Separate entrances for well-off and low-income tenants fuel debate on rising income gap
By Melissa Sim, US Correspondent Washington, The Sunday Times, 7 Sep 2014
By Melissa Sim, US Correspondent Washington, The Sunday Times, 7 Sep 2014
Most will enter the development at 40 Riverside Boulevard via the main entrance which faces the Hudson River and is reserved for those who pay top dollar to live there.
Welcome to the world of "poor doors", as these have come to be called.
The rise of such separate entrances in London, New York City and now Washington DC is fuelling controversy over the growing income gap and class discrimination.
Many are wondering if this is indeed the direction that major cities should take as they grapple with the challenge of redeveloping land in the city centre without pushing out poorer residents.
Developers came up with the idea of dual entrances as a way of offering the well-heeled exclusivity while reaping government benefits for building luxury and low-cost housing on the same plot of land.
In East London, the main lobby of One Commercial Street has a concierge, marble floors, manicured plants and revolving glass doors. The "poor door" has a grey facade and opens on to a narrow alley with no sidewalk.
Low-income residents complain that the alleyway leading to the entrance is dark and unsafe and that they feel insulted by the segregation.
Across the pond, the still unfinished 40 Riverside Boulevard has been taking the heat for its "poor door", which leads to 55 affordable rental apartments housed in a six-storey segment of an otherwise upmarket building.
Those who qualify for these flats are low-income families who make 60 per cent of the Area Median Income - or about US$51,540 (S$64,600) for a family of four annually.
The monthly rent is around US$1,109 for a two-bedroom unit.
Affordable housing tenants will not have access to the 33-storey tower, where the units offer sweeping views of the Hudson River.
Many of these developments also have separate amenities for the different tiers of residents.
At Queen's Park Place in north-west London, for example, "affordable tenants will not have use of the main private residential entrance, private courtyard gardens or basement car and cycle parking", according to the development's website.
Extell Development Company declined to comment on whether the various amenities at its 40 Riverside Boulevard project will be shared.
The original plan included swimming pools and basketball courts for well-heeled residents.
Ms Jenny Reed, deputy director at the DC Fiscal Policy Institute, believes that amenities should not be exclusive because low-income residents still pay rent, even if it is subsidised.
"In DC, tenants in mixed income housing are allowed to use the same amenities. Maybe the finishes are not quite the same for the affordable units but, on the whole, residents should have access to the same amenities," she says.
Elaborating on finishings, Ms Reed points out that a market-rate unit might get granite counter tops, while the affordable units might use a slightly cheaper material.
The concept of mixed-income housing is not new. In the US, the policy has been in place for at least 20 years, but there was never a need for a "poor door".
"Cities put many low-income subsidised units next to market-rate units in townhouse-type developments so there were of course separate doors," notes Ms Sharon Wilson Geno, a law lecturer at George Washington University who is an expert on affordable housing.
"As we see more and more high-rise buildings, that begs the question of having separate doors in the same building," she adds.
New York City introduced its Inclusionary Housing programme in the late 1980s. Developers get to increase the square footage of their developments if they pledge to build a certain number of affordable housing units.
Over the years, changes in the programme allowed developers to group affordable housing units together, instead of spreading them around the development, resulting in the possibility of having a "poor door".
Last month, Ms Alicia Glen, deputy mayor for housing and economic development, told The New York Times that separate front doors were not in keeping with the administration's principles of equality, and that the city was working to change the rules to ban them.
Affordable housing and urban planning experts say they have seen the benefits of income-mixing in developments in the past 20 years.
Ms Geno says that even though residents from different income levels do not necessarily become best friends, "educational outcomes and opportunities" tend to improve.
"There are better schools in the area or those with high incomes draw other amenities such as grocery stores and shops," she adds.
On the other hand, Dr Rolf Pendall, director of the Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Centre at The Urban Institute in Washington DC, says: "There may be some evidence that unmanaged income mixing can work out badly for subsidised tenants, who may experience high levels of stress if their non-subsidised neighbours look down on them."
But having shared doors does not solve all problems.
Dr Pendall adds: "We don't know whether shared entrances really result in more social mixing. Of course, separate entrances or 'buildings within a building' make it difficult to mix inside the development, but people also meet on the street, in nearby shops, and elsewhere."
Developers have argued that separating affordable units makes it possible for them to sell market- rate units at a higher price, thus making it possible for them to build more affordable units.
So, the reality is "separate entrances tell us that upper-income buyers in the US will pay more, perhaps a lot more, for an apartment whose lobby they don't have to share with people who can't afford that much", says Dr Pendall, and it is up to cities to weigh the costs and benefits of having or not having separate doors.
"Social mixing within buildings may come at the cost of the production of fewer affordable houses overall," he adds.
But Ms Reed believes regulators can stop "poor doors" from popping up.
"I haven't seen this happening in DC as we have a lot of mixed-income buildings, so if we are able to do it, I just can't see it being solely a function of financing," she says.
Having separate entrances to a building may reek of discrimination, but what if it is the low-income residents who opt to have separate wings?
In Washington DC, there is a unique case at Portner Place, where an affordable housing complex of rental units will be demolished and replaced with a mixed-income development.
Most of the residents there actually voted for the new development to have two wings with two separate entrances.
Low-income residents wanted to keep their community intact and asked for different amenities such as a computer room and a playground which they felt suited the many families in their midst.
The other wing will feature a ground floor fitness room, yoga and cross-training studio, and retail outlets.
But not all are happy with the decision.
Ms Sharron Hunter, 57, a medical assistant who has lived in the complex for over 20 years, says she does not see the need to be separated from market-rate residents.
"I don't see the purpose of a swanky building on one side and an 'okay' building on the other... If they have a pool, why can't we have a pool?"
Poor doors: the segregation of London's inner-city flat dwellers
‘Poor Door’ in a New York Tower Opens a Fight Over Affordable Housing
Affordable Housing in New York’s Luxury Buildings
No comments:
Post a Comment