When we discussed this on MM, wasn't it concluded that it would basically be two separate buildings facing two different streets that share a wall in the middle? So it's not like your apt. would be next to the 27 m condo but you're not allowed to use his exterior door or elevator. The two apartments in question will be in different building facing different directions.
If the tax breaks developers get by putting in the rent stabilized units is good enough for them to put them in to begin with I very much doubt that they wouldn't add them just because they were not permitted to make separate entrances.
If the tax breaks developers get by putting in the rent stabilized units is good enough for them to put them in to begin with I very much doubt that they wouldn't add them just because they were not permitted to make separate entrances.
They would leave them out if it devalued the other units on the market.
Question for my NY posters. Is there a true housing shortage in NY? Or is it like Chicago where there are tons of properties on the market but only like three that you would actually want to live in AND can afford?
There is a HUGE shortage of affordable housing in NYC, both of the kind that you'd want to live in and that which you wouldn't choose if there were other options. There are wait lists almost a decade long for affordable projects like the "poor door" one.
I think this is a load of bullshit, clearly. And if developers are taking tax credit or whatnot to do this than I am definitely calling bullshit. I guess I don't know how bad the affordable housing crisis is though to say if I think they should be made to put a stop to it. What I mean is I do think they should put a stop to it, but if developers stop building the affordable units and just forego tax credits or whatnot how much of a problem is that going to cause citywide.
Separate doors...I mean really?! WTF is that. I can see if you build a super nice gym that you then include membership to that as an incentive to buy (I mean it's normal for developers to throw in incentives so I get that). But I can't believe they would turn around and then deny access for people in the affordable housing to buy-in at any price. That is completely messed up, although the rates they would charge would assure no one would probably buy-in anyway but the way they are doing it is completely discriminatory and obnoxious
So, think about the reason that the inclusionary housing program (which is what this development falls under) exists at all. Because there is a huge problem and a huge shortage of affordable housing. If there was enough affordable housing, the city would not be offering the footprint and zoning expansions for including affordable units in mixed-income developments. They would let everyone go on their merry way with 100% market rate or luxury buildings built to code and developers wouldn't care at all about the additional floor space allowed under this program. However, many neigborhoods are desperate for these units to come online.
If the tax breaks developers get by putting in the rent stabilized units is good enough for them to put them in to begin with I very much doubt that they wouldn't add them just because they were not permitted to make separate entrances.
They would leave them out if it devalued the other units on the market.
But this is the only building for which a separate door was approved. The units haven't devalued any of the other recent developments to the point that the tax break wasn't worth putting them in.
They would leave them out if it devalued the other units on the market.
But this is the only building for which a separate door was approved. The units haven't devalued any of the other recent developments to the point that the tax break wasn't worth putting them in.
They would leave them out if it devalued the other units on the market.
But this is the only building for which a separate door was approved. The units haven't devalued any of the other recent developments to the point that the tax break wasn't worth putting them in.
So all recent developments include affordable housing?
But this is the only building for which a separate door was approved. The units haven't devalued any of the other recent developments to the point that the tax break wasn't worth putting them in.
Or...this is the only one that made the news.
when it initially made the news they made a point of saying that this was the first time a separate entrance had been approved. There was also a big to do about DeBlasio insisting that it should never happen again.
I understand why people are drawing parallels to the Jim Crow laws. I thought that too at first. But the amenities on offer in the "rich" section of the building are available to anyone who can pay. It's not based on permanent and unchangeable characteristics such race or ethnicity. If a "poor door" renter suddenly had a dramatic change in their financial circumstances such that they could afford to purchase an apartment on the other side of the building, they would be allowed to do so.
Alternatively, say the developer planned to build five towers on the 80/20 scheme. Four based on market rates and then one below market. Would we expect the fifth tower apartment a to be as nice as the other four? We'd expect them to be decent but I don't think we'd require them to be super deluxe because the residents aren't paying for super deluxe.
It's distasteful to acknowledge that extremely rich people don't prefer to mix with less well off people. But it probably is realistic. The separate entrance is a good compromise to make sure there is affordable housing being built in Manhattan.
But this is the only building for which a separate door was approved. The units haven't devalued any of the other recent developments to the point that the tax break wasn't worth putting them in.
So all recent developments include affordable housing?
From what I rember reading when this broke originally, the vast majority do. Not just because of the cash, but also because it gives them exemptions to other city codes like the one mentioned above about a building's footprint.
It's the well to do amongst us who don't believe they have to play by the rules of public health, such as vaccinating their kids. I say keep those people walled off from the rest of us. They should have their own door. I don't want their germs.
when it initially made the news they made a point of saying that this was the first time a separate entrance had been approved. There was also a big to do about DeBlasio insisting that it should never happen again.
While possibly not done in this exact manner, I think that other projects have been similarly structured in a roundabout way and have been approved. Maybe this is the first under DeBlasio's tenure.
There is a true shortage for people who qualify for the 80/20 program, which has an income limit of a little under $35k for a family of four.
For a family of 2 with incomes of $50k and above it's difficult but not impossible to find a decent place in a good neighborhood. But if you have kids and need anything larger than a 2bed/1bath, its pretty cost prohibitive unless your HHI is nearing $100k.
For Manhattan, I'd even double amelia's estimate, and you'd have to get decently northern on the island (which isn't really a problem neighborhood-wise, but can be kind of a long commute if you work in midtown, which many do).
I wasn't even thinking about just Manhattan. I was thinking along the lines of safe and 30 min by subway into Manhattan.
A studio within 5 blocks of my office is my entire months salary.
What gets me is the shitty attitudes of developers like this asshat David Von Spreckelson:
"No one ever said that the goal was full integration of these populations," said David Von Spreckelsen, senior vice president at Toll Brothers. "So now you have politicians talking about that, saying how horrible those back doors are. I think it's unfair to expect very high-income homeowners who paid a fortune to live in their building to have to be in the same boat as low-income renters, who are very fortunate to live in a new building in a great neighborhood."
I understand why people are drawing parallels to the Jim Crow laws. I thought that too at first. But the amenities on offer in the "rich" section of the building are available to anyone who can pay. It's not based on permanent and unchangeable characteristics such race or ethnicity. If a "poor door" renter suddenly had a dramatic change in their financial circumstances such that they could afford to purchase an apartment on the other side of the building, they would be allowed to do so.
Alternatively, say the developer planned to build five towers on the 80/20 scheme. Four based on market rates and then one below market. Would we expect the fifth tower apartment a to be as nice as the other four? We'd expect them to be decent but I don't think we'd require them to be super deluxe because the residents aren't paying for super deluxe.
It's distasteful to acknowledge that extremely rich people don't prefer to mix with less well off people. But it probably is realistic. The separate entrance is a good compromise to make sure there is affordable housing being built in Manhattan.
I get your point, but the fact remains that it is becoming increasingly harder to change socioeconomic status. I would be interested to know how many people that benefit from the affordable housing initiatives have a dramatic change in their financial circumstances that would allow them in the rich section.
I don't see what is so controversial about treating someone else like a decent human being. Different gym membership, pool options, different finishes within an apartment. Fine. But to seriously say that someone isn't good enough to go through the same public parts of a building because they don't make enough money is disgusting.
No one is saying that they shouldn't be treated like human beings. The reason they can't use the same entrance probably has to do with one side having a doorman and the other not. Like the amenities you mentioned -a gym, pool, rooftop sitting area, etc. - it's a luxury they haven't paid for.
Also, there are many buildings in big cities where some residents have access to a nicer, more private elevator within the same building and some don't because they haven't paid for the luxury. Why is that acceptable but this thing with the door isn't?
I understand why people are drawing parallels to the Jim Crow laws. I thought that too at first. But the amenities on offer in the "rich" section of the building are available to anyone who can pay. It's not based on permanent and unchangeable characteristics such race or ethnicity. If a "poor door" renter suddenly had a dramatic change in their financial circumstances such that they could afford to purchase an apartment on the other side of the building, they would be allowed to do so.
Alternatively, say the developer planned to build five towers on the 80/20 scheme. Four based on market rates and then one below market. Would we expect the fifth tower apartment a to be as nice as the other four? We'd expect them to be decent but I don't think we'd require them to be super deluxe because the residents aren't paying for super deluxe.
It's distasteful to acknowledge that extremely rich people don't prefer to mix with less well off people. But it probably is realistic. The separate entrance is a good compromise to make sure there is affordable housing being built in Manhattan.
I get your point, but the fact remains that it is becoming increasingly harder to change socioeconomic status. I would be interested to know how many people that benefit from the affordable housing initiatives have a dramatic change in their financial circumstances that would allow them in the rich section.
I don't see what is so controversial about treating someone else like a decent human being. Different gym membership, pool options, different finishes within an apartment. Fine. But to seriously say that someone isn't good enough to go through the same public parts of a building because they don't make enough money is disgusting.
They aren't public, though. The same way that the "poors" can't go in the rich door, the "richie rich's" can't go through the poor door. It's not much different than an apartment complex with multiple buildings in a less densely populated area. You don't have access to the building(s) you don't live in. It's only different here because it's Manhattan high-rises. If it was 10 buildings with a handful of apartments each in rural Ohio, and 3 were market rate and 7 were low-income, would you be outraged that the low income people couldn't go inside the market rate buildings?
I get your point, but the fact remains that it is becoming increasingly harder to change socioeconomic status. I would be interested to know how many people that benefit from the affordable housing initiatives have a dramatic change in their financial circumstances that would allow them in the rich section.
I don't see what is so controversial about treating someone else like a decent human being. Different gym membership, pool options, different finishes within an apartment. Fine. But to seriously say that someone isn't good enough to go through the same public parts of a building because they don't make enough money is disgusting.
They aren't public, though. The same way that the "poors" can't go in the rich door, the "richie rich's" can't go through the poor door. It's not much different than an apartment complex with multiple buildings in a less densely populated area. You don't have access to the building(s) you don't live in. It's only different here because it's Manhattan high-rises. If it was 10 buildings with a handful of apartments each in rural Ohio, and 3 were market rate and 7 were low-income, would you be outraged that the low income people couldn't go inside the market rate buildings?
Dammit, I had a good reply and PB ate it.
Anyway, I doubt anyone would stop the rich from going through the poor door. No one tells the rich what to do.
Also I think it is extremely different from a less dense area. You can't compare NYC and rural Ohio. That is the whole reason this is such a huge issue. I doubt there is a real shortage of affordable housing in rural Ohio, maybe in city centers but not rural Ohio and certainly not to the extent of NYC. I also think talking about separate buildings takes this out of context. That starts to assume that I (or others that have an issue with this) would have an issue with ANY affordable housing.
It argues that if Completely Separate Building A is Affordable Housing and Completely Separate Building B is Luxury apartments that should have the same amenities. Or it argues that having a completely separate building is discriminatory because *gasp* how dare we put poor people in a different building. That is shameful! But this is the SAME DAMN BUILDING. Not two separate buildings.
I want affordable housing; I think it's great. But as soon as you start getting into entrances being an amenity, you are stepping into dangerous territory. There is no reason that the rich cannot share the same entrance with the average citizen who also happens to reside in their same building. If they are they freaking appalled by the other humans, maybe they shouldn't be living in New York City or maybe THEY should pay even more money (because they have so much of it that they can pretend an entire class of citizens don't exist) to go to building that doesn't have affordable housing in it.
I'm really trying to figure out if the people aghast at this proposal really think "the poors" should get the exact same everything but pay less.
Because, whut?
When did anyone say anything at all like that? It's about equal access to public spaces. A private gym/pool with a fee associated with it =/= public space. A lobby of a building where you reside = public space (for residents).
I'm really trying to figure out if the people aghast at this proposal really think "the poors" should get the exact same everything but pay less.
Because, whut?
When did anyone say anything at all like that? It's about equal access to public spaces. A private gym/pool with a fee associated with it =/= public space. A lobby of a building where you reside = public space (for residents).
It seems kind of implied because the rich entrance grants access to all the amenities, and the poor door restricts access.
Are all of these amenities in the lobby? Is there a chance that someone might mistakenly take a detour into the sauna while getting their mail? I can see having key card access to these things on higher floors but to say that people who are not paying the market rent can't use the same front door is ridiculous.
This is just about rich people not wanting to share air space with "poor" people. It's as logical as white people not wanting to share counter space with black people.
Since many people of color are poor this is just a dressed up version of 1950s good old American Jim Crow laws,
Are all of these amenities in the lobby? Is there a chance that someone might mistakenly take a detour into the sauna while getting their mail? I can see having key card access to these things on higher floors but to say that people who are not paying the market rent can't use the same front door is ridiculous.
The doormen are in the lobby though. I'd be willing to bet money that that's what it's about. I can't imagine a building with condos worth tens of millions of dollars NOT having a doorman, can you? But it's definitely a luxury. Many buildings in Manhattan don't have them and the residents get along fine.