In NYC, front doors are for rich people only

[Char. Limit]

http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-front-doors-one-percent-120700147.html

That’s right: So-called “poor doors” (or separate entrances for poor people, usually located in the back of the building, out of view from the upper-class tenants) are increasingly common among New York’s swanky residential buildings that house the super-rich alongside a handful of low-income people in order to get tax credits from the city.

Last week, the New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development approved a request by a swanky new condo on the Upper West Side to have a separate entrance in a back alley for its lower income residents (in New York City that means people with an annual income of $51,540 or less).

The front doors, meanwhile, will be reserved for wealthy tenants only.

Apparently in New York City, people who dare commit the cardinal sin of making less than 50k a year are now relegated to going in their own homes through the alleyways. Sickening if you ask me, just sickening.

 

[lisab]

Wow, that's funny, in a really sick way!

Long ago I had friends who lived in a gated community. After spending time there, I quickly realized the gates would not make me feel safer. Rather, they would make me feel penned in with a slice of society I do *not* want to spend much time with.

 

[Tobias Funke]

But is it privately owned? Because as a patriotic American, anything that would get me frothing at the mouth, ranting about the government taking my freedoms is A-ok if you insert that one word. This just seems like the job creators giving more jobs to the door creators to me.

 

[dipole]

Eh, if people don't like it they don't have to live there. It's a small price to pay IMO for living in a good neighboorhood and in what is probably a great building.

ALSO - yahoo news is known for being innaccurate, senstional and having zero journalistic credibility - so this is probably not a widespread thing.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Sickening if you ask me, just sickening.

And rather dangerous if you ask me.

 

[Char. Limit]

Eh, if people don't like it they don't have to live there. It's a small price to pay IMO for living in a good neighboorhood and in what is probably a great building.

ALSO - yahoo news is known for being innaccurate, senstional and having zero journalistic credibility - so this is probably not a widespread thing.

Gotcha. Being treated as sub-human is a small price to pay.

Also, I'm laughing at your dismissal of the source. But if you insist...

Newsweek is acceptable, I take it?

How about TIME?

 

[jbunniii]

The article doesn't make clear whether the "poor door" restriction applies to all tenants earning below a threshold (which may include elderly people who bought generations ago, and who might well be better off than the new "rich" tenants if they own their units outright without a mortgage), or only those who are receiving government-subsidized housing. If the latter, I guess beggars can't be choosers.

 

[russ_watters]

Gotcha. Being treated as sub-human is a small price to pay.

Sub-human? Are they real doors or doggie doors?

 

[Char. Limit]

Sub-human? Are they real doors or doggie doors?

I might be exaggerating somewhat when I say that, but when you're told that you can't use the main door, you have to use a back door in an alley, it at the very least smacks of second-class citizenship. Or... residentship.

 

[jtbell]

The article doesn't make clear whether the "poor door" restriction applies to all tenants earning below a threshold (which may include elderly people who bought generations ago

These are recently-built or about-to-be-built buildings. It looks like in effect, they're designed as two separate buildings abutting each other, with separate entrances and no shared common areas (lobbies, corridors, pools, exercise rooms, etc.)

From the TIME reference given above (actually Money magazine):

“No one ever said that the goal was full integration of these populations,” said David Von Spreckelsen, senior vice president at Toll Brothers [a builder of luxury homes and apartment buildings]. “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.”

 

[dipole]

Yes, any source is better than yahoo, and those sources make it more clear that, like I said, this is a singular event - not a widespread trend.

The above quote says it all really. A big part of the reason why people pay to live in those ridiculous buildings is because they want exclusivity - they want to feel part of an elite community, and don't want to let others in. Childish, irrational, petty? Sure, but the building managers are just giving their tenants what they're paying for.

 

[russ_watters]

Childish, irrational, petty? Sure...

And at Disney World, you can pay extra to get your own special, shorter lines. Oh, the horror.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Did anyonme see this quote: "West Side Rag also says the developer argues that, since the affordable units are in a separate part of the building, it legally must have its own entrance. "

 

[russ_watters]

Also, if you look at the property on Google maps (40 Riverside blvd), it takes up an entire short block and doesn't have a "back alley".

 

[lisab]

Also, if you look at the property on Google maps (40 Riverside blvd), it takes up an entire short block and doesn't have a "back alley".

Hard to say, really - Google maps isn't reliable with addresses. And in most big cities the buildings run right up against each other. Where does one address end, and the other start? It's hard to tell.

But you're right, there is no alley - that was hyperbole in the article. Alleys would take up too much valuable real estate in that part of town. There is a courtyard though, I bet that's where the secondary entrance is.

And a "courtyard entry" actually sounds cool !

Elegant studio available, small pets allowed. Exclusive address, yet affordable! Courtyard entry!

I think I missed my calling.

 

[leroyjenkens]

(in New York City that means people with an annual income of $51,540 or less).

I remember one of my family members was making 50k a year, and my parents talked about her like if I stayed in school, I could one day make that much.
Now, after finding out first hand about the cost of living in some cities, it seems like if you're not making 50k a year, you're living in squalor.

I make 20k a year, work part time, go to school, have a car, my own place, go on about two trips a year, and I pay for everything myself. But, alas, I can't say I live in NYC, which is a huge part of living there, right?

 

[Matterwave]

How can they possibly enforce the rule that "if you earn less than XXX you may not use this entrance"? What are they going to do, run a background check on you every time you enter the building to see if your new annual salary is high enough?

It seems to me the only reasonable way is to designate which areas you are allowed in depending on which condo you bought. If you bought a cheap condo, you go to the cheap condo areas, if you bought an expensive condo you go to the expensive areas.

In this case...how is this any worse than having a rich and a poor side of town or an expensive or cheap condo complex?

 

[lisab]

How can they possibly enforce the rule that "if you earn less than XXX you may not use this entrance"? What are they going to do, run a background check on you every time you enter the building to see if your new annual salary is high enough?

I don't think they restrict doors by income. The units that are available to low-income people have income restrictions, and those units are not accessible through the front door. So if you're low income, you can come through the front door -- you just can't get to your home that way.

I wonder what happens if you buy a low-income unit, and then get a raise?

 

[strangerep]

And at Disney World, you can pay extra to get your own special, shorter lines. Oh, the horror.

Heh, I've even heard dark whispers about how some fat cats pay (a lot) extra for special airline seats, which are much more comfortable, have more room, and attract better cabin service, plus use of exclusive airport lounges, etc. :uhh:

 

[Matterwave]

I don't think they restrict doors by income. The units that are available to low-income people have income restrictions, and those units are not accessible through the front door. So if you're low income, you can come through the front door -- you just can't get to your home that way.

I don't get how this is bad then... you get what you pay for...?

 

[atyy]

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/life-and-arts/2013/07/16/lifelike-exhibit-showcases-realistic-but-unconventional-pieces :tongue2:

 

[Travis_King]

Basic premise here:

Developer introduces plans for a building with two distinct sections, a main lobby and entrance for the swanky apartments and condos leased/bought by the wealthy tenants, and a set of affordable housing units for lower income people and families (people who must meet a certain set of requirements, including having a household income of less than $52,000). These aren't beggars being herded into an alley; they're lower income people and families who are being offered housing while accepting that they won't take part in the frill and pomp of the luxury wing of the building.

The developer is incentivized to do this because they received subsidies for building lower income housing (if you don't know, the housing market in NYC is ridiculous, there just isn't enough). No developer wants to build a building and take all that risk just for low income/subsidized units, so really this developer is taking a novel approach which could really help the housing market if the trend takes hold. First, they typically have a tough time selling the lower units anyway, these buildings sell out top-to-bottom. So they regain their capital investment by selling off the upper units (or renting them at NYC high-rise prices), and then have ongoing subsidized equity in the form of the lower income units. Not a bad gig.

So what the developer proposed is pretty simple. They have an entrance to the lower income units on one side of the building, and they have a lobby for the tenants and owners of the super-expensive units on the other. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

If this were an existing building and the owners were trying to "spruce the place up" by demanding that it's lower income tenants use the back-alley service door; then yea I'd see a major issue. But this is clearly not the case. And it's in the upper west side of Manhattan! It's no SoHo or West Village, but it's really nice, very safe, and saddled between central park and riverside drive. I'm sitting here laughing because while these articles are all spitting derision at the developer, I can guarantee they have thousands of people clamoring to get one of these places.

 

[Char. Limit]

My bad here. I trusted the articles probably too much for my own good... especially the implication that the developer was labeling these as "poor doors", which really got under my skin.

 

[WWGD]

Still, I think the general question of the limits of what we as a society should allow money to buy is a legitimate and important one. And just because some things are for sale does not imply that it is a good idea to allow this to be so. Not an easy question to answer , but an important one, IMHO. I think this guy :

http://www.cuil.pt/r.php?cx=0028257...10&ie=UTF-8&q=michael+sandel,+money&sa=Search http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isnt-for-sale/308902/

presents the issue well, and does not seem to come from an anti-market position.

 

[George Jones]

Also happening in London, England:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/25/poor-doors-segregation-london-flats

 

[WannabeNewton]

I don't get how this is bad then... you get what you pay for...?

Obviously this isn't enough for the people who need to complain about everything, particularly when it comes to the sensationalized pitting of rich against poor.

 

[WWGD]

Obviously this isn't enough for the people who need to complain about everything, particularly when it comes to the sensationalized pitting of rich against poor.

That seems like a pretty loaded statement. Sensationalized? How so ? Should money have a say in every single aspect of our lives? The people complaining are those who complain about everything? This usually means one does not agree with the claims being made.

 

[George Jones]

Should money have a say in every single aspect of our lives?

Including democracy? Tom Perkins recently stated the rich should be able to buy more vote than the poor.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/14/investing/tom-perkins-vote/

http://time.com/8466/tom-perkins-taxes/

How serious was he? I don't know.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Sensasionalized? How so ?

It has already been established in this thread that the article originally linked in the OP used trigger words that were not an accurate depiction of the actual arrangement.

Should money have a say in every single aspect of our lives?

I don't see what this has to do with the topic of the thread in any way. The issue being discussed is money-centric by nature. If you just read the article in the OP without consulting other sources to see what the situation was actually like then that isn't my fault. If you're claiming that people who don't have enough money should still get luxuries they otherwise could not afford then that's an argument I don't want to get into. Suffice to say such a mindset will never find foothold in society.

The people complaining are those who complain about everything?

It was a remark made to point out how certain people jump on the gun at every possible chance given even the slightest impulse to play the social justice warrior. The exact same article was linked on my facebook news feed and a handful of people jumped on the bandwaggon and started professing their "disgust" for the establishment and how poor people are treated like garbage in NYC until someone came along and pointed out what lisab and Travis_King pointed out above. Of course that didn't stop said people from turning the argument into one about how poor people should be given better facilities and more luxurious living arrangements because it's "unfair" to have them live that way just because they don't have enough money. If this thread goes down the same line then I won't lie, I'm going to have a really good laugh.

 

[WWGD]

O.K, my bad, I missed those replies. Re money deciding everything, I was trying to interpret your response, based on my not reading those replies. But I did read other articles, in a broader sense, including the ones I linked to; if you had read my link , you would see this is not what I believe.

 

[Czcibor]

I've got a different thought:

The status grants Extell the aforementioned tax breaks and the right to construct a larger building than would ordinarily be allowed.

So first gov limits the supply and later fights heroically with too high prices?

 

[Travis_King]

I've got a different thought:



So first gov limits the supply and later fights heroically with too high prices?

The height of newly constructed buildings is strictly controlled in NYC, especially in the high demand areas. People who pay top dollar want height, but If you want to build a high rise with only residential units, you're going to have a tough time. But if you include in your building permit application a few floors of commercial space, you can get away with extra floors. Problem is: if you are paying 12 million for a penthouse condo, do you really want tons of people coming into your building visiting Wells Fargo or tons of foot traffic from clients visiting the financial group that moved into the 4th floor? Probably not. So adding commercial space to get those penthouses up in the air may not pay off.

However, if you get that extra height because you added subsidized housing, AND that housing is basically completely separated from the luxury condos, you've got the best of both worlds. Good business plan on pretty much all fronts.

 

[WWGD]

The height of newly constructed buildings is strictly controlled in NYC, especially in the high demand areas. People who pay top dollar want height, but If you want to build a high rise with only residential units, you're going to have a tough time. But if you include in your building permit application a few floors of commercial space, you can get away with extra floors. Problem is: if you are paying 12 million for a penthouse condo, do you really want tons of people coming into your building visiting Wells Fargo or tons of foot traffic from clients visiting the financial group that moved into the 4th floor? Probably not. So adding commercial space to get those penthouses up in the air may not pay off.

However, if you get that extra height because you added subsidized housing, AND that housing is basically completely separated from the luxury condos, you've got the best of both worlds. Good business plan on pretty much all fronts.

Can't you also have the best of both worlds by having separate entrances/elevators for businesses and for rentals? Maybe have the low-end condos share the entrance with businesses? If the businesses are facing the street, it is not that big of a deal, since , while high, foot traffic to businesses like delis, supermarkets is not extreme. Besides, I think many appreciate the convenience of having small businesses nearby, so they can just walk out and have a slice of pizza, or an espresso , and are willing to pay the price of having foot traffic around. I have seen this be the case in many fancy/expensive buildings.

 

[Travis_King]

Can't you also have the best of both worlds by having separate entrances/elevators for businesses and for rentals? Maybe have the low-end condos share the entrance with businesses? If the businesses are facing the street, it is not that big of a deal, since , while high, foot traffic to businesses like delis, supermarkets is not extreme. Besides, I think many appreciate the convenience of having small businesses nearby, so they can just walk out and have a slice of pizza, or an espresso , and are willing to pay the price of having foot traffic around. I have seen this be the case in many fancy/expensive buildings.

The commercial space almost exclusively goes to banks and financial firms (or lawyers, or some sort of thing like that). You almost never see high rises turn into shopping areas. The thing is, unless you are in the financial district, developers don't really build these types of buildings. The turnover is ridiculous; small firms that start up and can't afford madison ave so they go to the upper west side and then fizzle out in a few weeks owing a year and half of rent. So in areas that aren't financial districts, they don't really rent out commercial space, because as nice as it sounds, people who rent condos don't want to live above businesses. There's something psychologically...irksome...about it; people don't like it.

When I say commercial space, what I mean is that they have a first floor lobby, then several floors which are rented to various businesses that do not require foot traffic (so no delis, supermarkets, trinket shops, etc), and then the condos. These are luxury apartments. They have a lobby, a doorman, a lounge area, all that. There are thousands of apartements above delis in the city, but you'll never see luxury apartments above a Vacilios's Greek Market. Nobody will pay 5+ million if their apartment is above a deli.