A new building in Vancouver's West End neighbourhood is getting some attention because of its segregated entrances for condo residents and those living in social housing units.
The West End Neighbours community group says the market-priced condo units and social housing units for the 19-storey high-rise for 1171 Jervis Street will also be branded differently at the entrances and have separate amenities.
The development permit was approved Monday by city staff.
— cbc.ca
11 Comments
if you are going to clearly divide who you will accept into a building at least do it like an Ivy League college. Accept the best and brightest poor and give them plenty of scholarships while you make sure their roomates are legacy kids whose parents have no problem flipping the 6 figure tuition bill......... put the kids in the same room and maybe the intelligence and naive honesty rubs off on one kid while the politicaly savvy arrogant domination attitude rubs off on the other.........
I find it interesting how much attention is paid to superficial manifestations of class differences, while the existence of those differences themselves tends to be beneath discussion.
Would sharing an elevator with affluent people make poverty more satisfying? Does it really encourage the kind of interaction that will lead people to better futures? I have lived in different high rise buildings for 10 years and made absolutely 0 aquaintences more substantial than an occassional "hey how are you?" with the co-residents.
The model for this seems to be headed towards Lang's Metropolis. Eventually all worker housing will be underground.
Is this separation actually an amenity for the upper class folks to not have to encounter lower class folks every day in a confined space? Is it worth all of the media and community backlash and negative attention?.
I would only imagine it would be justifiable for separate entrances if the affordable housing (probably offered at a net loss) were in a separate building on the same site.
This is a weird thing, but rich folks do and expect weird things
Over and OUT
Peter N
America is the illusion of a classless society. In reality though it is classless, just in a different sense.
as Ive said before, cities are turining into sterilized Disney like theme parks of urban life...rich people get to enjoy the picturesque main st usa with all workers hidden behind the scenes...underground...
i don't think america was ever advertised as 'classless.' we used to try to be the land of opportunity, where you could improve your lot through hard work. i think the idea was supposed to be that you could move between classes, rather than being stuck in the one you were born into. also, i think there was the goal of giving immigrants a new start, where they could build a life for themselves without the baggage of whatever situation they were born into. i think you could say that for a good part of america's history, we were able to do that.
The definitive work on the subject is Class, A Guide Through the American Status System by Paul Fussell.
The 'Merican idea is supposed to be equality, it even says so in the Declaration. If one's class is measured by wealth then it's just the same shit as everything else.
@curtkram it's been proven that less than 10% of people make it past the economic status they were born into so what does that say about class relations and the American Dream? Unfortunately, in our society the rich have the upper hand in everything (from education to business ventures) and though sharing an elevator for the most part doesn't lead to full out conversation between both types of people it is proven to benefit the lives of the less affluent. Maybe Kanye was right, classism is the new racism lol
I would suspect that the separation of amenities and entrance also relates to the higher monthly body corporate/strata fees (unsure of correct term in Canada) the condo residents will pay for facilities. I think its possible to separate the general societal good of taxes or development fees going towards subsidies for public housing, from individual residents subsiding others in the same building.
I would think most people are comfortable with the concept of including housing in a social safety net and in fact contributing to it via a fraction of their taxes. most of these same generous people may baulk at the idea that 30% of residents pay less or no upkeep for the pool,gym etc.
Why not keep an amenities fee as a separate, optional charge?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.