
Ministers pledge to end 'poor doors' in new build housing - reallydontask
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49053920
======
Jonnax
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 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"

~~~
jchb
> 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 reminded of that?

~~~
sigwinch28
> 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...](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/mar/25/too-poor-to-play-
children-in-social-housing-blocked-from-communal-playground)

~~~
FDSGSG
I live in fancy expensive luxury housing, next to mine there's _even fancier_
, almost twice as expensive housing.

Is it bad that every time I have visitors, every time I go home, every time I
get the post I see the wonderful infinity pools which I'm not allowed to use?

I'm not sure if there's a significant difference between my story and the one
in the article.

Sure, I feel a tiny bit jealous every time I look out of the window. But
that's just a reminder that I should work harder.

~~~
sigwinch28
I think there is a difference, and the difference is that the developers of
the property appear to have (at least, from my perspective) gone to some
effort to actively separate these social housing tenants.

The law requires that a certain amount of this housing is made available for
these people who are vulnerable (be it financially or socially or in health)
but it seems that the property developers made an active effort to segregate
these people from the rest of the residents based entirely on their financial
status or ability to support themselves.

------
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.

~~~
Nextgrid
The real problem is that these people aren’t paid enough to afford “rich”
housing which is a problem considering these people make society work.

However forcing “affordable” housing in “rich” areas is the wrong way to deal
with it IMO.

Let the market deal with it. These people can switch careers (or not consider
such a career in the first place) to something that’s better paid. When the
talent pool dries up the salaries for these careers will rise naturally
because there’s gonna be no other way to get police officers, nurses, etc.

~~~
DanBC
We've seen that the market cannot deal with it. The UK housing market is
broken.

You comments about people switching careers are incoherent.

------
HelloNurse
Mixed developments for which a "poor door" makes sense are unnatural because
they force different people together. I have enough trouble in a medium
apartment building with divergent interests between people owning very similar
apartments on different floors (different heating expenses) or on different
sides (different trouble with trees and other properties); I cannot imagine a
place with different people getting different services.

The solution? Drive moderately rich people out of the city with brutal
taxation of luxury homes (according to building types and straightforward
measures like residents per total area of the property).

------
KUcxrAVrtI
Honestly, seems like a bad idea.

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.

------
amelius
This might be going in the wrong direction. To address wealth inequality,
shouldn't we instead make it obvious? For example, by publishing tax records.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect)

~~~
snthd
Why not both?

Poor Doors are arguably a realisation of the cobra effect; It depends if the
goals of "affordable housing" are about reducing inequality (like,
systemically, not just finding somewhere to live) or not, and if poor doors
have an effect on that.

------
eps
Ah, 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.

~~~
haasted
How well did it go?

------
AmericanChopper
So, is the tax payer supposed to be paying for social housing, or social
status?

------
haylel
What does this have to do with hacker or tech news?

~~~
thinkingemote
Your account was created 8 months ago, I suggest reading the guidelines,
linked at the bottom. Usually it's much older accounts that ask this
question... But it's a question that often gets asked so I don't blame you!

------
ryanlol
‘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.

~~~
insomniacity
Where does social housing belong then? Where rich people can't see it?

Society benefits greatly from mixed areas - race, class, etc.

~~~
ryanlol
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!

~~~
madaxe_again
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.

~~~
ryanlol
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.

~~~
xorcist
No taxpayer money is being spent. That's the whole point of this system, to
avoid spending on housing benefits by utilizing price caps.

~~~
ryanlol
Are the developers not taxpayers?

No spending is avoided here, it’s merely obscured a little.

Taxing the developers for straight cash would at least give the government
more control on how it is spend.

------
quibbler
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?

~~~
em-bee
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.

~~~
quibbler
The poor peole (on welfare) are mor likely to be trouble - they are on welfare
for a reason.. Rich people pay good money to be shielded from trouble.

Do you have children? Did you get a cheap flat in the poor part of town? Many
families pay higher rents, so that their kids have save streets and
playgrounds to play in.

In my middle class neighborhood, I am not aware if a rich kid causing trouble.
What trouble do you have in mind? Loud parties? Is the rich kid going to steal
my kid's iPhones? I am talking about violence, pollution, syringes on
playgrounds, stuff like that.

~~~
em-bee
> The poor people (on welfare) are more likely to be trouble - they are on
> welfare for a reason..

as someone who's family has lived on welfare too, i find that notion
insulting.

the reason for people being on welfare most often has nothing to do with
people getting in trouble. loosing a job, divorce, natural disasters, illness
in the family. there are many reasons someone could need welfare.

i urge you to really meet these people and understand their situation instead
of dismissing them like that.

