NYC approves apartment building with separate entrance for poor people
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:31:33 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  NYC approves apartment building with separate entrance for poor people
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: NYC approves apartment building with separate entrance for poor people  (Read 5487 times)
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 21, 2014, 02:03:42 PM »

"No one ever said that the goal was full integration of these populations," said David Von Spreckelsen, senior vice president at Toll Brothers. "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."

http://gawker.com/nyc-approves-apartment-building-with-separate-entrance-1608352680

But you know, Same Love and all.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2014, 02:07:43 PM »

They own the building at the end of the day.
Logged
Paul Kemp
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,230
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2014, 02:14:10 PM »

They own the building at the end of the day.

Someone owned the lunch counters at Woolworths as well.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2014, 02:14:57 PM »

But they still have to interact with the doorman, who is likely just as non-white.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2014, 02:16:29 PM »

You mean someone in the De Blasio administration approved that? Ugh.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2014, 02:18:22 PM »

How in the hell did the poors get an entrance at all?
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2014, 02:30:28 PM »

They own the building at the end of the day.

Someone owned the lunch counters at Woolworths as well.
Yes, they did. And the Civil Rights movement suceeded in tainting Woolworth's in the eyes of history as well.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2014, 02:52:37 PM »

What's the problem?

If it's a doorman building, the entrance is an amenity paid for by the renters paying the market rate.  It costs money to pay a doorman and if you're not paying market rate, why should you get a doorman?  The service providing by a doorman is a nice amenity, but it's certainly not the type of thing that the city should necessarily subsidize for affordable housing tenants.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2014, 03:00:26 PM »

How in the hell did the poors get an entrance at all?

Right? Many towns in the northeast won't even consider building low-income housing without being forced to by a court order.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2014, 03:16:25 PM »

What's the problem?

If it's a doorman building, the entrance is an amenity paid for by the renters paying the market rate.  It costs money to pay a doorman and if you're not paying market rate, why should you get a doorman?  The service providing by a doorman is a nice amenity, but it's certainly not the type of thing that the city should necessarily subsidize for affordable housing tenants.

This is true on narrow legal grounds, but not only doesn't honestly address the core optics problem with the building described in the OP, but is sufficiently tone-deaf as to possibly make it worse.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2014, 03:26:34 PM »

If you give poor people a separate building project far away from the rich people, you're socialist hero. If you give poor people a separate door on a nice building, you're satan.

The unbounded irrationality of liberal plebs is the 8th wonder of the world.
Logged
Paul Kemp
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,230
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 21, 2014, 03:49:25 PM »

They own the building at the end of the day.

Someone owned the lunch counters at Woolworths as well.
Yes, they did. And the Civil Rights movement suceeded in tainting Woolworth's in the eyes of history as well.

What about those who were oppressed before we were able to see what the "eyes of history" saw?
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 21, 2014, 03:50:39 PM »

If you give poor people a separate building project far away from the rich people, you're socialist hero. If you give poor people a separate door on a nice building, you're satan.

The unbounded irrationality of liberal plebs is the 8th wonder of the world.

haha what
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,838


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 21, 2014, 04:06:53 PM »

If you give poor people a separate building project far away from the rich people, you're socialist hero. If you give poor people a separate door on a nice building, you're satan.

The unbounded irrationality of liberal plebs is the 8th wonder of the world.

haha what



Hail!
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 21, 2014, 04:16:22 PM »

What's the problem?

If it's a doorman building, the entrance is an amenity paid for by the renters paying the market rate.  It costs money to pay a doorman and if you're not paying market rate, why should you get a doorman?  The service providing by a doorman is a nice amenity, but it's certainly not the type of thing that the city should necessarily subsidize for affordable housing tenants.

This is true on narrow legal grounds, but not only doesn't honestly address the core optics problem with the building described in the OP, but is sufficiently tone-deaf as to possibly make it worse.

That's New York City buddy.  We have the necessary obnoxiousness that comes with rubbing elbows.  Is it really worse to have a building with separate entrances than it is to have two buildings, one for only poor people and one for only rich people?  Elsewhere in the country you have rich people in gated neighborhoods. 

This just comes down to the fact that a doorman is an expensive luxury service.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,258
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 21, 2014, 05:54:53 PM »

If you give poor people a separate building project far away from the rich people, you're socialist hero. If you give poor people a separate door on a nice building, you're satan.

The unbounded irrationality of liberal plebs is the 8th wonder of the world.

haha what



Hail!
As much as it utterly pains me to say this, AD actually makes a good point (other than the typically hyperbolic line at the end)
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 21, 2014, 06:58:08 PM »

Yeah, I don't really see how this is worse than the gated community/crumbling housing projects paradigm that is typical in most of the country. Maybe because this is the "norm", people don't have the energy to be outraged by it. AD actually does have a point.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2014, 07:03:23 PM »

Disgusting that this is implemented anywhere. Gross.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2014, 07:03:33 PM »


Just putting a sting in the tail.

However, it is strange that people would complain bitterly about the poor door, when people have tolerated or celebrated the misadventures of government housing projects.

Affordable housing and real estate scarcity are such big issues, it's sad that some people would question the efficacy of the new building over a poor door.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 21, 2014, 07:47:10 PM »

What's the problem?

If it's a doorman building, the entrance is an amenity paid for by the renters paying the market rate.  It costs money to pay a doorman and if you're not paying market rate, why should you get a doorman?  The service providing by a doorman is a nice amenity, but it's certainly not the type of thing that the city should necessarily subsidize for affordable housing tenants.

This is true on narrow legal grounds, but not only doesn't honestly address the core optics problem with the building described in the OP, but is sufficiently tone-deaf as to possibly make it worse.

That's New York City buddy.  We have the necessary obnoxiousness that comes with rubbing elbows.  Is it really worse to have a building with separate entrances than it is to have two buildings, one for only poor people and one for only rich people?  Elsewhere in the country you have rich people in gated neighborhoods.  

This just comes down to the fact that a doorman is an expensive luxury service.

Yeah, I don't really see how this is worse than the gated community/crumbling housing projects paradigm that is typical in most of the country. Maybe because this is the "norm", people don't have the energy to be outraged by it. AD actually does have a point.

Yeah, it's not.  Gated communities and "the projects" are even worse, much much worse.  But that's just such a laughably low bar, we can do better.

And, just to forestall this particular line of criticism, I'm very much not suggesting that the affordable units be equal in every way to the market-rate units.  It's totally fine and proper if the subsidized affordable stuff gets worse views, or less space, or Sears for their appliances instead of Sub-Zero.

Having to go in a back alley instead of a front door because folks are paying for the privilege of not having to interact with you (thus being constantly reminded of that lovely dignity-stripping fact)... that's qualitatively different.  It's just not comparable to having less goodies because you have less money/the gov't can only afford to subsidize so much, and saying that those things are equivalent because they're both "amenities" is missing the point.

I guess this might still be better than in Scarsdale or San Francisco, where how dare you ever build tall enough to meet demand, 'cuz blah blah blah historic character (i.e. exclusivity).  I guess I'm not going to throw up all sorts of hypocritical, counterproductive roadblocks like those places would.  That doesn't mean we can't complain about it and hopefully shame developers (and prospective tenants) into not being so openly classist going forward.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 21, 2014, 11:03:02 PM »

How in the hell did the poors get an entrance at all?

The bus makes more money with them riding at the back than not riding at all.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 22, 2014, 02:38:52 AM »

So where are the twitter campaigns? The circulating tumblr blogs? The protests from nearby college kids and activist groups? Still off somewhere blaming the ills of society on Seth Rogen?
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 22, 2014, 06:00:52 AM »

So where are the twitter campaigns? The circulating tumblr blogs? The protests from nearby college kids and activist groups? Still off somewhere blaming the ills of society on Seth Rogen?

I know this doesn't fit your strawman characterization of SJWs or young progressives but there has been plenty of outrage circulating in the usual outlets.

This story strikes me as usual Upworthy-esque clickbait. There have been plenty of instances in which public housing designed to promote social mixity have become de facto segregated. We already live in a tragically inequitable society whether or not some low-level bureaucrat that works for the city of New York approves of a rich-only doorman.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 22, 2014, 06:27:08 AM »

It's not a very "nice" thing to do... but gated communities and projects are far more offensive to me.
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,155
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 22, 2014, 08:25:23 AM »

Seems to me there is a easy way for those low-income renters that feel offended by this can protest this decision.  Then can just refuse to rent from said apartment.  If all low-income renters of this building refuse to move in or moves out,  then the building owner will have to make decision on whether their act to to create separate doors is working to their economic advantage and then perhaps alter their decision.

On the separate note, this sort of stuff is quite common.  In the UK if you travel first or business class then you get priority separate entrance to and from security and customs instead of waiting in line with the general population.  I myself have taken advantage of this feature of the last ten years when I travel to and from the UK. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 12 queries.