Along with zoning, building regulations have been much in the news lately. Critics have argued that their detailed provisions, and delays in approvals and inspections, have helped create problems of housing affordability. Developers, in particular, have found them onerous. But, after they became common across North America in the late nineteenth century, for decades regulations attracted little attention from historical scholars. In The Type V City, Jean Ripple aims to change that.

“Type V” is how municipal officials and builders refer to the cheapest, lightest, and also most combustible type of construction: wood frame. For some time, it has also been the most common type of construction in Canada as well as the United States, particularly in suburban areas, although a century ago its share of the market varied more by city and region. When first developed, and to this day, its significance is understood primarily in terms of fire risk, as well as ease and cost of construction. But, using five case studies, Ripple argues that its social, economic, and political effects have been, and remain, more general.

She briefly notes some benefits, notably cost, overlooking the ability of many amateurs to build, extend, or renovate their own homes. But, in addition to fire risk, she emphasizes the downsides. Its ubiquity and standardization have made building methods (and housing styles) less responsive to regional resources and conditions. Buildings are less durable and require more maintenance, so that in the long run they are no cheaper, and no better at limiting carbon emissions. She refers to research which has shown that, even after controlling for household income, race, and education, the dwellings and neighborhoods of Type V construction have been associated with greater disinvestment, foreclosures, and abandonment. Summing up her argument, she observes that, for good and ill, Type V exemplifies the “American pursuit of short-term convenience and self-reliant opportunity,” “serving as the lowest common denominator to facilitate widespread home ownership” (p. 171).

Ripple illustrates, rather than sustains, her argument through five essays, each focusing on particular issues in specific cities. To illustrate varied settings and histories, the case studies extend from coast to coast (New York and Philadelphia, Seattle), and north to south (Chicago, Tampa). Chicago pioneered balloon framing, the epitome of the Type V method. Rapid standardization encouraged economies of scale along with large industries for production, distribution, and marketing. These industries in turn shaped the character of regulations, which had incidental longer-term effects on disinvestment. In New York, Type V has been deployed inappropriately in areas that have been disaster- and flood-prone, even though lightweight softwood is water-absorbent and sensitive. In Philadelphia, unusually, pressure from unions and builders meant that brick construction was mandated for many decades, disadvantaging blacks who were excluded from the higher-paying construction jobs. Ripple argues that if there had been no racialized discrimination as well as no Type V construction, brick homes would have been widely affordable. Her claims about Chicago and New York make sense, but not so much for Philadelphia. At best, only a minority of African Americans could ever have worked in construction, so that most would have found the more demanding Type III or IV properties unaffordable.

Ripple develops other arguments in Tampa and Seattle. In Tampa, she focuses on Central Avenue, a predominantly black neighborhood. Here she shows in detail how regulations can shape land use, with varied social consequences, most dramatically during urban renewal and reconstruction. Finally, she turns to Seattle, the youngest of the cities and one that has shown some striking booms in a context where regulation has been quite lax and wood has been readily available. The ubiquity of Type V standards has encouraged, and facilitated, improvisation and the rapid replacement of structures. The most recent innovation has been the “five-over-one”: in five-story apartments, frame construction sits on higher-rated, usually concrete, foundations.

The case studies are themselves solidly grounded and well-illustrated. Indeed, the group of color maps at the beginning is striking. (It is unclear whether Ripple made them herself.) Some aspects of building regulation that the cities illustrate are more familiar than others, but together they serve to underline the significance of a type of municipal activity that has received less attention than it should. Business historians would probably like to have known more about the views and actions of builders, developers, and lenders, especially in Chicago and Philadelphia, but there is only so much that chapter-length case studies can show.

For this reviewer, a more significant limitation is that The Type V City says nothing about the suburbs, which is where Type V has always been most common, and where most Americans now live. Historically, suburban governments have varied widely in the ways and extent to which they have regulated land use and construction. Many have been lax, some to the point of not bothering to enact, or effectively to enforce, controls. That has had downsides, for example, public health in un-serviced districts, but also benefits, notably in providing readier access to home ownership. By focusing on inner cities, and emphasizing the disadvantages of Type V, Professor Ripple has told only part of the regulatory story.

But it is an important part, and she directs our attention to neglected issues in ways that might encourage others to dig deeper. In particular, readers of this journal might be inspired to explore the role of the lumber industry in promoting and shaping Type V; or the more general influence of unions, contractors, land developers, lenders and, from the 1930s, the Federal Housing Administration. There is a potentially rich business history here which still needs to be explored.