Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
1–10 of 72 posts
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#2So I know in London any new housing development has to allocate part of the properties for shared ownership or social housing,
To be able to get planning approval.
Seems very reasonable because property developers make a lot of money selling luxury homes. And also in a lot of places the development is made after demolishing "unsightly" high density social housing.
Often with far fewer homes than there were there originally.
The social housing may be in a separate apartment block in a large development or the less prestigious lower floors.
If you pass by a development it's often obvious what the poor door is.
I've seen one where the social housing residents can't come in through the main entrance but instead goes through the utilities entrance, past the bin storage.
The justification I normally hear about it is that the private home owners will pay high service charges for things like concierge, swimming pools, gyms landscaped gardens, etc etc.
But honestly this seems like an excuse. Like people aren't asking for services for free.
The architecture of their home is telling them that they are inferior every time they enter their homes.
I find it hard to imagine the scenario where a developer is presenting their plan to the council and saying: "this is the door for the poor people"
But then again, I can imagine the arguments of "this is how it is always done"
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#3Ah, yes. They may want to talk to people responsible for selling parts of Vancouver olympic village for 2-3 mil per apartment in one building while the adjacent one was allocated to the welfare housing. Even in a presence of Chinese money. See how well it went.
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#4What does this have to do with hacker or tech news?
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#5This might be going in the wrong direction. To address wealth inequality, shouldn't we instead make it obvious? For example, by publishing tax records.
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#6‘Poor doors’ are just a natural consequence of putting social housing where it doesn’t belong.
Making social housing more luxurious isn’t solving any real problems.
Tax the luxury developments more and spend that money on social housing in a reasonable location instead.
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#7‘Poor doors’ are just a natural consequence of putting social housing where it doesn’t belong. Making social housing more luxurious isn’t solving any real problems. Tax the luxury developments more and spend that money on social housing in a reasonable location instead.
Where does social housing belong then? Where rich people can't see it?
Society benefits greatly from mixed areas - race, class, etc.
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#8So I know in London any new housing development has to allocate part of the properties for shared ownership or social housing, To be able to get planning approval. Seems very reasonable because property developers make a lot of money selling luxury homes. And also in a lot of places the development is made after demolishing "unsightly" high density social housing. Often with far fewer homes than there were there orig…
>The architecture of their home is telling them that they are inferior every time they enter their homes.
Well, they don't belong there. They are there because the government has mandated it. It's unnatural, and this is the result.
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#9‘Poor doors’ are just a natural consequence of putting social housing where it doesn’t belong. Making social housing more luxurious isn’t solving any real problems. Tax the luxury developments more and spend that money on social housing in a reasonable location instead.
Where does social housing belong then? Where rich people can't see it? Society benefits greatly from mixed areas - race, class, etc.
>Society benefits greatly from mixed areas - race, class, etc.
Citation needed. Also If I buy a flat and I have to live with problematic people, how does that benefit me?
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#10‘Poor doors’ are just a natural consequence of putting social housing where it doesn’t belong. Making social housing more luxurious isn’t solving any real problems. Tax the luxury developments more and spend that money on social housing in a reasonable location instead.
Where does social housing belong then? Where rich people can't see it? Society benefits greatly from mixed areas - race, class, etc.
Social housing belongs where the prices are reasonable, i.e. mostly not in central London luxury developments.
We’re talking about the most desirable areas in the world here, trying to force in social housing is just weird.
It’s not like there isn’t a bunch of places within a very reasonable commute where they could put social housing. Fuck, I used to commute from Reading for a while!