As mentioned here previously, the decision by New York City authorities to permit the construction of a large luxury condo tower with 59 "affordable apartments" accessible via a "poor door" located in an alley has raised a liberal number of eyebrows. Yet these same people exhort us to be more like Britain and the rest of "socially-conscious" Europe.
Well, here's a news flash: that's exactly what the tower builders in NYC are doing:
A Guardian investigation has discovered a growing trend in the capital's upmarket apartment blocks – which are required to include affordable homes in order to win planning permission – for the poorer residents to be forced to use alternative access, a phenomenon being dubbed "poor doors". Even bicycle storage spaces, rubbish disposal facilities and postal deliveries are being separated.
There appears to be growing concern in some quarters that such approaches create a "two-tiered system" - apparently in complete suspension from the reality that such systems have been around forever. Certainly, Beverly Hills is a world away from Compton. In cities, such architectural considerations as "poor door" entries for access to government-mandated "affordable housing" is simply the most cost-effective approach; the wealthy people buying the luxury condos also pay HOA fees which furnish and maintain the lobby and other amenities, whereas the apartment-dwellers pay no such fees. That being the case, why should they expect to access HOA-paid amenities?
"Side-door shame", indeed. People complain that such arrangements put the cream at the front and the rubbish at the back. Well, if you live in subsidized housing that's safe, secure, war, and dry - just what sort of amenities should you be "entitled" to?
Government mandates to provide "affordable housing" in such developments are bad enough, but the expectation that the folks who aren't paying for the amenities provided by the HOAs should nonetheless have the same level of access to them as those who are paying the fees is unrealistic.