Subsidized and/or Affordable Housing

[mattaudio]

Let me clarify my position: I do not like poor doors. I don't think most people in our region would either. Luckily we are much less status obsessed at the highest levels compared to the East Coast or even Chicago.... I think most wealthy people in MN would actually shun the idea of living in a building with a poor door -- it affronts the Midwestern sensibility. Look how we shun other trappings of elitism for the most part, such as gated communities or doormen. (Not to say there isn't inequality here, but it's just not *as bad* as it is elsewhere in the arena of status-blasting).

I also think it is absolutely appropriate for local governments to prevent poor doors if there are tax credits, subsidies, etc involved.

[EOst]

But "right to a doorman" seems like, uh, a bit much.

I definitely don't think anyone has a "right" to a doorman, I just think it's offensive to force the poor to go through a separate door when it's explicitly a class thing. These developers aren't doing the "poor door" because the cost of letting the poor go through that door (why would it cost any more? the guy is standing there all day anyway); it's because they think they can make the rich people who live there happier by letting them pretend that poor people don't exist.

right if you pay to go to one school that cost x dollars you receive x education, you go to one that costs y and you get y education... or you just go to public school. you pay for x apartment, you get x apartment. you pay for y YOU GET Y. just because these are in the same building doesn't necessarily mean they have to be the same.

Except I just got through saying exactly why that isn't true, and if you bothered to read instead of spouting off you might be able to constructively engage with that fact. But if you just want to act smarmy, go ahead.

[mattaudio]

If we're so big on letting the market dictate this, as [Nathan] seem to be a fan of, then why offer tax credits in the first place?.

I do think tax credits are great, but we also have a lot of barriers that are preventing the marketplace from naturally providing affordable housing. Just think how better the outcomes could be if we were attacking the problems from both sides.

Examples:
- Prohibition of ADUs. This one is obvious.
- Prohibition of rooming houses. Is a rooming house ideal? No. But a well-regulated rooming house is better than someone being on the streets.
- Parking minimums outside downtown. We skew project financials towards spending capital on car storage rather than housing units, raising the prices for everyone (and pricing poor people out of housing).
- Use-based zoning codes, which prohibit new housing in "commercial" nodes (this is primarily a problem in suburbs that have downtowns or traditional neighborhoods).
- Density bonus: Right now, Mpls will give a developer a density bonus for adding affordable units --- or a density bonus for additional parking. And it's much easier, less risky for developers to build excess parking. So we're literally encouraging developers to pour the increased revenue from a density bonus (more market rate units) into square footage for parked cars rather than square footage for affordable housing.

The point is that the market would actually provide more affordable housing if we curtailed some of these regulations that were well intentioned but have negative consequences. But of course the market wouldn't house everyone, which is why we definitely need an "all of the above" approach for affordable housing.

[FISHMANPET]

Schools (private k12 and colleges) offer scholarships to essentially charge the most that people are willing/able to pay. Instead of price being set by the intersection of supply and demand, they try and offer a variety of price points so that people who can't afford the equilibrium price aren't priced out but also so people that can afford above the equilibrium price are charged as high as possible.

Obviously it's all more complicated than that, but on a macro level, scholarships are a free market too to offer the same good at various price points. So you can go to school that costs x for family a, y for family b, and z for family c (x<y<z) but they're all getting education y.

[mattaudio]

So a doorman is probably a Veblen Good?

[Nathan]

Schools (private k12 and colleges) offer scholarships to essentially charge the most that people are willing/able to pay. Instead of price being set by the intersection of supply and demand, they try and offer a variety of price points so that people who can't afford the equilibrium price aren't priced out but also so people that can afford above the equilibrium price are charged as high as possible.

Obviously it's all more complicated than that, but on a macro level, scholarships are a free market too to offer the same good at various price points. So you can go to school that costs x for family a, y for family b, and z for family c (x<y<z) but they're all getting education y.

but they aren't all getting the same education even though there are some standards of classes private schools can teach certain things ie creationism and all sorts of things that the parents are sending their students to that school for. having different religion in class and having different amenities in that schoolis what those people are paying for.

also I use the alley entrance to my building all the time because it's more convenient and closer to retail. a door is a door is a door. does it lock? is it secure? does it function to get me to my cheap ass (for manhattan) apartment that isnt a fire trap in eastbushwick? then im happy.

[FISHMANPET]

No, you're totally not reading what we're saying. THE SAME SCHOOL will offer THE SAME EDUCATION to different people AT DIFFERENT PRICE POINTS. It's not a standards thing, it's literally 3 students sitting next to each other in a class room, and they/their parents may not be paying the same amount.

[IllogicalJake]

also I use the alley entrance to my building all the time because it's more convenient and closer to retail. a door is a door is a door. does it lock? is it secure? does it function to get me to my cheap ass (for manhattan) apartment that isnt a fire trap in eastbushwick? then im happy.

Has your argument really just turned into "Well, I wouldn't mind entering in a back alley, so it must not be a problem." ...?

[David Greene]

One of the things people are missing here is that the lobby is a shared space. It's sort of like a "public" plaza for the residents. With a separate door, poor people are being excluded from this shared space.

If poor people shouldn't have access to the doorman because, "they didn't pay for it," then each affordable unit should have a private entrance. That would acknowledge the dignity of the poor people instead of a separate door that explicitly attacks their dignity. And the poor people should still be able to use the lobby because it's a shared quasi-public space.

[RailBaronYarr]

How many here ferociously attacking the existence of poor doors (btw, is it that they exist or that they're located in an alley?) + the exclusion of using what should be a shared quasi-public space have the same gut feeling with regards to skyways?

WRT to tenements, we have to remember a few things. What was their alternative at the time? Starving in Ireland? Making nothing as a farm hand with equal (worse?) living conditions? I'm not saying "hey, people should be happy with whatever is handed to them by the benevolent capitalist overlords, but was tenement living and the economic opportunities afforded by its location better or worse than its alternative? We also need to compare tenement housing conditions to "middle class" conditions at the time. What was the difference? Was it greater or worse than the gap today?

I guess I'm certainly with people that the morality behind the ultra-rich not wanting to see poor people (or believe they may exist when not opening doors for them, etc) is, uh, lacking. And if tax credits are being given to developers that's a way to limit this practice as well. But if the affordable units are part of simple inclusionary zoning, is entering through a separate door worth the outrage? I can see the corollary to 'separate but equal,' but without these units they'd be entering a different door in an entirely different neighborhood (likely much further from their job). What if they banned developers from putting the entrance in the alley, but had one facing the sidewalk? I dunno, seems like a simple compromise on a relatively minor issue would allow us to focus on more impactful programs.

[EOst]

How many here ferociously attacking the existence of poor doors (btw, is it that they exist or that they're located in an alley?) + the exclusion of using what should be a shared quasi-public space have the same gut feeling with regards to skyways?

Well, I for one would be pretty offended if a developer barred low-income residents from the skyways too, but I honestly can't imagine why a developer would.

WRT to tenements, we have to remember a few things. What was their alternative at the time? Starving in Ireland? Making nothing as a farm hand with equal (worse?) living conditions? I'm not saying "hey, people should be happy with whatever is handed to them by the benevolent capitalist overlords, but was tenement living and the economic opportunities afforded by its location better or worse than its alternative? We also need to compare tenement housing conditions to "middle class" conditions at the time. What was the difference? Was it greater or worse than the gap today?

It's neither here nor there, really, but most of those tenements were--at best--as bad as the conditions these people were coming from, and in many cases far worse. We're talking about 10 people in a 400 sq foot apartment with one or two windows, no plumbing or running water, and the noxious fumes of decaying garbage from the airshaft. Cholera in particular was rampant. You'd be hard-pressed to find comparable living conditions outside of third-world favelas now, and even a lot of those are nicer.

I guess I'm certainly with people that the morality behind the ultra-rich not wanting to see poor people (or believe they may exist when not opening doors for them, etc) is, uh, lacking. And if tax credits are being given to developers that's a way to limit this practice as well. But if the affordable units are part of simple inclusionary zoning, is entering through a separate door worth the outrage? I can see the corollary to 'separate but equal,' but without these units they'd be entering a different door in an entirely different neighborhood (likely much further from their job). What if they banned developers from putting the entrance in the alley, but had one facing the sidewalk? I dunno, seems like a simple compromise on a relatively minor issue would allow us to focus on more impactful programs.

I guess I just don't think it's actually a "poor door vs. another neighborhood" scenario. The fact that so many buildings--both in NYC and elsewhere--have been able to get away with one door for all suggests pretty strongly that economic incentives are just not the reason here.

[IllogicalJake]

I guess I'm certainly with people that the morality behind the ultra-rich not wanting to see poor people (or believe they may exist when not opening doors for them, etc) is, uh, lacking. And if tax credits are being given to developers that's a way to limit this practice as well. But if the affordable units are part of simple inclusionary zoning, is entering through a separate door worth the outrage? I can see the corollary to 'separate but equal,' but without these units they'd be entering a different door in an entirely different neighborhood (likely much further from their job). What if they banned developers from putting the entrance in the alley, but had one facing the sidewalk? I dunno, seems like a simple compromise on a relatively minor issue would allow us to focus on more impactful programs.

Again - You're implying that the only other option is poor people not living in the building at all, implying they'd have to live in another neighborhood. Instead of, you know, both classes sharing the front door as thousands upon thousands of projects do already.

Those tax credits for low income housing go toward the whole building. And, yeah, there is a corollary to separate but equal - the owners of these condos are majority white, and low income is majority black and hispanic. I think it's more of an economic issue than a race issue so I don't want to dwell on it much, but I'd also call it insensitive at best.

[xandrex]

One of the things people are missing here is that the lobby is a shared space. It's sort of like a "public" plaza for the residents. With a separate door, poor people are being excluded from this shared space.

In all of the lobbies that I've ever been in, from condos and apartments in Minneapolis to even a few in NYC (some of which were fairly fancy), I don't know that I'd call these "public plazas" so much as "places you walk through to get your mail and wait for the elevator". Socialization between people who weren't part of the same group was rare.

Despite that, I find so-called "poor doors" in bad taste.

One thing I'm curious about is where those vehemently arguing in this thread against the so-called "poor door" draw the line of acceptability. I've seen some say it's okay if they don't have access to the doorman, common amenities, etc. That leads me to think that most of this argument is at least somewhat of an argument of appearances (the poor should be able to walk through the same door, even if they don't have access to everything in the building). If that's the case, couldn't one argue that adding the "poor door" just beyond the front entrance would rectify at least part of the injustice? From the street, nobody would know the difference, and it would seem to be an easy way to keep amenities for those paying market rate. To be clear, I'm not saying I support this. However, some of the arguments I've seen appear to leave an opening for it.

[IllogicalJake]

One of the things people are missing here is that the lobby is a shared space. It's sort of like a "public" plaza for the residents. With a separate door, poor people are being excluded from this shared space.

In all of the lobbies that I've ever been in, from condos and apartments in Minneapolis to even a few in NYC (some of which were fairly fancy), I don't know that I'd call these "public plazas" so much as "places you walk through to get your mail and wait for the elevator". Socialization between people who weren't part of the same group was rare.

Despite that, I find so-called "poor doors" in bad taste.

One thing I'm curious about is where those vehemently arguing in this thread against the so-called "poor door" draw the line of acceptability. I've seen some say it's okay if they don't have access to the doorman, common amenities, etc. That leads me to think that most of this argument is at least somewhat of an argument of appearances (the poor should be able to walk through the same door, even if they don't have access to everything in the building). If that's the case, couldn't one argue that adding the "poor door" just beyond the front entrance would rectify at least part of the injustice? From the street, nobody would know the difference, and it would seem to be an easy way to keep amenities for those paying market rate. To be clear, I'm not saying I support this. However, some of the arguments I've seen appear to leave an opening for it.

It's tough. I can't claim that there's a clear right and wrong here, I'm just "vehemently" spouting my opinion ( ) that they're tasteless and can be done in more appropriate ways.

Your hypothetical approach can be a step in the right direction. My biggest problem with the poor door is the dehumanization of lower-class folks who have to walk around to the back alley to enter their home when the upper class can use the front door. Once you're indoors, I wouldn't expect the market rate and low income apartments to be inter-mingled, so it's less surprising to find an entrance to low-income units specifically once inside. At that point, it's just a door to me, not a "poor door." It's a necessary route to the apartments, not a diverted one through a back alley.

Does that make sense? I'm not always the most effective at saying what I mean...

How many here ferociously attacking the existence of poor doors (btw, is it that they exist or that they're located in an alley?)

Vehemently? Ferociously? Can nobody just say an opinion without people interpreting it as a crazy rant anymore? I know we don't live in a perfect universe, but I just don't accept that separating our classes to the point they don't even have to see each other is an acceptable way for buildings to function. I'll just leave it at this instead of repeating myself over and over...

If those tax credits they gained from allowing low-income residents to live in your building contributed toward building a nice entrance and lobby, you simply shouldn't ban a certain social class of people from using that entrance and lobby. If the apartments are separated, it's not hard to locate a door to the units inside, as part of the lobby. The only reason to not do that is so rich people don't have to see poor people, and that's tasteless and tone-deaf.

[FISHMANPET]

This sure is an awful lot of words about a poor door without any actual information. The article Grant initially posted just said "yes they have a poor door" but this seems like a case where some investigative journalism would be useful.

[FISHMANPET]

We're running around talking about tax credits and alleys, but that's the literal definiton of a strawman.

The affordable units are being built mostly so that the developer can build a bigger tower (which they're holding onto to maybe sell to a nearby building, totally legal). And there's no alley, it's just a different street.

The building is built as an isolated part of the building and therefore is required by code to have a separate entrance. They could have built an entirely separate building and nobody would complain then. The only solution I see is to require inclusionary zoning units be built as part of the structure, but that seems awfully draconian when part of the NYC real estate market is in trading air rights and density bonuses.

I think people have a right to housing, and it should be safe, and not humiliating, but I don't think people have a "right" to fancy amenities and waterfront views. Short of becoming fully communist I don't see a way around the idea that the rich will have more than the not rich. Everyone should have enough, but that doesn't mean that some shouldn't be allowed to have more.

An article that, while still sounding biased, also appears to present some more facts: http://nypost.com/2013/08/27/the-truth- ... poor-door/ If there are some facts there that are wrong, then please point them out.

I'm going to have to agree with Matt Yglesias on this one, there should be outrage over the affordable housing situation in NYC, but a separate entrance for inclusionary zoning units (I'm not going to even use the inflammatory door phrase any more) is not where the ire belongs. http://www.vox.com/2014/7/31/5954355/po ... ry-housing

[IllogicalJake]

I thought the original discussion point was Poor Doors in Minneapolis, since this used to exist in the Downtown Minneapolis forum, not this specific instance of a poor door.

But I'm more than happy to see some specifics on the NYC project.

The building is built as an isolated part of the building and therefore is required by code to have a separate entrance. They could have built an entirely separate building and nobody would complain then.

See, this is good to know, and I didn't know it before. If the building is truly separate, then I don't feel it's a big issue, no.

Thanks, Peter!

[grant1simons2]

My original intent for posting the poor door article was really for the fact that I didn't want to see anything called this in Minneapolis. The name was the worst thing about it for me.

[IllogicalJake]

My original intent for posting the poor door article was really for the fact that I didn't want to see anything called this in Minneapolis. The name was the worst thing about it for me.

TBF - that's a nickname adopted by opponents. There's a not a sign over the thing saying "Poor Door."

[Anondson]

Steve Berg writes about our city's continuing trend to concentrate subsidized housing where it is already.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/comm ... 38771.html