The separate entrances for the rich and poor came about due to a loophole in the Inclusionary Housing program enacted in 2009 that allowed developers to get subsidies if they provided affordable housing either on or off-site. — theguardian.com
Last year, a luxury NYC high-rise had its request for separate entrances – one for its affordable housing-unit tenants, another for its market-rate tenants – approved, fanning the fires of discriminatory design debates here on Archinect. Now, the loophole in a NY-rent stabilization law that made such "poor doors" possible has been closed, thanks to a new provision from NYC mayor Bill de Blasio.
Another instance of "poor door" discriminatory housing in Canada: Another case of "poor door" for proposed Vancouver high-rise
84 Comments
I'm really struggling to understand if this is a social win or not. For some reason I just can't get worked up about "poor doors" beyond hating the nomenclature.
Is it really not fair for people who pay more to get more? The important part of this argument, for me, is the mixing of economic classes that is allowed to happen in the greater city because of the affordable housing requirement. I feel like on the macro scale of the city what matters is proximity, not specific amenities.
However, I'm suspicious of myself that my middle class privilege allows me to imagine that I *wouldn't want* to share a lobby with a bunch of snotty rich people, anyway, but I'm still trying to parse this out for myself.
In the meantime I keep going back to the idea of equity, not equality: if everyone gets a good address that allows them proximity to jobs, infrastructure, and participation in the cultural vitality of the city, does having a fancy lobby vs. a merely safe and functional one really matter that much?
Like I said, I'm really open to discussion and help in understanding on this, because everything in my sociopolitical viewpoint tells me I should be really pissed off about "poor doors", but I just can't get fired up about it, anymore than I really care about the first class section on airplanes.
Is it really not fair for people who pay more to get more?
Apply your argument to health care, education, food, government access, etc.
As long as everyone has equal opportunity to a GOOD quality education, healthy food, etc. I don't have a problem with people who can afford BETTER quality of those things getting them by paying for them. This is why I'm not a socialist, I suppose? But is also why I suspect my own middle-class privilege.
Donna, I'm with you in spirit. I think the attention given to this is silly. It would be worth asking the affected residents whether they actually care. I imagine sharing the door with the wealthy is a pretty low priority. Sharing schools, grocery stores, social clubs - great. But I don't think this leads to that. The abrupt transitions between poor and rich neighborhoods in many cities (Chicago...) suggests that proximity isnt sufficient to invoke mixing. There need to be real social connections. Which isn't something people develop with the other residents in high rise towers.
Actually it bothers me when boarding a plane I have to schlep my overstuffed carry-ons through first class and business class, getting watched by all the suits sipping cool drinks as I slink back towards seat 74H, where the smell of burnt coffee mingles with the draughts of stale toilet air. Id actually rather not see them, nor be seen. Especially when its a business trip and I'm wearing my fancy clothes but dragging a clumsy box with models and project books...
And anyway, its not like real wealth lives in these buildings. No one's going to bump into their senator or the CEO of a bank checking their mail here.
As long as everyone has equal opportunity.
But everyone doesn't.
Ever since I heard David Sedaris' remarks on first class in airplanes I personally smirk quietly to myself AT THEM as I walk through first class. I have zero concern what they think of me. I do aim my bag carefully through so as not to bang it into any of them, but I extend the exact same courtesy to the coach class passengers, too.
(David Sedaris always thought he would enjoy looking down his nose at the coach class passengers from his comfy first class seat. But when he finally was given a first class seat for a book tour he realized he didn't even want to risk making his "eyeballs dirty" by looking at them...it's so absurd it's hilarious.)
Miles, this is the bigger argument: Not everybody has access to a good education and health care. Does eliminating poor doors help that situation?
Ask Rosa Parks.
Miles, that's not really a helpful comment. Can you flesh that out a bit?
Acceptance of any form of discrimination is abhorrent be it racial, cultural, or economic. Why should one person have access to a better seat in a theater than another - by a mistake of birth?
All men are created equal, my ass. Have you ever been discriminated against because of your gender?
Serious question: is a charge of discrimination applicable, legally, in this situation? I assume it's a complex process to be approved for the affordable housing units in these buildings. I would guess that the process disallows discrimination.
I absolutely believe that discrimination of all kinds is rampant in our economic system, functionally if not legally. But does "a mistake of birth" really apply in this situation?
Please believe me that I'm trying to work my way through the logic of this scenario.
Ask Rosa Parks.
Segregation was legal.
curt's post in TC was spot on:
so, would you say it's ok to extend separate entrances to separate toilets, separate drinking fountains, separate seating sections in a restaurant, separate voting booths?
perhaps the fundamental problem is that they are identifying and separating people by class. once you say this group is different from that group and should have different things because of it, it's a slippery slope.
The only logic of this scenario is that poor are unsightly and frightful, and god forbid they touch the same door handle I do.
"less fortunate", as the euphemism calls them, have been pushed out of cities since the advent of the nouveau rich (industrial era); they don't want to look back into what they really are, just people. I don't really care if you can pay for canned shit if you want, but you also need to be away and surrounded only by those like you? otherwise you feel unprotected?
the narrative has become insanity, all arguments are based on fear and price, never value.
Can anyone else chime in here?
I'm trying to run through the counter-arguments: if I'm willing to pay membership fees at a fancy health club, does that mean anyone who wants to should be able to join whether they pay the fees or not? At what point *does* money equate to higher quality?
It's important that this rule only applies to projects funded by public dollars. Does the social benefit of middle-income people living in parts of the city that would otherwise become wealthy-only enclaves outweigh the negative social impact of separate doors? The separation isn't based on race or gender or any of the other recognized protected classes of citizens. It's only based on ability to pay.
From curt's list above, all of those items but voting are separated already based on economic ability, but not in the public sphere (though the local publicly funded stadium sure as hell has VIP suites I'm not allowed to use...).
But Donna, this is the access to your apartment, it means you are paying for it, just not the same your neighbor upstairs is paying. Should any of the new 120 million condos have a separate entrance for those that are only 35 million?
voting booths are separated too
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/minority-voters-election-long-lines-id
It's a housing complex - they all share the joint amenities (entrances, elevators, gym -if shared-, laundry -if shared-) those shared amenities should be all inclusive. Otherwise what's the pint in having lower rent units mixed in? If you want to not have to interact with them go elsewhere (pretty sure 740 Park Ave isn't particularly diverse), the haves have more options. The price you're paying for are the amenities within the unit (and presumably the choice views).
It would be interesting to see if given a bank of multiple elevators if the tenants self segregate and/or if the non-poor door buildings will have a slower occupancy than those with poor-doors.
I believe they sometimes have private elevators for the mega-luxury units? Presumably those are free from having to be shared?
I’m going to a 4th of July concert that costs $25 to sit in a field on a blanket…I paid $50 more for “VIP” tickets that includes special parking and front row seating on a chair…how is “poor doors” any different? If a person pays more shouldn’t they get more?
The poor clamor for equality, but if one hits the lottery they go for the VIP tickets.
Should any of the new 120 million condos have a separate entrance for those that are only 35 million?
As far as the $120m condo owners are concerned? Absolutely.
3tk wrote: Otherwise what's the pint in having lower rent units mixed in? Actually that gets close to the question I was asking about proximity, and begs the question what is the goal of this affordable housing?
Is the goal to get lower income people and rich people to hang out together by working out in the same gym room? Or is the goal to get lower income people (who likely have service jobs) closer to the center of the city to remove the time suck of a long commute from their daily life?
Some quotes from a CNN article:
...the Inclusionary Housing Program, an effort to mitigate inequality by offering affordable housing in nice areas...The program, enacted in 2009 under former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, gives developers tax breaks and more space in exchange for building affordable housing either in the building itself or close by....
In theory, the Inclusionary Housing Program gives families who couldn't afford to live in the city an opportunity to live in good school districts and new buildings. ..Residents at Northside Piers in Brooklyn are separated into two separate buildings...The buildings have completely separate entrances and rental residents are not permitted to use the amenities in condo buildings.
It sounds to me like building location is what was emphasized as the benefit of the affordable housing credits. The "close by" phrase is also interesting. If you actually build two separate buildings on one lot, is that still allowed?
I guess, seriously, it all comes down to public financing, and yes publicly financed projects should be all-inclusive and non-discriminatory. But this still strikes me as an especially prickly example - it's complex.
sounds like carrera is willing to pay if it makes him feel more special than the rabble on the internets
^Suppose the term VIP threw you off, their term not mine…has nothing to do with feeling “special” it happens to be a matter of not being able to walk the required ½ mile to get to the park because of my bum leg and the embarrassment of needing help to get up if I sit on the ground…but I do have an aversion to having some “rabble” sitting on my lap during the concert.
Ok, Donna, I'll bite on your analogy: if the club is a separate facility for people who can afford it, then no, they don't have to allow in anyone who cannot afford it. But that's not the case you have here. In this case, it's more like one health club which has two different exercise facilities, one top notch one for rich people, another perfectly good one for people who can't afford the other one. Now, the club is perfectly within its rights to direct people to the facility which they have paid for and keep the "poorer" people out of the richer "facility", that's fine; but does it really have the right to make the "poorer" members have to enter into a dingy, not as nice lobby; for what reason? What, do they have cooties that they will give the "richer" members? At that point you're just being mean and it's nothing but economic apartheid.
(How about if they made you enter an airplane through the fuselage so that first class people wouldn't have to look at your economy ass, would you like that?)
Also, how are the cute girl or the buff guy in the market-rate apartments supposed to meet the person of their dreams from the snazzy condos if not in the lobby? What, don't you believe in fairy tales? Movin' on up, yo!
carrera, how much of that do you suppose applies to people requiring a separate entrance to their condos? maybe some of the new yorkers need a special entrance due to health or other aging-associated issues? i suppose if it was a health issue though, there should be some sort of access for lower income people that have health issues, or easier access for new parents pushing strollers and such.
just saying, if you found a relation between your concert seat and access to low income housing it could be worth exploring why you felt the need to separate yourself from the lawn people (who are very nice people by the way).
Sorry, should have said "the back of the fuselage"...the whole plane's body is the fuselage.
See, curt, I'm wondering if my middle-class privilege is affecting me in assessing this situation because: I don't want to separate myself from the lawn people, I want to separate myself from the VIPs. They annoy the fuck out of me. Whenever I've been in a VIP situation myself I'm embarrassed (I annoy the fuck out of myself).
But I realize that's a privilege of being a white middle class lady already.
And, you know, to Carrera's point - if he can pay for the convenience of not having to worry about his bum leg, why shouldn't he be able to do so? I just feel like a lot of this is knee-jerk reaction to anything that separates the poors from the richies, and I'm curious as to why my typical knee-jerk liberal reaction isn't being sparked by this situation in particular.
I get furiously ragey at voting rights being obstructed for poor people. This poor door scenario just doesn't seem to fit the same category of insult.
I suppose it reminds enough people of the door for 'coloureds' that it sends up red flags - if you're going to mix the units... if the units were separate, sure, but these are buildings with mixed units. it may be annoying to have people make snide comments, but the right to the same access should be considered.
Somehow I recall 747-400's having a separate exit at the top level for that floor of first class seating - anyone else remember this or am I making something up in my mind.
well, i'm all knee-jerky but i'll see if i can help get to the bottom of why your knee isn't jerky
perhaps you're thinking more of the actual lobby rather than the arm-bands or whatever they put on the poor folk so they can identify who is and is not allowed into the 'nicer' areas? a lobby is a lobby, you're just passing through anyway. assuming they're fairly well maintained. if one happens to have broken light bulbs and a bug infestation, it might be more of an issue.
it could be because this isn't the sort of poor people discrimination that causes things like the ferguson rioting and shooting, but rather it's people who are probably doing well enough and people who are doing a bit better. this isn't really poor people and rich people, it's middle class and upper middle class, right? i don't know if that's actually the case. maybe it really will be rich white people on one side and poor black people on the other...
there have always been some places that a person isn't allowed. short people (short typically being caused by lack of age) aren't allowed on the big roller coaster. there are those restaurants you know of that you can only go to once or twice a year, and those restaurants that are simply outside your means. some universities might not have accepted your application. you didn't get every job you applied for. sometimes it's ok to be excluded from the gentry.
or, as you suggested earlier, the person who wants an exclusive entrance is probably not the sort of person you want to be around. as said above, this isn't proper rich people. this is probably going to be the sort of rich people that want you to know they're above you (ie, not rich).
My two cents:
This is going to increase construction costs by a large factor. I've done work in a few "poor door" buildings. Construction of both parts runs under separate contracts. The smaller, affordable buildings get lower quality GC's on the basis of not having to handle millions of dollars in finishes and complex custom details.
This just means developers will be more likely to chose not to do affordable based on the fact that they can no longer secure $250/sf construction budgets for the affordable buildings and thus must incorporate those parts of the building into their $600/sf contracts.
Shit's not good.
Your first two are not good examples, curt. The roller coaster is a safety issue; the restaurant will still allow you in the same entrance as every other customer the two times a year you can afford to go. Also, Donna, you asked for people to chime in to help you decide but gave no response on my comments on your analogy of the health club...still mulling it over? (not that you have to, just asking). Your comments on the avoidance of VIPs is a nice anecdote (and I have the same annoyance at so called VIPs) but really doesn't address the inequality that exists in a "poor door" to the same building.
Sorry, Don. I think I've been thinking about this too much today! The thing with your health club analogy is that it's private; people have a choice if they want to be members of a club or not. These buildings are private but built using public dollars, so the discrimination question is more serious.
I'm just not sure I see it as discrimination *assuming* that the door I (poor person) gets is decent, safe, and functional. I mean, I'm imagining the lobby for the rich people is super fancy and pretentious and has marble and chandeliers and a doorman to help with groceries and all that stuff.
Those are services you tip for, BTW. So if I can't afford to tip the also likely minimum-wage earning doorman, is that fair for him/her? To have to serve me equally to someone who does?
the poor door wasnt a goal, it was a result of a developer finding a way to maximize profits. its hardly a social issue to begin with and as null points out it probably will not make much sense in the future. one lobby is better than paying for two ultimately.
When the Supreme Court rules that money is speech the poor have no voice. What could be more discriminatory than that?
he can pay for the convenience of not having to worry about his bum leg
A medical disability should not require wealth to compensate for.
But again, Miles, I'm trying not to be overly general about this specific situation of two doors being built on one building. Citizens United is a horrid and tragic injustice, but do poor doors (ugh still hate the rhyming euphemism) directly relate to it?
Hi all, I posted the following in the general thread as well.
-----
There are 2 problems with poor doors
1- poor doors often lead not to poor finishes but substandard ones.
2- the sad problem is that they are already present in (American in this case) architectural history, and we keep ignoring it. I'm not referring to plantations, I'm referring to mansions with two sets of stairs- one for the people we hear stories about, and for everyone else. Go on a house tour, and you'll likely need to ask to see the stairs and you'll be lucky if the docent knows them as more than a shortcut between floors. In the worst cases you can't see the unimportant rooms (read servant quarters) because they have been converted into office or storage space.
Here's another example- think about hotels. When do you see the staff that's not dressed for customer engagement? In the halls, at times in the lobby, but that's about it. We all accept that there are more concierges than housekeeping or maintenance staff- byt we also know that's not the case. Extrapolate that to a place like Vegas- entire streets and tunnels of people you never see.
That's the problem with the poor doors. Poor doors too often lead to poor streets, and people we forget.
Marc - but in a place with NYC's income inequality, can you really justify handling the need to the same amount of craftmanship for the dude installing 5' modular slabs of Corian as compared to the three guys installing 12' slabs of italian marble?
It makes zero sense to treat both tasks equally.
And asking for italian marble on affordable units is batshit insane.
More to add.
Parts of the poor door problem that are not considered are the tenant selection and lease terms for the poor door(s). Here are two examples-
Pittsburgh- The city and the developer pair together to build town homes on property that was occupied by subsidized housing. The goal was to diversify incomes (read improve) and improve the quality of life. Everybody who lived in the housing project was guaranteed a home in the new housing. It sounded like a grand plan until the housing authority started inspecting units at a level that could not be recalled. Violations that were tolerated or accepted with patience and understanding were grounds for eviction. The unproven theory is that the city was trying to remove families from the housing system to increase the availability of market rate units.
Chicago- Another townhouse mixed income development, but the residents are treated differently. If you live in a subsidized unit, you can't have lights outside for a party, nor can you have outdoor furniture for "cookouts." Why? It's in the lease. Stay inside or use the community space. But if you paid market rate- carry on. So imagine a Juneteenth or 4th of July where one door has nothing because they can't, next to the door where the gas grill is on in the back. Imagine how those neighbors feel, or are made to feel.
There are older examples, but I will stop.
to be honest I'm a bit biased here, I work on many projects that have these conditions, usually historically as they are older buildings, etc...
in my unemployment days, scraping by, I also worked in these buildings and used the "poor doors".
...other hand I've visited a Penthouse that had it's own distinctly although slightly strangely place elevator button to access the floor. this person by no means was an asshole, most recent venture would vastly improve the worlds poorest living conditions...
It's one thing if it's public, it's another if it's private.
I've met and worked with many people who use the service entrance and are perfectly happy. A lot of these BOH people get bigger tips in the Holidays than any of you get Bonuses.
Building super's get to live in nice areas. Know one guy he owns two (2) homes outside the city and lives in a great spot in the city.
the term "poor door" is offensive invented surely by media types...
let's re-state the obvious that Null already stated - Income inequality exists absolutely in NYC - and many Brazilians move here because unlike down there, you can be worth millions and take the same subway with the "poor" and not get kidnapped.
If a developer found a loop hole, congrats....in this case it's like an Ivy league institution with poor and wealthy in the same confines.
in short, not sure why this offensive or wrong.
In a pay-to-play society, we all lose. You lose, I lose, and the poor lose. The only people that win aren't ever going to come down to the unwashed halls of Archinect.
Everyone posting here is more likely to lose everything than become wealthy, yet here we sit; more than half of us defending the wealthy in their right to buy their way to a separate door, a separate country, separate laws, separate politicians.
How about not?
+++ 'Pete, pay to play
I suspect that developers will now think twice about putting the subsidized units in their buildings.
Holding developers responsible for the displacement of people is valid, but widening that discussion to issues of "equally" is not.
As Miles mention, there is no such thing as economic equality, you can pretend there is, you can wish for it, you can argue about it, but the chance of it happening in our lifetime is zero.
If they choose to put the units in the building then there should only be one door, but then they'll need to figure out what to do with the 2/3 that will remain vacant.
This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.
It's systematic. This is a symptom, not the disease.
Our society is ill. On top of that we all act like we have an auto-immune disorder and go around trying to keep everyone below us down.
It's totally fucked up.
Null,
I'm not suggesting that the same finishes be used in both instances, but there's a difference between purchasing from a vendor, a lowes depot and from "some guy." Regardless of the cost of the materials, the sense of craft should be the similar if not the same. Added to that, the project overruns in the market rate units should not be made up at the expense of the other units.
i think everyone missed the history and point here and were dragged down by the media into the usual rabbit hole of social politics. some goverment official on behalf of the poor people created a law that ensured this would happen and now are back peddling. two lobbies or one? rational solution,one lobby, but the law was not asking for that was it?
my 2cents on social politics in this country - all humans are NOT created equal, never have been and never will. this statement has maintained a stupid distortion in this country, mainly if you started with 2 dollars and are a billionaire now,considering alll people were created equal - what the hell is everyone elses problem?right? ......the fact is - NO one is equal. the US creed on civil liberties should read - all humans should be treated equally.......which of course still does not guarantee any change in social discrepancies but at least would mean - equal healthcare and education for all.........but since we all equal and i figured out how to pick myself up by my bootstraps (granted i am a white male) whats your fuckin problem?
Good point Olaf. So is architecture capable of responding or reacting to social issues or no?
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.