The Guardian and 'Poor doors' in new build apartment blocks
Ads
Posts: 37,056 Forum Member
✭
I see the Guardian is making fuss about 'poor doors' in apartment blocks.
Basically these are separate entrances for housing association tenants living in the block, than for private residents, who have bought their flats. The housing association flats would have been built as a condition of the planning permission for the private blocks (a Section 106 agreement).
The Guardian article is here: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/25/poor-doors-segregation-london-flats
Its a reminder that its not just the Sun and Daily Mail that don't print all the facts to suit their agenda. 95% of the comments below the article are ranting against rich people and social exclusion, when in fact its Housing Associations themselves who want separate doors and separate facilities.
Service charges at private flats can be very expensive. £300+ a month is becoming more and more common as private blocks include gyms, swimming pools, cinemas etc. The entrances often have a concierge. How many housing association tenants can afford £300 a month?
Plus also around half the tenants will likely be on housing benefit, meaning the taxpayer would have to pick up the tab.
Housing Associations want to keep costs as low as possible for tenants so request separate entrances with basic fittings, eg vinyl flooring, as its easier to maintain,
The Guardian article is complete misinformation and stirring up class and wealth envy.
Basically these are separate entrances for housing association tenants living in the block, than for private residents, who have bought their flats. The housing association flats would have been built as a condition of the planning permission for the private blocks (a Section 106 agreement).
The Guardian article is here: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/25/poor-doors-segregation-london-flats
Its a reminder that its not just the Sun and Daily Mail that don't print all the facts to suit their agenda. 95% of the comments below the article are ranting against rich people and social exclusion, when in fact its Housing Associations themselves who want separate doors and separate facilities.
Service charges at private flats can be very expensive. £300+ a month is becoming more and more common as private blocks include gyms, swimming pools, cinemas etc. The entrances often have a concierge. How many housing association tenants can afford £300 a month?
Plus also around half the tenants will likely be on housing benefit, meaning the taxpayer would have to pick up the tab.
Housing Associations want to keep costs as low as possible for tenants so request separate entrances with basic fittings, eg vinyl flooring, as its easier to maintain,
The Guardian article is complete misinformation and stirring up class and wealth envy.
0
Comments
However, one factual correction, HB does not cover service charges, its for the rent element of accommodation only so if the service charge was something ridiculous like £300 pm for the housing association properties, it would have to be covered by the tenant. Thats fine if they are working but not if on full benefits, they just wouldnt have enough which makes the point about why those services are confined to the privately owned blocks.
And Housing Benefit doesn't cover service charges.
Indeed. It's just a convenient excuse to excuse it.
They are usually manned 24/7 with cleaning and expensive maintenance due to the materials used. there are also usually alarm contracts to maintain, cctv contracts, swimming pools and gyms, gardening etc. Very expensive.
The tax payer is currently picking up the tab of private tenants by artificially inflating housing prices.
Agreed, non story and I am sure those tenants who are 'segregated' don't really give a shite about separate entrances.
In fact there is a tenant of the social housing of the Commercial Street building who commented on the Guardian website. As he/she says, they are very lucky to have a flat in such a location as a social housing tenant.
Aye, and as I said in my post, if they charge extra for the gyms, gardens, pools etc then that is fair enough. But now there are two areas to clean and two areas to supervise and maintain, including extra CCTV, which will undoubtedly cost more. The cleaning and maintenance expenses are not going to cost more if a few extra people can use the same entrance. In one case in the article, a separate entrance was built for just two homes! I can't help but think that that was done to make a point...
You speak for all tenants do you?
Do you?
So much for society when a section of it want separate entrances for poorer people living in the same place.
The biggest problem with the US apartments though is that the "poor" entrance seems to be down an alleyway. If there really must be a separate entrance why not just have it on the main street, but separate from the rich entrance. Less stigma.
I don't see why this isn't an option either. From reading that article the 'social housing' flats even have separate lifts - the expense of that could easily have been used to put the 'luxury' facilities behind a separate door. I lived in a development where you could choose whether to join the gym/pool/bar facility... it was an extra cost and you got a key to the 'clubs' entrance off the lobby if you paid for it.
We shouldn't allow segregation of this kind - it smacks of a very old fashoned attitude where the servants had a separate entrance (and many people in social housing are in service jobs).
Agreed.
I would have thought society would have learned that segregation just simply does not work. Seems that we haven't. As an egalitarian, this sort of behaviour deeply concerns me, it's a throwback to the past which should have been left in the past.
"This week New York's mayor, Bill De Blasio, said he planned to take action to prevent new developments being built with separate entrances and facilities for low-income residents."
It depends what you think segregation is meant to achieve.
Mixed estates weren't exactly a roaring success.
It's aim is to achieve segregation.