Subsidized and/or Affordable Housing

[mplsjaromir]

I think the "poor door" brouhaha comes from the fact that developers are given a density bonus for including affordable housing into their projects, separate entrances have effectively excluded those units from the overall development. I do not think it's a huge injustice, but the real solution is allowing for more building in general. New York only increased its housing stock by 0.5% over the last 10 years while cities like London and Tokyo have increased their supply by about 2%. Needless to say which approach has kept prices lower.

[ECtransplant]

Very true. But we are not the ones footing the bill for the project, and are not the ones buying the million dollar condos. Shouldnt they have the say? How is this any different than a gated community?

There would be worse things than getting rid of gated communities

[IllogicalJake]

Does everyone get access to the pool area? The rooftop patio? Conference rooms? All those other amenities?

No, at least not in the NYC example.

You're right.. there's no perfect solution, I suppose. But a lobby and front door aren't something I'd expect to have special access to, they're usually entry points for everyone. Making them suddenly special access for only rich people just feels asinine and unright. I feel like there has to be better ways.

if the same builder built two buildings on the same lot, one market rate and the other low income, would they not have separate doors and lobbies? is it not cheaper and a more effective use of space/land to put both living functions into one building? isn't building an entirely different building for low income way more discriminatory?

My only point was just let anyone who uses the building - regardless of social class - use the front door. I'm not sure how you turned that into building two separate buildings...

[go4guy]

How about we let the market dictate whether this works. If it does work, developers will keep building them. If it doesnt, they wont. Simple.

And yes, a lobby and doorman is a HUGE luxury in NYC. You cannot compare a condo with a doorman and nice lobby with one that doesn't. So yes, you do pay a premium for that. And if you aren't paying a premium for it, you shouldn't get it.

[EOst]

How about we let the market dictate whether this works. If it does work, developers will keep building them. If it doesnt, they wont. Simple.

Because the government and the people have an interest in preventing injustice, particularly in projects financed by tax credits?

[Avian]

The article used the right word. The Poor Door is Dickensian. I hope no one really is advancing the argument that "they" don't require a nice lobby so why should they pay for one? Well, I'll bet dollars to donuts that lobby's cost was distributed among all the apartments, not just the market-rate ones, especially since public money was used to build the complex. Plus, putting in an additional entrance raises the cost of the project. So I really can't see any possible financial advantage but can see several social segregation ones.

[Nathan]

My only point was just let anyone who uses the building - regardless of social class - use the front door. I'm not sure how you turned that into building two separate buildings...

That's what I'm saying, it's a private investor building. they could either build all market rate and make their money, and someone else could build low income on the outskirts where land is cheaper, or the private investor can take advantage of programs... what's more discriminatory to you? it could be separate buildings, separate neighborhoods... all sorts of things, yet people are really worried about who walks in over marble and who walks in over ceramic? at least the city is putting forth programs that developers are taking on or you'd have significantly worse discrimination.

[EOst]

That's what I'm saying, it's a private investor building. they could either build all market rate and make their money, and someone else could build low income on the outskirts where land is cheaper, or the private investor can take advantage of programs... what's more discriminatory to you? it could be separate buildings, separate neighborhoods... all sorts of things, yet people are really worried about who walks in over marble and who walks in over ceramic? at least the city is putting forth programs that developers are taking on or you'd have significantly worse discrimination.

1) A lot of these projects wouldn't be happening in any form without the aforementioned tax credits.

2) What's the benefit of separating the users beyond class discrimination?

[Nathan]

That's what I'm saying, it's a private investor building. they could either build all market rate and make their money, and someone else could build low income on the outskirts where land is cheaper, or the private investor can take advantage of programs... what's more discriminatory to you? it could be separate buildings, separate neighborhoods... all sorts of things, yet people are really worried about who walks in over marble and who walks in over ceramic? at least the city is putting forth programs that developers are taking on or you'd have significantly worse discrimination.

1) A lot of these projects wouldn't be happening in any form without the aforementioned tax credits.

2) What's the benefit of separating the users beyond class discrimination?

So what's the difference between two doors and two different buildings? besides class discrimination?

[EOst]

That's what I'm saying, it's a private investor building. they could either build all market rate and make their money, and someone else could build low income on the outskirts where land is cheaper, or the private investor can take advantage of programs... what's more discriminatory to you? it could be separate buildings, separate neighborhoods... all sorts of things, yet people are really worried about who walks in over marble and who walks in over ceramic? at least the city is putting forth programs that developers are taking on or you'd have significantly worse discrimination.

1) A lot of these projects wouldn't be happening in any form without the aforementioned tax credits.

2) What's the benefit of separating the users beyond class discrimination?

So what's the difference between two doors and two different buildings? besides class discrimination?

What's the difference between building a straw man and actually engaging in a conversation, behind giving a rat's ass?

[Nathan]

1) A lot of these projects wouldn't be happening in any form without the aforementioned tax credits.

2) What's the benefit of separating the users beyond class discrimination?

So what's the difference between two doors and two different buildings? besides class discrimination?[/quote]
What's the difference between building a straw man and actually engaging in a conversation, behind giving a rat's ass?[/quote]

A straw man? I see two scenarios...

A. market takes full control and only builds market rate/luxury. Affordable housing gets built where it can afford to be built out of desirable area. (complete segregation, how many times have we seen this?)

B. Tax credits coerce developers to negate the fact that they can just build whatever they want on their own property, and they incorporate affordable units, who enter through a different door. this isn't like segregation of drinking fountains or schools, it's getting what you pay for. The neighborhood wins, the renters win (being able to afford to live in manhattan (I sure couldn't)), the developers win. No one is getting a raw deal here. If I'm paying 2-3 grand a month less than my neighbor I'll walk through the fucking sewer to get to my apartment. This is really about upper/middle class people pretending to care about another group of people. Do you really think someone in that situation of being able to afford rent somewhere in Manhattan cares where they enter?

Government subsidized food programs covers necessities, not dinner at Bachelor Farmer.
Government subsidized health care covers necessities not preventative botox treatments. (and yes you have to pick their hospitals/doctors, you don't get to choose the luxury entrance.)

all I'm saying is two doors same neighborhood is a lot less discriminatory than market driven development, is it perfect for everyone... no... is everyone getting their fair share... yup.

[EOst]

What you're ignoring is that hundreds of other projects across the country have been able to mix low-income and luxury development in a single project without the "poor door". This isn't about making the project financially viable as you insistently pretend, it's about keeping "the poors" out of rich people's views. That's deleterious both to the urban environment and to broader fairness.

You say it isn't about separate water fountains and all that, but the logic you're pushing leads exactly to that conclusion.

[Nathan]

It's not because in the case of education and public water fountains these are public services provided by the government, meant for everyone. Housing is a good to be purchased by a consumer. each consumer has the right to buy what they can afford. If you can't afford a high end apartment in Manhattan, I'm sorry that's a bummer, I'm on the same page. Luxury finishes and amenities are a privilege, not a right. You can cite buildings that have combined entrances, THAT'S GREAT, don't get me wrong, that makes me ECSTATIC!!! But it's not the only way to do it, and it's not the only right way to do it. Both sets of consumers are still getting what they are paying for, no one is being short changed.

[mattaudio]

I agree, we'd be better allowing developers to build as much housing as possible that is as profitable as possible, and encouraging them to include more affordable units in their portfolios, rather than getting into the nitty gritty design of their interior spaces. We need to be concerned with outcomes, and at a macro level, worrying about poor doors may actually keep more poor people out of the housing market rather than in it.

[ECtransplant]

How exactly does eliminating the poor door devalue the market rate units?

[mattaudio]

You'd have to ask the developers, wouldn't you? If they didn't figure that they made more on their market rate units to cover the cost of a second entrance (if it wasn't a net positive) they wouldn't do it, would they....

[ECtransplant]

So if creating a separate door for racial minorities increases total rents, and thus leads to more housing units on the margin, is that ok too?

[mattaudio]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=protected+class

[ECtransplant]

Something is only wrong if it's illegal?

[mattaudio]

Did anyone ever say it was right?