The adequacy of a nations' housing is not only a central feature of its living standards but can also serve as a reflection of socio-political involvement and development. Its structural dimensions will have a direct bearing on life style which, in turn will regulate the demand for consumer goods of many kinds. The sociological desirability of adequate housing has now progressed beyond the confines of the sanitary school of thought associated with Edwin Chadwick, (Dilke 1885) but how far is still a matter of conjecture. Much of the Newsom Report (1963) on the education of children aged 13 - 16 of 'average or less than average ability', and a great part of the Plowden Report (1967) on primary education was addressed to the Minister of Housing and Local Government rather than to the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Houses, although "consumers' goods" because they are used directly by the people who live in them, possess certain characteristics that sufficiently distinguish them to place them in a "consumers' goods" category of their own. And it is some of these features that have been responsible for lack of progress, both in the provision of quantity and quality in the housing field. As Bowley (1945) states, ''Houses have certain very tiresome and peculiar economic characteristics. From the point of view of economists they are neither 'fish, fowl nor good red herring'." The distinguishing features are, of course, their high capital cost and extreme durability. And, of the two, the high capital cost has been the predominant factor in the provision of housing for the vast population of average and below average income.