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
Marc - No. Money is power, and architecture is bought.
Null, great and thanks.
Two more questions.
1- if architecture cannot respond to social issues, but is now being forced to do just that in NYC, what will the blowback be? In truth, architecture is subject to a whole range of social issues on a regular basis- zoning, overlay districts, preservation guidelines, etc. but what impact will this rule have? In some respects, I don't care because if architecture is bought, the client will have done the math prior to hiring an architect to determine feasibility.
IMHO, the issue will be how to lock out floors or sections of a building to keep certain amenities exclusive to the market rate units. If everyone can use the roof top fire pit, the exclusive nature of the prime real estate will have been lost. You might as well go out on the street and interact with everybody.
2- specifc to a building, say a library, don't the program adjacencies that are designed by the architect inside the building create or control social relationships? Granted that is a public type, but private structures such as multi-family buildings and museums still articulate public and private interactions. Are those not are social interactions? Sure the client buys the services of a designer, but the designer still has some control.
Olaf,
I appreciate you career arc having a similar path, but would like you to consider that there is more to the bootstrap trope than is commonly revealed. In short opportunities that are taken are either made or outright given by others. My favorite reference for this is the research of Nancy Di Tomaso at Rutgers. Again, I have nothing but respect your accomplishments, but think it's valuable to consider the research when you suggest that all people should be treated equally.
(I also find your reference to the declaration omitting reference to the Creator interesting, suggesting a shift from a Christian idealism to one that is more grounded in economics hence the substitution)
Marc, appreciate your posts on this, you might have missed mine, which was that providing housing for those displaced by a new building is one thing, but social engineering is another... just because the relocated apartment happens to be in a $1 Million per apartment building doesn't make the relocated resident an instant millionaire.
You can see where this is all headed.
Well, Donna, I'm not agonizing over this one; they should all enter in the same lobby. The thing is, the fucking developers are getting a tax break, but then their money making alarm goes on and says "My luxury renters won't want to see the rabble in the lobby", how do I get around this and not fuck up my tax break.
The other thing is, what VIPs we talking here? There are plenty of VIP's who won't give a flying fuck about who walks through their lobby as long as they also live in the building. Look at the picture illustrating this news item: the Dakota. It's a Central Park West aparment house. And guess who lived there...that's right, John Lennon, a Liverpool working class scouse. If the Dakota had some market-rate apartments in it, do you thing the guy who wrote "Imagine" would have accepted that they enter through other doors like servants? Do you think he would have minded bumping into the random musician, artist, or writer - who could only afford the cheap apartments - in the lobby? Hell no, I'm guessing he would have relished it as would his wife who came from the art world. There are plenty of VIP types who wouldn't get their panties in a bunch either, just rent to them.
But I'm guessing this ain't coming from the renters, it's the developers and investors and real estate folks: anything they perceive as threatening their bottom line, even if it's in their paranoid heads, has to be dealt with. So keep the hoi polloi out of the good lobby even though they gladly accept our tax dollars to build their building. I'm glad New York told them where to stick their separate entrances.
Carrera, I don't making millionaires out of everybody is the goal. But it beats the pressure that blight places on city infrastructure and services. It also increases exposure to other experiences, solutions, and opportunities.
Don, architects are a clever bunch. Someone will "solve the problem" in due time, then it's business as usual.
Well, Marc, we already had come up with a solution, in cahoots with the Guv'ment: tear down the old tight communities in the inner city and isolate poor people in ugly-ass towers in the middle of dirt plots with streets that don't connect to the rest of the grid. We know how that worked out. Now the Gubmint wants to social-engineer this solution and that's what they get in response.
Don, like I said I'm trying to work through this myself. Your reference to people entering the Dakota through the back door "like servants" stuck with me. Maybe I'm naive, but it seems to me one entry could be GOOD: pleasant, safe, not hidden on an alley, totally acceptable as a good, new, quality lobby in a Manhattan building, and the other entry lobby could be luxe: marble, doorman, etc.
I believe everyone should have safe, clean, decent housing. There's no need for the "poor door" lobby to be a miserable experience...or am I truly being naive to think that developers would not intentionally build a super-crappy cheap door for the regulars?
By solution I meany one that is site/pro forms specific.
And yes, planning policy has had its failures, including the ongoing erasure of neighborhoods and other landscapes that are deemed underperforming- for the benefit of others. But I'm not sure moving people beyond first tier suburbs with little to no connection to city centers - where jobs and other opportunities are reappearing- is the answer. In the last iteration, jobs moved out of cities, and the result is where things are now.
marc i was being my usual sarcastic ironic insane olaf self with my bootstrap comment, but you got what i was saying in your last sentence..........i think its very misleading for a statement that is literally not true such as "all men are created equal" to make a figurative point about all men are Equal in Gods eyes, which actually means leterally All men shall be treated equally. When Economics supersedes Christianity, which has for a good part in this country, what happens are those who were not born equal whether genetically or social class placement, they take such a sentence and invert the entire principle, as if to say everyone had an equal shot a sthey did - couh cough bull shit!...........now can architecture be political- it can find itself in the throws of politics as a vehicle, the architect can choose to interject non architectural solutions to make a political comment or could provide the best architecure as per circumstances with the politcal nature of the architecture as an after thought.
I guess I want to play this out at the user experience level. Say several people who live in the building are approaching it—for convenience sake, they got off the same subway train and are walking to their building, or they are kids coming home from school at the same time. They strike up a conversation on their way to the building. They have arrived, and the poorest among them must attempt to quietly slip around the side and enter through the door they are allowed to go through, probably hoping the others don't notice that he's a poor. They're going to the same place, but he's not allowed through the same door the rest of the group is. Even if nobody notices, he's now missed the end of the conversation, if they have noticed he may now be looked down upon. Either way, he's not likely to be invited out for a social engagement at the end of the conversation, while those who enter together may indeed make plans for later. Or say there's a meeting of tenants in the building, maybe it's about a residential issue, or maybe it's just that someone's decided to start a running group or some such social activity. Now, which lobby do they meet in? And which lobby do they post flyers for the running group in the first place? My bet is that all happens in the rich people lobby, where the poors aren't allowed, because most of the units in the building are market-rate.
The upshot is that the poor people are required to distance themselves from opportunities for participation in the society of their building. Also, given the statistics of poverty, those poor people with those reduced opportunities are more likely to people people of color, resulting in a de facto segregation. This may not have been the intention, but it's the way the impact is likely to play out.
And yes Donna, I think your position in society absolutely is skewing your perception of this issue. Don't think about whether you want to interact with the people who make more than you, think about whether people who make a fraction of what you make would want to interact with you, whether they would want to introduce their kid who wants to be an architect when she grows up to you and may not have another opportunity to interact with someone at the professional level.
one of architects key skills is the ability to solve problems of design, politics, regulation. Characterising the de-segregation of lobbies as a problem may be offensive but I can guarantee that it will be seen that way by clients. after all, economic separation, in both the public and private market, is a key generator of pricing and yield. people will voluntarily pay a premium for what they perceive as an more exclusive or better experience/product.
Regardless of our opinion of the policy and personal ideology, inevitably architects will be tasked with 'solving the problem' created by this regulation.
with a cynical mind it's interesting to consider the possible spatial gymnastics that will be employed to maintain the clients desire for marketing exclusivity. will the lobby be redefined as a small airlock in which the different groups are separated? if the regulation specifies that its about the street address then I would imagine that it would be easy to argue that the lift rises are split (a friendly lift engineer will ensure that the lift performance requires a separate rise). I can't see how it would be possible to regulate internal circulation. would it lead to a proliferation of ante-lobbies, lobbies within lobbies? does the doorman just get moved one layer inside?
personally I think I'd agree with Donna, I would probably rather my own door. pushing everyone through one door then explicitly segregating them inside their own building would to me feel more overt and infact more exclusionary than a separate entrance where you feel like your home when you get through the front door.
I also agree that the existence of a second door is a separate issue from the good design of that entrance. surely this is where the planners responsibility lies.
and that's when you employ a Costas Minimal Surface....see I solved the problem with a mathematically generated object that is formed Parametrically
you will never cross paths with the Other.
Olaf- ah. The keyboard of the web age needs a sarcasm setting, something like an over the top italics.
I love the last paragraph of your post, rationalist. Absolutely right on.
Marc, you asked on the previous page whether architecture is capable of responding or reacting to social issues. I think not only is it capable but that one of our responsibilities as professional architects IS to address social issues beyond only what the client tells us to draw.
Obviously not every architect does this, and sadly we have a legacy of major projects that sought to address social inequality and are considered to have failed, though as has been pointed out on every thread about beton brut public housing poor upkeep and management of the building is absolutely not the fault of the designer. I suppose since I can't imagine myself designing something that would be intentionally disrespectful or derogatory to a certain class of people I can't imagine that others wouldn't, too. We should always treat our clients AND the users of the buildings who are not "our" clients with respect.
Olaf,
I completely disagree with your approach to solving the problem.
You've just given away the answer that is best suited for "our time." However will you recoup all that lost fee? But I do appreciate the upbeat tone to the pitch. Mathematically generated topologies do solve everything.
rationalist, I agree great as was mouse's.
one of architects key skills is the ability to solve problems of design, politics, regulation.
Not according to Patrik Shoemuncher.
And then Olaf does a parametric exercise. LOL
Donna,
The problem is that "the developer" is taking more charge of the process and architects are increasingly becoming a tool in the repitiore. I've referred to it as a strange relationship between postmodern narratives (steampunk condos or the Piano District) and parametric pro formas. Too often designers are tasked with making the stories a physical reality within a budget, with little input to no input otherwise.
I know what it's like to be poor, to be invisible, to know the embarrassment of using food stamps as a 9th grader, hiding them from your friends. I lived in a two room shack, with three siblings, and my mom; so I know the poor door.
Never has architecture more fully articulated what the aristocracy already know so well, than they have in this building; the working poor are there to serve them, they are provided the basics, shelter, and anything else, well, that's not on the menu. Dignity, sorry. A voice in the process? How much money do you got? Working out, really now. Doesn't walking up those stairs, because the elevator, on your side of the building, is out for three days, provide you with enough of a workout?
You can bet your ass that the management company on one side of building will respond differently to elevator issues differently than those on the other side.
I can never fully get behind socialism, because in some way, I don't think we've had enough, projects, and efforts like this, give me hope that we may be finally on a path of saying; fuck this shit, and I'm mad as hell and....well, yeah, back to my Angry Birds, on my iPad.
I've already solved the political problem Parametrically.
Back to your drafting tables you peasants, the developer does not need your input, they are awaiting the realtors advise!
/\ I make joke image [this image and the italics mean i'm a funny guy ]
LOL
What rationalist talks about is basically the city as a giant mixer. If the city in not the place for serendipitous meetings, chance encounters, the mixing of everyone from everywhere, and the setting that makes those encounters happen, then I don't really know what it's for. I wasn't kidding about John Lennon meeting a young musician and making a connection. Hell, what happened to him on the sidewalk outside was what happens in cities too, the bad part, but he wouldn't have changed anything on how he lived his life there.
Now, I said above that this kind of project is more social engineering by the government; well, what the developers of these projects are doing is also social engineering: they are denying the mixing, the serendipitous encounter; they are dictating division and social stratification based on income, and it's just as vile as what the government attempted to do with social housing way back when. I've been hearing for a while that what New York City used to be is on it's way out, or already long gone, but I'm finally starting to believe it.
and now is the time on Schprokets ven ve dance!
and to be clear, to end Rationalist story with out slipping around the back the Costas Minimal Surface configuration would have doors on the same side of the building, but once each social class enters their door they will not run into each other. problem solved.
more serious note - Marc, besides running for office or becoming a member of the zoning and planning committee, how does an architect solve a problem like this, besides walking away due to it's unethical nature? Do they take on the commission and naively think they can talk sense into the developer and then follow through and are called non-ethical architects? architecture is too slow for real politics....now flashing renderings and competition entries, that's another thing. Paper architecture, etc... that might get a message across, but it's fluff just like politics.
Olaf, I think they state clearly that they do not believe the separate doors to be in the spirit of the code and don't think they will get approval and that even if it does it puts them at serious financial risk of drawing a lawsuit. If the client still insists, have your lawyer write a letter to the client stating clearly what your professional advice is in order to abide by the law and avoid potential lawsuits and possible necessity for reconfiguration down the line. Most likely, the client will call you up and say "what the hell is this?" and then you explain that this is just a formality for legal purposes so that when they get sued over this issue the architect can prove that they advised against this course of action. No guarantees, but I think that's your best bet at getting the change.
88,000 applicants for the 55 units at the 'poor door' building.......starting to wonder if anyone of you have any idea what you are talking about? (partial italics).......... rationalist i hear you, and that is all an architect can do - write a letter. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/nyregion/poor-door-building-draws-88000-applicants-for-55-rental-units.html?referrer=
trying to search the addresses on the NYC DOB website. appears neither exists yet,here is the link to the block http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/PropertyBrowseByBBLServlet?requestid=1&allborough=1&allblock=1171
btw the way Riverside Boulevard is Costas Kondylis territory ( aka Donald Trumps architect)....this is in an Extell project though.....just wanted to point that out to keep it interesting.
incase you never heard of Costas (67 high rises in like 7 years).....http://www.thirteen.org/programs/treasures-of-new-york/building-stories/ .....last note before i arrive in the city - my favorite interview in that documentary is with Richard Meier in what appears to be the back room file storage, his reactions are hilarious and so are Ken Framptons....
This has been a really great discussion, thank you everyone. I'm not trying to end it, just pointing out that it's a really valuable (if long) read on this very complex topic. Carry on.
We address it on the podcast this week too, I'll link to that when it's live.
In the meantime, the slams on parametricism are beautiful to behold!!
Don, I love the imagery of city as "giant mixer". Aren't we as architects frequently striving to create "gathering places" (whatever that means, amirite?) and "serendipitous encounters" and all those other catchphrases for human interaction throughout our buildings? Not only on the interior but in our urban approach, as well. I feel like we are trained to enhance human interaction, and that this should always be a goal.
But this topic is still, in my mind, really thorny.
As the band plays the show theme song and the mic's have been turned off, there's always that post show banter. I'm slipping this in only because I was asked.
I think the battle is lost in the short run. We will need to wait another 20 years to see this cycle play itself out fully. Major city centers becoming over priced and homogenized. But at the same time we will see project like these become old and passé, because the original owner got out in 10 years and went on to the next big thing, leaving a building with finishes that are popping off the adhesives that were hastily applied.
Meanwhile I think architecture should return to the debate about humanism and whether it matters. I would say yes, but even just to say those people in renderings are people not just photoshop place holders is important. The other thing is to fold urban design back into building design. I'm not suggesting that it is a practice exclusive to architecture, but that's often where the discussion begins. To point at an easy target, the "I look Up" spot suggests that the story begind on the street as a shared experience. When we start to segregate the experience before you even enter the building the message in the architecture can get messy.
Olaf, I'm not at all surprised that there were that many people signing up for those market-rate apartments; I'm surprised that number isn't bigger. But that just proves the point: New York, like San Francisco and some other cities, is slowly pricing out certain economic classes and is becoming a nice Disney World for the moneyed few. And when affordable apartments like that are available in NYC they are desired, no matter "poor door" or not; that doesn't lessen the fucking vileness of the concept.
This subsidized housing effort is a nice try by the City, but the writing is on the wall. I question the whole premise of shoving market-rate apartments into these projects: it's obvious the developers are only accepting the concept for the tax break, but then it's business as usual on coddling their super-tenants. They want their cake and eat it too, get the tax break and feel like their doing something nice for the poor unwashed but keep them out of site, by all means. Again, I question the whole typology: if the city wants starving artists and restaurant workers and various hard working folks to be able to live in Manhattan and not go bankrupt paying their rent, then make a real effort toward achieving that, not these measly crumbs which in the end will not stop the homogenizing of Manhattan.
Jim Crow.
"Separate but equal"
Unconstitutional.
Illegal.
Abolished.
Enough "chime" for you?
You can still be an architect and a erudite.
The poor door is a disgusting move in a recent series of moves to create an urban Disneyland for rich folks...Main street USA has this underground tunnel where all the work happens out of sight and mind to not disturb the picturesque idealized experience of Main street USA. Sound familiar?
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.