8 ms·

So I know in London any new housing development has to allocate part of the properties for shared ownership or social housing, To be able to get planning appro

by Jonnax 7y ago

So I know in London any new housing development has to allocate part of the properties for shared ownership or social housing, To be able to get planning approval. Seems very reasonable because property developers make a lot of money selling luxury homes. And also in a lot of places the development is made after demolishing "unsightly" high density social housing. Often with far fewer homes than there were there originally. The social housing may be in a separate apartment block in a large development or the less prestigious lower floors. If you pass by a development it's often obvious what the poor door is. I've seen one where the social housing residents can't come in through the main entrance but instead goes through the utilities entrance, past the bin storage. The justification I normally hear about it is that the private home owners will pay high service charges for things like concierge, swimming pools, gyms landscaped gardens, etc etc. But honestly this seems like an excuse. Like people aren't asking for services for free. The architecture of their home is telling them that they are inferior every time they enter their homes. I find it hard to imagine the scenario where a developer is presenting their plan to the council and saying: "this is the door for the poor people" But then again, I can imagine the arguments of "this is how it is always done"

vwdhx 7y ago
>The architecture of their home is telling them that they are inferior every time they enter their homes. Well, they don't belong there. They are there because the government has mandated it. It's unnatural, and this is the result.
- xorcist 7y ago
  Not sure what the argument is here. Living in an apartment is completely unnatural in itself.
  - kgwgk 7y ago
    Desirable things being (expensive and therefore) affordable when you are rich enough is “natural”. Desirable things being affordable when you are rich enough or poor enough is “unnatural”.
  - em-bee 7y ago
    what would you consider natural? living outside in the bush? in germany, owning property is considered unnatural or rather not the norm unless you are a farmer. it's all about how society develops and what it chooses as their lifestyle.
    - quibbler 7y ago
      That is not true about Germany. Renting is more common than elsewhere, but plenty of people buy, too.
- madaxe_again 7y ago
  I see. So, who is going to make your coffee, sweep your streets, drive your buses, collect your trash, teach your children, and cook your meals, once all of the lower wage earners have been excluded from the area? You?
  - Freestyler_3 7y ago
    Probably much better paid versions of what you listed.
  - quibbler 7y ago
    The funny thing is, by state funding cheaper living in expensive areas, you are just giving state subsidies to rich people. You subsidize services for rich people. Without that, they'd have to pay their service workers higher wages, so that they could afford living nearby or commuting. Or do you think rich people would juslt suck it up and do the cleaning themselves? They'd either pay more for services, or move away, which would lower the rents. Socialism - reliably fails every time.
jchb 7y ago
> The architecture of their home is telling them that they are inferior every time they enter their homes. Rather is it telling them that the tax payers are paying for their home. The idea being that (for those without a permanent disability) social housing should not be something you stay in forever, rather only until you have the means to find a place to stay on your own. Is it necessarily bad that people are reminded of that?
- insomniacity 7y ago
  > social housing should not be something you stay in forever, rather only until you have the means to find a place to stay on your own What if you have a mental or physical disability that precludes you from paid work? (Note that doesn't include charitable work)
  - jchb 7y ago
    That should be a different category of housing (and I believe it is in the UK, “sheltered housing” vs “council housing”)
    - insomniacity 7y ago
      It is, but, like council housing, there will be a wait for sheltered housing. In the meantime, it's likely you're already in, or get put in a regular council house. Additionally, not all conditions require sheltered housing levels of care - they just mean you won't hold down a job.
- sigwinch28 7y ago
  > Is it necessarily bad that people are reminded of that? Every time they have visitors, every time they go home, every time they get the post, every time their children see a playground they are not allowed to use [0]? Yes. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/mar/25/too-poor-to-play-children-in-social-housing-blocked-from-communal-playground https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/mar/25/too-poor-to-p...
yomly 7y ago
This is a tough one - the service fees are real, iirc I know of some people who have to pay £700 a month to the development which is more than enough to rent a small place outside of London. So I can see an argument for segregation even if my personal hope would be for better harmonious living. Though when some people have to buy a place for ~800k and other people get state assistance it's hard to see that working out well in either direction. One party feels like their hard work and effort has been undermined and the other party sees privilege and vast inequality. I people who are "big" enough to drop that kind of money on a property and be ok living next door to someone in a similar plot who didn't. But what is the solution? Hard to say, maybe tackle the root cause of wealth inequality - but how. I am neither politician nor economist...

by Jonnax 7y ago

vwdhx 7y ago

>The architecture of their home is telling them that they are inferior every time they enter their homes. Well, they don't belong there. They are there because the government has mandated it. It's unnatural, and this is the result.

xorcist 7y ago
Not sure what the argument is here. Living in an apartment is completely unnatural in itself.
- kgwgk 7y ago
  Desirable things being (expensive and therefore) affordable when you are rich enough is “natural”. Desirable things being affordable when you are rich enough or poor enough is “unnatural”.
- em-bee 7y ago
  what would you consider natural? living outside in the bush? in germany, owning property is considered unnatural or rather not the norm unless you are a farmer. it's all about how society develops and what it chooses as their lifestyle.
  - quibbler 7y ago
    That is not true about Germany. Renting is more common than elsewhere, but plenty of people buy, too.
madaxe_again 7y ago
I see. So, who is going to make your coffee, sweep your streets, drive your buses, collect your trash, teach your children, and cook your meals, once all of the lower wage earners have been excluded from the area? You?
- Freestyler_3 7y ago
  Probably much better paid versions of what you listed.
- quibbler 7y ago
  The funny thing is, by state funding cheaper living in expensive areas, you are just giving state subsidies to rich people. You subsidize services for rich people. Without that, they'd have to pay their service workers higher wages, so that they could afford living nearby or commuting. Or do you think rich people would juslt suck it up and do the cleaning themselves? They'd either pay more for services, or move away, which would lower the rents. Socialism - reliably fails every time.

jchb 7y ago

> The architecture of their home is telling them that they are inferior every time they enter their homes. Rather is it telling them that the tax payers are paying for their home. The idea being that (for those without a permanent disability) social housing should not be something you stay in forever, rather only until you have the means to find a place to stay on your own. Is it necessarily bad that people are reminded of that?

insomniacity 7y ago
> social housing should not be something you stay in forever, rather only until you have the means to find a place to stay on your own What if you have a mental or physical disability that precludes you from paid work? (Note that doesn't include charitable work)
- jchb 7y ago
  That should be a different category of housing (and I believe it is in the UK, “sheltered housing” vs “council housing”)
  - insomniacity 7y ago
    It is, but, like council housing, there will be a wait for sheltered housing. In the meantime, it's likely you're already in, or get put in a regular council house. Additionally, not all conditions require sheltered housing levels of care - they just mean you won't hold down a job.
sigwinch28 7y ago
> Is it necessarily bad that people are reminded of that? Every time they have visitors, every time they go home, every time they get the post, every time their children see a playground they are not allowed to use [0]? Yes. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/mar/25/too-poor-to-play-children-in-social-housing-blocked-from-communal-playground https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/mar/25/too-poor-to-p...

yomly 7y ago

This is a tough one - the service fees are real, iirc I know of some people who have to pay £700 a month to the development which is more than enough to rent a small place outside of London. So I can see an argument for segregation even if my personal hope would be for better harmonious living. Though when some people have to buy a place for ~800k and other people get state assistance it's hard to see that working out well in either direction. One party feels like their hard work and effort has been undermined and the other party sees privilege and vast inequality. I people who are "big" enough to drop that kind of money on a property and be ok living next door to someone in a similar plot who didn't. But what is the solution? Hard to say, maybe tackle the root cause of wealth inequality - but how. I am neither politician nor economist...