True. But it becomes increasingly unsustainable as fares rise and distances grow. Sooner or later it will become impossible.
Or as what is about to happen in Nottinghamshire in just over a week, an absolute decimation of the bus network in what I term the "Beeching of the Buses" in order to cut costs. Trains will follow as the Government continues to expect passengers to fully bear the cost of public transport. The cost of running a car can be beyond the reach of people on low paid, part time jobs and zero hour contracts.
Actually I was challenging the 'its too complicated to sort out' when of course it isn't. But seeing as you bring it up, they have two lobbies when they only need one (and separate lifts and other facilities) - the costs of the share of a single lobby may be more, but not necessarily a great deal more... and again not beyond the wit of man to sort out.
You see, I don't fail to understand at all - I completely understand that this is all about the owners not wanting the social housing tenants being seen in their nice posh lobby. All the rest of the justifications people have presented are just smoke.
If you rented a flat in this building, with its marble clad lobby and £3.4 million penthouse, would you not be a bit miffed that people less successful than you were able to enjoy the same standard of living for a lot less money?
If you rented a flat in this building, with its marble clad lobby and £3.4 million penthouse, would you not be a bit miffed that people less successful than you were able to enjoy the same standard of living for a lot less money?
Well, I'd assume that both flats and their contents are going to be entirely different. So, hardly the same standard of living.
If you rented a flat in this building, with its marble clad lobby and £3.4 million penthouse, would you not be a bit miffed that people less successful than you were able to enjoy the same standard of living for a lot less money?
They wouldn't have the same standard of living though. They'd be sharing an entrance lobby, that's it.
Do people who rent suites and penthouses in hotels demand a separate entrance, so they don't have to mix with the normal people who can't afford the pricier rooms?.
Personally I couldn't care less, I wouldn't take enough of an interest in my neighbours lives to know what their standard of living was like.
It's very common these days for new housing estates to have a range of homes, some very expensive and some even for social renting. Do those who buy the more expensive homes get in a huff because the poorer folks drive on the same entrance roads into the estates?.
If you rented a flat in this building, with its marble clad lobby and £3.4 million penthouse, would you not be a bit miffed that people less successful than you were able to enjoy the same standard of living for a lot less money?
It's nothing more than envy and self-perceived injustice. By that standard, why should an upmarket supermarket allow someone in a low paid job through the door? I don't want to live in a society where we go back in age to decide the worth of someone on the basis of their income so as to justify segregation and discrimination to right a self-perceived injustice.
They wouldn't have the same standard of living though. They'd be sharing an entrance lobby, that's it.
Do people who rent suites and penthouses in hotels demand a separate entrance, so they don't have to mix with the normal people who can't afford the pricier rooms?.
Personally I couldn't care less, I wouldn't take enough of an interest in my neighbours lives to know what their standard of living was like.
It's very common these days for new housing estates to have a range of homes, some very expensive and some even for social renting. Do those who buy the more expensive homes get in a huff because the poorer folks drive on the same entrance roads into the estates?.
The idea behind mixed tenure developments is that having poor and affluent living in close proximity to each other raises the aspirations of the poor, but it doesn't work. Mixed estates proved it doesn't work in the 70s and 80s.
It becomes a race to the bottom, as opposed to a gentle climb to the top.
The idea behind mixed tenure developments is that having poor and affluent living in close proximity to each other raises the aspirations of the poor, but it doesn't work. Mixed estates proved it doesn't work in the 70s and 80s.
It becomes a race to the bottom, as opposed to a gentle climb to the top.
So the economic segregation areas in America, generally referred to as "ghettos", how are they working out then..? (Hint: terribly)
You're not only renting the flat itself, but the address, location, marble clad lobby, etc.
It's all part of the package.
The idea behind mixed tenure developments is that having poor and affluent living in close proximity to each other raises the aspirations of the poor, but it doesn't work. Mixed estates proved it doesn't work in the 70s and 80s.
It becomes a race to the bottom, as opposed to a gentle climb to the top.
That's nonsense.
Anyone round here anyway who rents one of the homes in the new mixed developments has a multipage document of rules and regulations they have to stick to, or can face eviction. It includes such things as keeping the garden in good order if there is one, not causing nuisance to neighbours, keep any communal areas clean and tidy, not putting bins out on the wrong days and a multitude of other things.
These aren't the council estates of old, where at the time every home was occupied by social tenants left to their devices. Most HAs are pretty strict these days.
Anyone round here anyway who rents one of the homes in the new mixed developments has a multipage document of rules and regulations they have to stick to, or can face eviction. It includes such things as keeping the garden in good order if there is one, not causing nuisance to neighbours, keep any communal areas clean and tidy, not putting bins out on the wrong days and a multitude of other things.
These aren't the council estates of old, where at the time every home was occupied by social tenants left to their devices. Most HAs are pretty strict these days.
Councils used to have similar rules about keeping your garden tidy and not causing trouble etc.
In the end they scrapped them because so many tenants were flouting the rules that they became impossible to enforce.
If you rented a flat in this building, with its marble clad lobby and £3.4 million penthouse, would you not be a bit miffed that people less successful than you were able to enjoy the same standard of living for a lot less money?
Not remotely. My pleasure in being able to afford something like a penthouse is not impacted because someone else in a different flat might also be able to enjoy the posh lobby that leads to it. I can't even imagine what it would be like to think like that.
Do people who rent suites and penthouses in hotels demand a separate entrance, so they don't have to mix with the normal people who can't afford the pricier rooms?.
In some hotels yes. The same goes for some office buildings.
I can see where they are coming from. Communal areas used to be a big headache for the HA I used to work for. Prams, car seats, people urinating in the hall ways.. you name it they had it. They spent nearly £15k installing an intercom into one block of particularly troublesome bock of flats, which to this day is bypassed 90% of the time by people propping the doors open with breeze blocks.
Still, I'll let you all get back on the outrage bus again.
Did they scrap them, if they did they forget to tell people because its still part of your tenancy.
It's still part of the tenancy agreement, as is bolting a satellite dish to your house. Councils rarely enforce either these days though, unless someone's garden has become that overgrown that it encroaches on a public footpath.
Blame government, who insist on this proportional housing allocation within high-end properties aimed to appeal to the affluent. Whilst more social and affordable housing is surely needed, it is understandable that the people who aspire to buy these expensive apartment properties are buying a lifestyle which, like it or not, will usually mean wanting to reside alongside people of similar means to reinforce that lifestyle. This type of premium / non-premium segregation is designed to maintain that.
Comments
If you rented a flat in this building, with its marble clad lobby and £3.4 million penthouse, would you not be a bit miffed that people less successful than you were able to enjoy the same standard of living for a lot less money?
Well, I'd assume that both flats and their contents are going to be entirely different. So, hardly the same standard of living.
They wouldn't have the same standard of living though. They'd be sharing an entrance lobby, that's it.
Do people who rent suites and penthouses in hotels demand a separate entrance, so they don't have to mix with the normal people who can't afford the pricier rooms?.
Personally I couldn't care less, I wouldn't take enough of an interest in my neighbours lives to know what their standard of living was like.
It's very common these days for new housing estates to have a range of homes, some very expensive and some even for social renting. Do those who buy the more expensive homes get in a huff because the poorer folks drive on the same entrance roads into the estates?.
You're not only renting the flat itself, but the address, location, marble clad lobby, etc.
It's all part of the package.
The idea behind mixed tenure developments is that having poor and affluent living in close proximity to each other raises the aspirations of the poor, but it doesn't work. Mixed estates proved it doesn't work in the 70s and 80s.
It becomes a race to the bottom, as opposed to a gentle climb to the top.
That's nonsense.
Anyone round here anyway who rents one of the homes in the new mixed developments has a multipage document of rules and regulations they have to stick to, or can face eviction. It includes such things as keeping the garden in good order if there is one, not causing nuisance to neighbours, keep any communal areas clean and tidy, not putting bins out on the wrong days and a multitude of other things.
These aren't the council estates of old, where at the time every home was occupied by social tenants left to their devices. Most HAs are pretty strict these days.
Councils used to have similar rules about keeping your garden tidy and not causing trouble etc.
In the end they scrapped them because so many tenants were flouting the rules that they became impossible to enforce.
Did they scrap them, if they did they forget to tell people because its still part of your tenancy.
They certainly enforce them round here.
Can't speak for all areas, or even every area within the same council though.
Not remotely. My pleasure in being able to afford something like a penthouse is not impacted because someone else in a different flat might also be able to enjoy the posh lobby that leads to it. I can't even imagine what it would be like to think like that.
In some hotels yes. The same goes for some office buildings.
Still, I'll let you all get back on the outrage bus again.
It's still part of the tenancy agreement, as is bolting a satellite dish to your house. Councils rarely enforce either these days though, unless someone's garden has become that overgrown that it encroaches on a public footpath.