many communities around the Nation. We put on planning programs and land clearance programs and serve on such commissions, so that we are intimately involved in the program that is envisaged by this bill.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you again, very much.

Mr. WILL. We thank you.

Chairman DAWSON. Our next witness is Mr. W. C. Dutton, executive director of the American Institute of Planners.

STATEMENT OF W. C. DUTTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PLANNERS; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT GLADSTONE, ASSOCIATE, HAMMER & CO. ASSOCIATES; AND JOSEPH L. INTERMAGGIO, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING STUDIES, WASHINGTON CENTER FOR METROPOLITAN STUDIES, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. DUTTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the American Institute of Planners wishes to make known to the Subcommittee on Executive and Legislative Reorganization of the House Committee on Government Operations its support of proposals to create a Department of Urban Affairs and Housing.

First, I should like to introduce Mr. Robert Gladstone, on my left, and Mr. Joseph Intermaggio on my right, who are here as individual members of the American Institute of Planners to assist me in answering any questions you might have.

I would like also to present Mr. Wise's apologies for not being here. He intended to be here in his capacity as chairman of our national legislative committee, but there was a late call to attend a meeting

in Philadelphia involving a large industrial development project. He is serving as a consultant there. He regrets he cannot be here.

I would like to present the statement on behalf of our institute. Referring to the first part of my statement, let me say that we had the pleasure of meeting with you 2 years ago on a similar matter.

The American Institute of Planners is the professional society of city and regional planners in the United States. Its 2,700 members account for the professional planning staffs in city planning, housing, and urben renewal agencies in American communities. They have the primary responsibility for planning local and State and federally aided programs of planning, urban development and urban renewal. Other members of the institute, in private practice, serve as consultants to local State and Federal agencies on problems of city planning and urban renewal. The experience with urban programs at all levels of government and in all parts of the country is reflected in these views concerning the importance of the proposed legislation.

We have been discussing this matter within our professional organization for a number of years and a very strong position has been taken by the institute.

In supporting H.R. 6433, we would like to present the following points for consideration:

First, there are a number of very important Federal programs of aid to urban development, housing and city and metropolitan planning, which have become of great significance to our urban areas, and we believe that adequate justification exists to lift these programs into a departmental status.

Second, the desirability of providing maximum opportunities for coordination of the several programs is evident from the past experience with the several constituent agencies of the present Housing and Home Finance Agency. Recognition of the importance of urban activities of the Federal Government and their proper coordination has been urged for about 25 years.

Third, responsibility and authority for developing new programs and techniques as may be needed to cope with urban problems should be pinpointed. This is necessary if we are to deal with the twin problems, urban blight and our future population growth. Such an assignment appropriately belongs within a department organized to concern itself with major urban problems.

Fourth, the establishment of a clear cut point of authority within the Federal Government is needed to permit local planning agencies and their governments to plan more effectively and to establish cooperative liaison with national agencies. The confusion that often is created locally by lack of coordination between major urban programs is well known.

Fifth, in order to most effectively establish and nurture government at the municipal, county, metropolitan, and State levels in urban affairs, general leadership is needed from the Federal Government. In addition to the action programs which are carried out at present, the vital problems of local government personnel, public finance, research and information services, and encouragement of intergovernmental cooperation in local areas are areas of concern appropriate to the proposed Department.

(1) Our urban areas and their problems have become a dominant factor in our domestic affairs. Two-thirds or more of our national