Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 72 posts

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#41

Post by jlangenauer »

jchb wrote: post #12
Jonnax wrote: post #2

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…

Why must “social housing” be temporary? I have no problem with people living the entire lives in social housing if they do wish, as it’s a good way of distributing the wealth of countries, and the state can provide secure, affordable housing much better than capricious profit-driven landlords.

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#42

Post by em-bee »

xorcist wrote: post #15
vwdhx wrote: post #8

Earlier 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.

what would you consider natural? living outside in the bush?

in germany, owning property is considered unnatural or rather not the norm unless you are a farmer. it's all about how society develops and what it chooses as their lifestyle.

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#43

Post by Quequau »

jchb wrote: post #29
sigwinch28 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Creating ghettoes by segregating and concentrating people into certain zones or buildings based on class, national origin, or perceived race is bad public policy that has many unwanted bad outcomes.

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#44

Post by madaxe_again »

ryanlol wrote: post #10
insomniacity wrote: post #7

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!

And how is somebody earning £60 a day going to pay for a £23/day commute, and housing on top of that, smartypants? Oh, right, taxpayer money.

It’s almost like they’ve modelled this out before making it policy.

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#45

Post by Freestyler_3 »

vwdhx wrote: post #16
crooked-v wrote: post #14

Earlier 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.

I agree with you, all the neighborhoods with social housing have thrash laying around, more crime (or general unsafe feeling) I know because I was living in the middle of it all in social housing. The problematic people live there their whole life, making their behavior the standard.

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#46

Post by em-bee »

quibbler wrote: post #38

What if the "poor people" become a nuisance? Such articles always frame things in a rosy light, as if the evil rich planners are the only reason people are divided. What if the poor people are alcoholics, drug dealers, petty thieves, antisocial people? Why should other people be forced to deal with them?

do only poor people mess up?

why should i have to put up with that rich neighbors son who thinks he can do whatever he wants because his parents keep bailing him out?

this attitude is clearly discrimination and unfair.

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#47

Post by jchb »

thetrainfold wrote: post #24
jchb wrote: post #12

Earlier 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…

Remind them by segregating them from wealthier people?

Everyday people are “segregated” based on their wealth in some way. What area you can afford to live in, the car you drive, what restaurants you can afford to eat in, which fruits you can afford in the supermarket etc.. What makes housing special? Must social housing necessarily be located in one of the worlds most expensive areas in central London? Are you criticizing capitalism in general？

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#48

Post by jchb »

Quequau wrote: post #43
jchb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Creating ghettoes by segregating and concentrating people into certain zones or buildings based on class, national origin, or perceived race is bad public policy that has many unwanted bad outcomes.

> based on class, national origin, or perceived race

Well it is you who are mixing “race” into this. I am just reading “people from whatever background that currently do not have the means to get a roof over their head”.

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#49

Post by ryanlol »

madaxe_again wrote: post #44
ryanlol wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

And how is somebody earning £60 a day going to pay for a £23/day commute, and housing on top of that, smartypants? Oh, right, taxpayer money. It’s almost like they’ve modelled this out before making it policy.

What exactly is wrong about using taxpayer money to subsidize those commutes?

I think we should certainly impose heavier taxes on the luxury developments and the rich living in them.

Re: Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing

#50

Post by DanBC »

There's a real misunderstanding in this thread of what this "social housing" actually is.

This is not council housing.

This is affordable housing. It's owned by a landlord and then privately rented. The people in it tend not to be the unemployed, because they can't afford it. The rental prices tend to be set higher than the Local Housing Allowance, and so Housing Benefit (or the housing element of Universal Credit) would not cover the whole rent.

The people living in this affordable housing tend to be teachers, nurses, police officers, fire-service personnel, public law solicitors and barristers, small business owners -- the people who help make society work. We need those people, and it benefits us if they live in or near the communities in which they work.

There's also a bit of misunderstanding about the other side of these housing developments -- some of them are luxury developments, but many of them aren't. They're just expensive but normal housing, because London happens to be stupidly fucking expensive.

Post reply on HN