The Poor Door (aka The 1% Solution)

[AthenaAwakened]

They do get to use their own front door.

“Even though the off-site housing portion of this building is attached physically to the rest of the building, the developer’s argument is that it is separate ‘off-site’ since it does not relate to the rest of the building, and therefore falls under the portion of the Zoning Resolution that requires a separate entrance

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/08/12/extells-40-riverside-to-include-poor-door-for-renters/

So it's two buildings in one.

40 Riverside faced significant controversy when the ‘poor door’ was reported, which will segregate the affordable units from market-rate apartments. 55 units will be leased to low-income tenants, which will have a separate entrance; though this was met with criticism, the anger is unfounded, as tenants in market-rate housing pay for luxury amenities. The idea that low-income tenants should be entitled to expensive luxury amenities completely negates the point of providing affordable housing.

http://newyorkyimby.com/2013/09/40-riverside-boulevard.html#

Is there some evidence that poor residents will be using these amenities without paying for them? Will just passing through cause the poor to rub off and ruin the carpeting?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Seems to me, this is problem that doesn't have to be and yet it exists. Why?

 

[untermensche]

As long as people are provided with decent affordable housing I don't see the problem.

They're probably safer being so close to expensive housing.

And the facts are, many people wouldn't pay a lot to live in a building with a common entrance.

The goal is to provide people with decent affordable housing. It is not to make all people the same thing.

 

[EricK]

They do get to use their own front door.



http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/08/12/extells-40-riverside-to-include-poor-door-for-renters/

So it's two buildings in one.

40 Riverside faced significant controversy when the ‘poor door’ was reported, which will segregate the affordable units from market-rate apartments. 55 units will be leased to low-income tenants, which will have a separate entrance; though this was met with criticism, the anger is unfounded, as tenants in market-rate housing pay for luxury amenities. The idea that low-income tenants should be entitled to expensive luxury amenities completely negates the point of providing affordable housing.

http://newyorkyimby.com/2013/09/40-riverside-boulevard.html#

Is there some evidence that poor residents will be using these amenities without paying for them? Will just passing through cause the poor to rub off and ruin the carpeting?

And if they had to use the same door as the other residents, I'm sure the complaints would be that they don't even get their own door, but have to walk all the way through the rich people's building to get to their own.

 

[NobleSavage]

"Affordable two-bedrooms will rent for $1,099 a month." I'd crawl through a doggie door for that price in Manhattan. If the rich feel better about having their own door, let them.

 

[Jayjay]

The "rich door" is on the opposite side of the building from the affordable housing units, so using the other door is probably more convenient for those living in the subsidized section. I suppose they could make an entrance through the building so that tenants in the affordable housing segment could enter through the front door if they so wish.

not talking about forcing everyone to use the same door.

Neither was I. Merely suggesting that they could have added an additional inside route through the "rich door". To me that sounds like a feasible route, and easy to implement with modern electronic keys, but on the other hand, I don't think it's such a huge problem to begin with.