So, is the tax payer supposed to be paying for social housing, or social status?
Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
21–30 of 72 posts
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#22So 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.
I see. So, who is going to make your coffee, sweep your streets, drive your buses, collect your trash, teach your children, and cook your meals, once all of the lower wage earners have been excluded from the area? You?
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
Not sure what the argument is here. Living in an apartment is completely unnatural in itself.
Desirable things being (expensive and therefore) affordable when you are rich enough is “natural”.
Desirable things being affordable when you are rich enough or poor enough is “unnatural”.
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#24So 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…
Remind them by segregating them from wealthier people?
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> 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 What if you have a mental or physical disability that precludes you from paid work? (Note that doesn't include charitable work)
That should be a different category of housing (and I believe it is in the UK, “sheltered housing” vs “council housing”)
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#26Ah, 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.
How well did it go?
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#27‘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.
The social housing in luxury high-rises is not luxurious.
Where you might have two, four or eight units to a floor for private owners, social tenants are usually in much smaller units, 16 or 24 to a floor.
The fit-out and finish tends to be “cheapest available”, and it shows. The layouts are often unbearably cramped, and windows are often smaller.
Corridors are frequently left in an unfinished state - painted breeze-blocks and exposed utilities in the ceiling.
So, to call this luxurious is to call anything above sleeping on a doorstep luxurious.
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forcing rich people to have exposure to poor people to not automatically equate "poor" with "problematic" is one benefit to society.
I'm not rich by any measure but I know the kind of people who receive social housing. Not saying they are all problematic but many of them are, and one bad neighbour is enough to make your life hell.
You don’t know the kind of people who receive social housing, and it shows.
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> Is it necessarily bad that people are reminded of that? 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...
I agree that is horrible, but I think the mistake here is in mixing social housing into the same apartment block. Where I live social housing is in a dedicated building, typically located next to a public park.
Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing
#30‘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.
The social housing in luxury high-rises is not luxurious. Where you might have two, four or eight units to a floor for private owners, social tenants are usually in much smaller units, 16 or 24 to a floor. The fit-out and finish tends to be “cheapest available”, and it shows. The layouts are often unbearably cramped, and windows are often smaller. Corridors are frequently left in an unfinished state - painted breeze-…
>The social housing in luxury high-rises is not luxurious.
It is, by the virtue of the location alone
Complaining about the fit and finish just shows the mountain of privilege you’re standing on.