11–20 of 72 posts
If the rich are willing to pay a premium for the top floors of a building forcing them to share the building with the poor will make them just build their own.
Better yet, have incredibly punitive taxation for this so it becomes even more of a social symbol. Then use that money to improve the lives of people living in the lower floors instead of doing meaningless gestures.
So 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…
Rather is it telling them that the tax payers are paying for their home. The idea being that (for those without a permanent disability) social housing should not be something you stay in forever, rather only until you have the means to find a place to stay on your own. Is it necessarily bad that people are reminded of that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
So 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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?
Forcing rich people to have exposure to poor people to not automatically equate "poor" with "problematic" is one benefit to society.
So 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…
Though when some people have to buy a place for ~800k and other people get state assistance it's hard to see that working out well in either direction. One party feels like their hard work and effort has been undermined and the other party sees privilege and vast inequality.
I people who are "big" enough to drop that kind of money on a property and be ok living next door to someone in a similar plot who didn't.
But what is the solution? Hard to say, maybe tackle the root cause of wealth inequality - but how. I am neither politician nor economist...
So 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. Rather is it telling them that the tax payers are paying for their home. The idea being that (for those without a permanent disability) social housing should not be something you stay in forever, rather only until you have the means to find a place to stay on your own. Is it necessarily bad that people are remin…
What if you have a mental or physical disability that precludes you from paid work? (Note that doesn't include charitable work)
So 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. Rather is it telling them that the tax payers are paying for their home. The idea being that (for those without a permanent disability) social housing should not be something you stay in forever, rather only until you have the means to find a place to stay on your own. Is it necessarily bad that people are remin…
Every time they have visitors, every time they go home, every time they get the post, every time their children see a playground they are not allowed to use [0]?
Yes.
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/mar/25/too-poor-to-p...
‘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.