Safety and convenience. They make sure randoms don't come in but they also do things like sign for and gather packages/dry cleaning etc., hold your spare keys (and let housekeepers and such in with the spare keys), and field calls for things like maintenance.
I'd imagine that the poor door side is segregated from the rest of the building (meaning, you can't access side A from side B) and either (a) has a doorman, or (b) has a buzz-in system. I've never seen a residential building in Manhattan that you can walk right into. In multi-unit residences there's always an intercom/buzzer system at the very least.
Oh, I know they have buzzer systems but I thought the idea was that a doorman is still safer because it makes it harder for randoms to sneak in behind someone, that type of thing. Granted, this is just what I know from my own city living and my TV watching.
But I would think that if the separate entrance doesn't have a doorman, then you are at least partly nullifying the point of having a doorman.
I guess I get not wanting to share your pricy, fancy amenities. But I'm thinking that if I were a richie living in the building, for my own security, I'd rather have everyone coming in through the main door with the doorman.
Agreed, but again -- I'm imagining complete physical separation between the sides of the building (so to get in the rich part you have to go in on the rich side) and/or perhaps a doorman on the poor side anyway. I could be wrong, but I can't imagine that having them walk in through different doors but then share elevator banks and everything else would work (because poors who get in good with the doormen would be allowed in the rich entrance, riches would come in through the poor doors if they're more convenient, etc.)
Oh, but it totally is about that, at least in part.
At least some of the people in the $20 million apartments will not want their guests to be subjected to elevator conversations with the low-income folks. You want your $20 million apartment to have some air of exclusivity.
yes, the builder is doing this due to NIMBY attitude, they aren't creating the problem. They want to max profits (unit costs) so they do what it takes to ensure the most desirable environment to the widest pool of wealthy people. The affordable units will rent regardless if they have a fancy entrance or an alley one.
it's not really the NIMBY attitude - at least not the primary motivation. the city mandates a certain percentage of low income housing be provided and the builders get HUGE tax credits to provide it. so it seems elitist, and in many ways it is, but it's also a huge money issue for the builders.
also, from what i have heard (and i've not done the research but what i've heard claimed) is that in a rental such as my own, which is 80/20 (80% full market rental rate, 20% reduced rental rate), it drives down rents a bit for the "richies" in the building.
I know I should be outraged, but I can't imagine another way that these affordable units would actually be built. The Rich don't want to mix with the Poors. The alternative isn't a happy utopian elevator ride where everyone learns to appreciate each other... it's the builder deciding to skip the millions in tax rebates because they can make more millions in high-end condos than they ever will in low-end rentals.
yes, the builder is doing this due to NIMBY attitude, they aren't creating the problem. They want to max profits (unit costs) so they do what it takes to ensure the most desirable environment to the widest pool of wealthy people. The affordable units will rent regardless if they have a fancy entrance or an alley one.
it's not really the NIMBY attitude - at least not the primary motivation. the city mandates a certain percentage of low income housing be provided and the builders get HUGE tax credits to provide it. so it seems elitist, and in many ways it is, but it's also a huge money issue for the builders.
also, from what i have heard (and i've not done the research but what i've heard claimed) is that in a rental such as my own, which is 80/20 (80% full market rental rate, 20% reduced rental rate), it drives down rents a bit for the "richies" in the building.
Oh, I'm certain this is true. But of course the tax implications are huge, especially in places like this. They have to be for someone (developer/lenders/investors) to willingly include units that do not even come close to maximizing profits/unit costs/etc. It's a business decision. Not saying it wouldn't be nice if profit wasn't the overwhelming motivator but for most people willing to take on the risk of a massive project like this, the reward is expected to be maximized. I don't think it's the right & just thing to only care about profit, but it's unsurprising.
I guess I'm failing to see the outrage. If I'm not paying at the same level as someone else is, I wouldn't expect to have all the amenities that they do, including a doorman. Has it really been determined that the "poor" door was going to be in the back/in an alley/undesirable spot? I'd be happy the low income units existed for me if I wanted to be in that location and normally would have been priced out. I wouldn't go into Masa in NY and say I'm only going to pay you $20, but I expect to be served the $400 meal. So I don't know why the finishes not being "equal" to the more expensive units matters.
I agree with this re: the amenities and finishes; however, the separate entrance part is at best distasteful, especially since the project is effectively subsidized with tax incentives.
hens -what gives you the impression that its about keeping the "poors" away from the rich? This sort of reminds me of the story about the woman with the Mercedes who had to go to the slummy church to pick up her food stamps. I'M TO GOOD TO BE HERE WITH THEM!!! I guess I'm naive.
Maybe I am just too cynical. But the bolded quote in the article seems to hint at this--the goal was never integration of these populations, the wealthy don't want to be in the same boat as the poors.
And then there are quotes like this from a NYT article on the topic:
“You could have people who are unwilling to buy in a situation like that. Their attorney could say, ‘I don’t know what this could do to your property value,’ ” said David Von Spreckelsen, the president of Toll Brothers City Living, which built Northside Piers in Brooklyn, a luxury condo that placed low-income rentals in a separate building with no access to amenities. “The two populations don’t mix at all. It really feels separate,” he added.
I just think it is pretty obvious that separate entrances are largely an attempt to placate wealthy residents who would otherwise not buy in a building where they might have to interact with poor people. The goal appears to be to keep the populations separate, not just to limit access to amenities. Developers are even using the words "integration" and "segregation" in discussing this issue. It just seems like not wanting to integrate with people who you view as lesser is the real issue here.
To me this is much like gated-communities in less dense areas. I'm not a fan of those myself but this is no more outrage worthy to me than that housing practice.
Edit: the tax credit thing is to provide affordable housing which it does. i would not expect "affordable" to have anything in common with "wealthy" on private property...because people often are snobs & have a NIMBY attitude.
Also...this makes me think of Vegas. Like Four Seasons inside the same tower/building as Mandalay Bay but separate entrances. Basically so one set of customers (namely 4 Seasons) doesn't have to encounter/mix with the stuff with the other set (casino, younger, louder, etc).
Private property means I can do whatever I want...but it's not that simple. Not when you are using government funds to help you build a BIGGER development to make more money. Tax dollars are being used here.
They'd make more money by not including any affordable units. It's a co-dependent relationship...the gov't/citizens want, hell need affordable units....the city makes huge money off the income& property taxes of the very wealthy people in these buildings. They want them there, they also want more affordable units. These tax credits HAVE to be desirable enough to motivate investors/developers to include these units when I don't (think) they are mandated by law.
FTR:I am not a fan at all, just as I am totally against gated communities...I just spent my most of my albeit short career as an Architect working with developers & large companies. I know a bit about the issues & motivations that comes with huge projects and the symbiotic relationship between the rich, poor & government. It's part of why I hated practicing.
I know I should be outraged, but I can't imagine another way that these affordable units would actually be built. The Rich don't want to mix with the Poors. The alternative isn't a happy utopian elevator ride where everyone learns to appreciate each other... it's the builder deciding to skip the millions in tax rebates because they can make more millions in high-end condos than they ever will in low-end rentals.
True. It doesn't sound like the real source of the problem originates with the developers.
I wonder if, as a society, there will ever be a point where we'll get past this. It is really sad to me that it's always "those renters", "those poor people", "those young people" etc. I know it's not the case for everyone-but it seems mighty convenient that people forget that they were once in a position where they were struggling to pay rent, just starting out in a career making pennies, etc. It's awfully convenient for people to forget how much it sucks to have people look down on them because they aren't of the same class, aren't homeowners, etc.
I literally just stepped out of a meeting where I was trying to explain to some homeowners in a struggling neighborhood that "those renters" and "those Section 8 people" aren't bad people. They are fully deserving of respect-and an opportunity to feel welcomed in a community. There are learning opportunities for both sides-both the "rich" and the "poor".
Mixed-income housing has been a struggle across the US; there have been some successful developments, but I sincerely hope that one of these days we'll move past the fact that just because you can afford more-it doesn't make you a better person than those who can't.
When I was lucky enough to fly Virgin Upper Class, I don't think I encountered an economy passenger at any point in my journey except baggage claim. I checked in at the UC desk, was escorted to the UC lounge, and then when my plane was boarding we were escorted from the lounge through a special first class security area, and then right onto the plane without having to wait in a line at the gate (when I got on the plane I walked right upstairs to where the UC-only area was). On arrival at LHR, we deplaned before anyone else did, went through customs and immigration with a speed pass, and then were lead to the arrivals lounge for breakfast/showers/spa services before leaving the airport.
Every other time I've flown, I've been poor door all the way.
This doesn't upset me. If I made 55k/yr I would expect housing commensurate with what I could pay. It sounds like this is a new building in a desirable location. I'd be thrilled to land a spot in it, even without the amenities. Why would people think they deserve the same housing as someone paying way more? That's not the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is not to drive middle class people completely out of the city so millionaires don't have to live with their housekeepers and public schools still have janitors (lol).
I can also see how someone paying TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS for a home would expect a certain air of exclusivity. It's snobby and awful but so is first class on airplanes and the Real Housewives and both those things still exist.
I am envisioning two buildings within one structure, with separate elevator banks and separate doormen.
I think I'm seeing this as two buildings on the same lot. If the buildings were next door, no one would blink an eye. Because they're stacked on top of each other and share an address, it's horribly offensive? I think this has to do with hitting historical notes that are much closer to home if you're an American (and especially if you're an American of colour), rather than something that is actually wrong. New York is already segregated by income.
When I was lucky enough to fly Virgin Upper Class, I don't think I encountered an economy passenger at any point in my journey. I checked in at the UC desk, was escorted to the UC lounge, and then when my plane was boarding we were escorted from the lounge through a special first class security area, and then right onto the plane without having to wait in a line at the gate (when I got on the plane I walked right upstairs to where the UC-only area was). On arrival at LHR, we deplaned before anyone else did, went through customs and immigration with a speed pass, and then were lead to the arrivals lounge for breakfast/showers/spa services before leaving the airport.
Every other time I've flown, I've been poor door all the way.
I have used the separate doors to board a plane to my first/business class seat in Frankfurt. It was bizarre to say the least.
I envision 2 separate buildings within one--like the V said (I think)--the high end units would be totally cut off from the economical units. Why does it matter if the outside is still made to look like 1 building? If they changed the facade and made it look like it were 2 distinct buidings, no one would give a sh^t right? I'd be happy as hell if I were making 55K and got to live there if it was a location I desired.
I really can't get onboard with the hate or branding of segregation. Not in this instance. This is an incredibly opportunity for many, and rather than focusing on that, it's all being tainted.
Hotels have different elevator shafts in some cases for those who pay a premium, and many have entire lounges and floors you can only access as a premier guest. I've been on flights that board you through separate doors. Many, many hotels have different towers for levels of service. It's not about the front door, IMO. Any many of the comparisons in this thread are valid.
Sure the hotel is getting a tax break, but they're also availing people who may not have the opportunity to live in a specific district access to such. The residents are already receiving the benefit of a safer neighborhood. I assume that those paying for multi-million dollar units are paying monthly dues for the doorman and their amenities. I'm not sure why those not paying dues are entitled to that benefit as well.
I just can't jump on the segregation bandwagon. Not when it comes to paying a premium for a luxury in this instance.
Post by mollybrown on Jul 22, 2014 12:05:25 GMT -5
I wish I could be surprised or outraged, but I'm not. I'm also seeing this as 2 different buildings that share a lot.
In theory, it sounds great to offer the exact same accommodations to everyone regardless of how much they pay. In reality, I think it would be hard to find people who are willing to pay significantly more than their neighbor for the same thing. If my builder built a house identical to mine next door and sold it for 20% of what I paid, I would not be pleased. I think most people need at least the illusion that they're getting something much better if they're paying a lot more. In my neighborhood, the income qualified units are never single family homes. They are always townhouses or condos on the busiest streets, and everyone knows which buildings they are even though they are "integrated" into the community. I think these types of units are always separated in some way, even if it's not as obvious as different doors. I have no idea what the solution is, since I don't think most people would buy into planned economically diverse buildings/neighborhoods if there wasn't a distinction.
This is extra tough because the back door is VERY reminiscent of Jim Crow.
This doesn't upset me. If I made 55k/yr I would expect housing commensurate with what I could pay. It sounds like this is a new building in a desirable location. I'd be thrilled to land a spot in it, even without the amenities. Why would people think they deserve the same housing as someone paying way more? That's not the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is not to drive middle class people completely out of the city so millionaires don't have to live with their housekeepers and public schools still have janitors (lol).
I can also see how someone paying TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS for a home would expect a certain air of exclusivity. It's snobby and awful but so is first class on airplanes and the Real Housewives and both those things still exist.
I am envisioning two buildings within one structure, with separate elevator banks and separate doormen.
This is where I'm at.
If I make $55K\year and get to live in the same building/neighborhood as those with $20M condos, a separate entrance is nbd to me. I'd actually much prefer to have a separate entrance as to not have those rich folks and their guests look me up and down with my Ross Dress for Less shoes and Target dress.
Note: this is the google street view of what will end up being the "back" of the building. The surroundings are a lovely park and new luxury residential buildings. Not really an alley.
(At worst they'll enter on a side street, again surrounded by luxury buildings).
hens -what gives you the impression that its about keeping the "poors" away from the rich? This sort of reminds me of the story about the woman with the Mercedes who had to go to the slummy church to pick up her food stamps. I'M TO GOOD TO BE HERE WITH THEM!!! I guess I'm naive.
Oh, but it totally is about that, at least in part.
At least some of the people in the $20 million apartments will not want their guests to be subjected to elevator conversations with the low-income folks. You want your $20 million apartment to have some air of exclusivity.
It's bad enough that they have to chit-chat with the $4 million apartment people.
I guess I'm failing to see the outrage. If I'm not paying at the same level as someone else is, I wouldn't expect to have all the amenities that they do, including a doorman. Has it really been determined that the "poor" door was going to be in the back/in an alley/undesirable spot? I'd be happy the low income units existed for me if I wanted to be in that location and normally would have been priced out. I wouldn't go into Masa in NY and say I'm only going to pay you $20, but I expect to be served the $400 meal. So I don't know why the finishes not being "equal" to the more expensive units matters.
I agree with this re: the amenities and finishes; however, the separate entrance part is at best distasteful, especially since the project is effectively subsidized with tax incentives.
This is where I am. It should hardly shock anyone that rich people get access to nicer housing, but the idea that rich people shouldn't even have to LOOK at poor people just feels...gross.
Also, was anyone else reminded of that article (it may have been on CEP) about "defensive architecture" to keep homeless people away? Out of sight, out of mind, I guess.
hens -what gives you the impression that its about keeping the "poors" away from the rich? This sort of reminds me of the story about the woman with the Mercedes who had to go to the slummy church to pick up her food stamps. I'M TO GOOD TO BE HERE WITH THEM!!! I guess I'm naive.
Maybe I am just too cynical. But the bolded quote in the article seems to hint at this--the goal was never integration of these populations, the wealthy don't want to be in the same boat as the poors.
And then there are quotes like this from a NYT article on the topic:
“You could have people who are unwilling to buy in a situation like that. Their attorney could say, ‘I don’t know what this could do to your property value,’ ” said David Von Spreckelsen, the president of Toll Brothers City Living, which built Northside Piers in Brooklyn, a luxury condo that placed low-income rentals in a separate building with no access to amenities. “The two populations don’t mix at all. It really feels separate,” he added.
I just think it is pretty obvious that separate entrances are largely an attempt to placate wealthy residents who would otherwise not buy in a building where they might have to interact with poor people. The goal appears to be to keep the populations separate, not just to limit access to amenities. Developers are even using the words "integration" and "segregation" in discussing this issue. It just seems like not wanting to integrate with people who you view as lesser is the real issue here.
This is the same thing that occurs all over the country, though, except that most places don't have NYC-like density and the segregation occurs in regular neighborhoods. I've seen it a ton of times right on this board, people constantly talk about how they don't want to live/buy near low-income or Section 8 developments because it might negatively impact their property values.
Exactly, kadams767. I don't know anywhere where a $20M home is next door to an affordable housing project. Let alone anyone that's building $20M homes that slaps a cheapy rental condo in the middle of it. Every existing luxury building on this block is inaccessible to poor people. The fact that this one will give the nanny somewhere to live without spending her whole life commuting seems like a good thing.
I agree with this re: the amenities and finishes; however, the separate entrance part is at best distasteful, especially since the project is effectively subsidized with tax incentives.
This is where I am. It should hardly shock anyone that rich people get access to nicer housing, but the idea that rich people shouldn't even have to LOOK at poor people just feels...gross.
Also, was anyone else reminded of that article (it may have been on CEP) about "defensive architecture" to keep homeless people away? Out of sight, out of mind, I guess.
The rich people will have to look at poor people all the time, as they'll be in their building as nannies and housekeepers and food deliverers. The poors just won't be in their elevators as neighbors.
The church across the street from where I live just installed three HUGE planters with trees in them in a place where two homeless men used to set up camp every night.
Post by teatimefor2 on Jul 22, 2014 13:25:34 GMT -5
I've read about this before and :shrugged shoulders: I'm not outraged. I do get it and I doubt the poor entrance is in a back alley. I get it, I do.
It shouldn't be an issue, but it is. I don't have a good solution. One option is don't offer low income housing, but that's an issue too. One option is offer more affordable housing, but in NYC that is easier said than done.
Honestly, I'm not upset about it. Airplanes, hotels, rental cars all have separate entrances based on level of service/cost. I've been on the 'poor' and 'rich' side of both any neither outrages me.
If you don't want to be a poor person in that building, don't. If your rich and don't want to share with the poor, don't. There are options. No one is being forced to live there. You might not like your options (i.e. moving), but they do exist and are options.
This is where I am. It should hardly shock anyone that rich people get access to nicer housing, but the idea that rich people shouldn't even have to LOOK at poor people just feels...gross.
Also, was anyone else reminded of that article (it may have been on CEP) about "defensive architecture" to keep homeless people away? Out of sight, out of mind, I guess.
The rich people will have to look at poor people all the time, as they'll be in their building as nannies and housekeepers and food deliverers. The poors just won't be in their elevators as neighbors.
The church across the street from where I live just installed three HUGE planters with trees in them in a place where two homeless men used to set up camp every night.
I have a church behind my house...homeless people "live" in the sunken stairwell & bushes much of the Fall/Spring/summer. My kids play feet from (behind a fence) homeless people camping out on the regular. Most people would not tolerate this, I'm under no delusion of that.