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. Â 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). Â 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.
The first class terminal is amazing. They drove us to our plane in a Porsche. No walking with the common folk through the terminal.
I see the point about paying less, and about ways in which "rich" segregate themselves already.... and I definitely could see having separate elevators and "wings" and whatever once inside the building... but to not be able to use any entrance still feels really icky to me, and saying "I'd feel grateful I could even live in this building" also sounds icky to me. Almost like saying (I realize this is not a perfect analogy) "those poor black folks are lucky they can even ride the bus with us at all, so they shouldn't complain about standing." Maybe I'm naive and wearing my rose colored glasses, but I just don't like it.
I see the point about paying less, and about ways in which "rich" segregate themselves already.... and I definitely could see having separate elevators and "wings" and whatever once inside the building... but to not be able to use any entrance still feels really icky to me, and saying "I'd feel grateful I could even live in this building" also sounds icky to me. Almost like saying (I realize this is not a perfect analogy) "those poor black folks are lucky they can even ride the bus with us at all, so they shouldn't complain about standing." Maybe I'm naive and wearing my rose colored glasses, but I just don't like it.
I honestly find this unrealistically idealistic.
A separate door entrance in this scenario (what you pay is what you get) does not equal sitting in the back of the bus IMO.
Our local Ritz/Marriott has a separate elevator entrance and that does not bother me at all. As well as Four Seasons/Mandalay Bay as someone already mentioned.
Isn't it worse to march the poors past the gallery of things they're not allowed to touch than it is to have a separate entrance?
I've accepted that the rich people in my city put their separate entrance on the other side of town, so they don't run even a small chance of interacting with me.
I think it's the idea that it's a separate entrance that really makes the whole thing icky. It's way too reminiscent of the past. I don't agree with the idea at all, but this taints it even more. FWIW in my neighborhood there are million dollar houses built right next to affordable housing.
I see the point about paying less, and about ways in which "rich" segregate themselves already.... and I definitely could see having separate elevators and "wings" and whatever once inside the building... but to not be able to use any entrance still feels really icky to me, and saying "I'd feel grateful I could even live in this building" also sounds icky to me. Almost like saying (I realize this is not a perfect analogy) "those poor black folks are lucky they can even ride the bus with us at all, so they shouldn't complain about standing." Maybe I'm naive and wearing my rose colored glasses, but I just don't like it.
I think potential tenants are willing to overlook almost anything to pay under $1100 for a two bedroom apartment in NYC. Much less a brand-new 2 bedroom apartment in NYC.
I think it's the idea that it's a separate entrance that really makes the whole thing icky. It's way too reminiscent of the past. I don't agree with the idea at all, but this taints it even more. FWIW in my neighborhood there are million dollar houses built right next to affordable housing.
I would bet my life savings that if the million dollar houses were there before the affordable housing, there was a big NIMBY fight put forth to try and stop an affordable development from going up next door.
I think it's the idea that it's a separate entrance that really makes the whole thing icky. It's way too reminiscent of the past. I don't agree with the idea at all, but this taints it even more. FWIW in my neighborhood there are million dollar houses built right next to affordable housing.
I would bet my life savings that if the million dollar houses were there before the affordable housing, there was a big NIMBY fight put forth to try and stop an affordable development from going up next door.
For the most part it's not hard to learn where the affordable housing is going to go, so generally when people buy the houses they know there is a chance that affordable housing could go right next to them.
I would bet my life savings that if the million dollar houses were there before the affordable housing, there was a big NIMBY fight put forth to try and stop an affordable development from going up next door.
For the most part it's not hard to learn where the affordable housing is going to go, so generally when people buy the houses they know there is a chance that affordable housing could go right next to them.
That doesn't stop them from trying to stop it. I work in this field and see it across the country, literally at least once a week. There are ongoing fights that I've seen that are actually trying to displace affordable housing developments that have existed for decades, because now it's a cool part of town and they think the land is too valuable to put subsidized housing there when rich people could be buying market rate homes there. That's why I really can't get it up for being outraged about this. The NYC inclusionary housing initiatives work to keep somewhat integrated mixed-income neighborhoods rather than further creating pockets of 100% affordable and subsidized housing.
For the most part it's not hard to learn where the affordable housing is going to go, so generally when people buy the houses they know there is a chance that affordable housing could go right next to them.
That doesn't stop them from trying to stop it. I work in this field and see it across the country, literally at least once a week. There are ongoing fights that I've seen that are actually trying to displace affordable housing developments that have existed for decades, because now it's a cool part of town and they think the land is too valuable to put subsidized housing there when rich people could be buying market rate homes there. That's why I really can't get it up for being outraged about this. The NYC inclusionary housing initiatives work to keep somewhat integrated mixed-income neighborhoods rather than further creating pockets of 100% affordable and subsidized housing.
no one has tried to stop it in our neighborhood that I know of
I see the point about paying less, and about ways in which "rich" segregate themselves already.... and I definitely could see having separate elevators and "wings" and whatever once inside the building... but to not be able to use any entrance still feels really icky to me, and saying "I'd feel grateful I could even live in this building" also sounds icky to me. Almost like saying (I realize this is not a perfect analogy) "those poor black folks are lucky they can even ride the bus with us at all, so they shouldn't complain about standing." Maybe I'm naive and wearing my rose colored glasses, but I just don't like it.
This is where I am. Plus, I cannot reiterate enough how disgusting it is that the developer used tax credits to help offset the cost of the total development (not just the low income portion) only to turn around and make the low income renters feel like second class citizens. Trust me when I say that the low income housing tax credits (LIHTC) provide a huge incentive to developers by allowing them to get more equity up front from investors, less debt for the project, and dollar for dollar lower tax liability for ten years after the project is completed. No one would ever participate if the developers didn't make any money from it or even just a marginal amout of profit. The developers are certainly not building low income units out of the goodness of their hearts.
This. I don't understand the argument that if they aren't paying the same amount, they shouldn't expect the same amenities. The developer is GETTING probably the same amount for the low income apartments - they're just getting the difference via tax dollars. Oh, and they're also able to build a larger building if they include low income housing, so MOAR MONEY!
So the people making $55k/year are forking over a hefty amount (comparatively). The tax payers are funding a large amount. And... well, most of the building is just reserved for the rich people. Sorry! Hmm. Who is making out like a bandit in this scenario?
Isn't it worse to march the poors past the gallery of things they're not allowed to touch than it is to have a separate entrance?
I've accepted that the rich people in my city put their separate entrance on the other side of town, so they don't run even a small chance of interacting with me.
Uh, it would be best to not segregate them, as though their poor cooties will infect the pool, in the first place.
Isn't it worse to march the poors past the gallery of things they're not allowed to touch than it is to have a separate entrance?
I've accepted that the rich people in my city put their separate entrance on the other side of town, so they don't run even a small chance of interacting with me.
Uh, it would be best to not segregate them, as though their poor cooties will infect the pool, in the first place.
If I don't pay for a pool, I don't get a pool. I had no idea so many people here were communist.
If I don't pay for a pool, I don't get a pool. I had no idea so many people here were communist.
Well, you're right. The TAX PAYERS are paying for the pool, since we're the ones subsidizing the rent. I guess we should all use the pool.
But seriously - the builder is getting the same amount of money, so why should they care if the poors can use the pool or not?
Because they're trying to sell twenty million dollar condos to people that want their amenities to be exclusive. If they can't sell those condos, they don't make money. If they don't make money, they don't build buildings that also include low-income rentals. I really doubt that the city is giving them incentives that take a rental up to the profit level of an upper floor condo.
Residents' Lounge Screening Room Entertainment Room with Catering Kitchen Billiards and Game Room Indoor Playground by Kidville Landscaped Garden Courtyard 75' Swimming Pool and Hot Tub Rock Climbing Wall Basketball Court Squash Court Yoga, Pilates, Personal Training and Kinesis Rooms Bowling Alley, Game Room and Club Lounge Golf Simulator Treatment Rooms Men's & Women's Locker Rooms, Sauna and Steam Rooms
What's the point of living on Manhattan if you're never going to leave your building? This isn't an apartment building so much as a Simcity 2000-style Arcology.
Did anyone figure out why they couldn't just use keycards etc., instead of having a separate door?
Post by imojoebunny on Jul 22, 2014 17:02:02 GMT -5
I don't see how this is any different from the Saplings (apartments), pines (starter houses), maples (next level), and Oaks (nicest) of burb neighborhoods. Difference is that they are on roads, instead of elevators. I can't get into feeling bad for anyone in this situation. They could just have built entirely separate buildings, and there would not be this "controversy".
Residents' Lounge Screening Room Entertainment Room with Catering Kitchen Billiards and Game Room Indoor Playground by Kidville Landscaped Garden Courtyard 75' Swimming Pool and Hot Tub Rock Climbing Wall Basketball Court Squash Court Yoga, Pilates, Personal Training and Kinesis Rooms Bowling Alley, Game Room and Club Lounge Golf Simulator Treatment Rooms Men's & Women's Locker Rooms, Sauna and Steam Rooms
What's the point of living on Manhattan if you're never going to leave your building? This isn't an apartment building so much as a Simcity 2000-style Arcology.
Did anyone figure out why they couldn't just use keycards etc., instead of having a separate door?
I guess it's a design decision, because there are other buildings that do. This just seems even more egregious.
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.
You are right, and as I think more about this, I guess it is the active promotion of these attitudes that I think isn't sitting well with me. Reminding the "have nots' what they "have not" is done enough in other ways.
Of course this sort of discrimination goes on all over the country, but I am not sure why that makes it okay. What if everyone said the same thing about institutionalized racism? Pretty much any advancements in civil rights that have ever been achieved have been thanks to the efforts of people who did not equate pervasiveness with acceptability.
FWIW, I would be equally put off by a suburban community where wealthy residents and people in affordable housing where made to enter through separate gates so as to avoid crossing paths.
I don't know what the solution is. Obviously the need for affordable housing is great, and getting the wealthy on board to buy the expensive units is a prerequisite to getting it built. Still, I would like to think that offering the wealthy tenants exclusive access to certain amenities without going so far as to segregate the entrances (and therefore the residents) entirely would be sufficient to get the requisite amount of wealthy New Yorkers to buy in. There is just something about the symbolic import of saying "you can't even walk through this door" that feels particularly egregious.
I think it's the idea that it's a separate entrance that really makes the whole thing icky. It's way too reminiscent of the past. I don't agree with the idea at all, but this taints it even more. FWIW in my neighborhood there are million dollar houses built right next to affordable housing.
Really? I'm extremely suprised to hear this. From what I know (having had friends in both affordable condos & million dollar houses) there is a pretty clear step up, step down in the housing costs there & the extremes very rarely meet. All the $1M+ houses generally face a green space & have equivalent houses on the block. And the school situation...yeah, not an embrace our poor neighbors situation from what I heard (at least a few yrs back before).
As someone who made too much to qualify for any of these programs, but not enough to afford an apartment in a nice part of town I would be thrilled just for the opportunity to live in something new and clean. Those rents are a steal in NYC and the goal is to keep housing affordable, not to give low to middle income new yorkers a taste of lifestyles of the rich and famous.
I'm picturing this more as a separate elevator shaft due to the layout. Just like the fancier rooms in a nice hotel are in their own tower requiring access to a different shaft. Having them go through the main door may not even get them access to their units.
I'm picturing this more as a separate elevator shaft due to the layout. Just like the fancier rooms in a nice hotel are in their own tower requiring access to a different shaft. Having them go through the main door may not even get them access to their units.
Stop being practical and hating poor people CloudBee. It couldn't possibly make sense to have two levels of apartment in the same building and keep them separate. We all know in other parts of the enlightened country, people have welfare housing behind the pool.