3 ms·
The social housing in luxury high-rises is not luxurious. Where you might have two, four or eight units to a floor for private owners, social tenants are usual
by madaxe_again 7y ago
The social housing in luxury high-rises is not luxurious.
Where you might have two, four or eight units to a floor for private owners, social tenants are usually in much smaller units, 16 or 24 to a floor.
The fit-out and finish tends to be “cheapest available”, and it shows. The layouts are often unbearably cramped, and windows are often smaller.
Corridors are frequently left in an unfinished state - painted breeze-blocks and exposed utilities in the ceiling.
So, to call this luxurious is to call anything above sleeping on a doorstep luxurious.
- ryanlol 7y ago>The social housing in luxury high-rises is not luxurious. It is, by the virtue of the location alone Complaining about the fit and finish just shows the mountain of privilege you’re standing on.
- madaxe_again 7y agoBalderdash - unless you count “being able to work” as a luxury. Public transport in London is painfully expensive, and if you are earning minimum wage on a part-time contract, a private tenancy that would be affordable to such a person would be well outside of the city, and their commuting costs would be a substantial portion of their pay - and you would need to subsidise them to a greater degree than you would by simply having them live near their place of work. So, again, I assume you count having a job and a home as a “mountain of privilege”, and not as a fairly universal underpinning of society.