New York Condo Will Have A 'Poor Door' For Lower-Income Residents

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
7-22-2014

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/extell-poor-door-_n_5606572.html

Luxury New York Condo Will Have A 'Poor Door' For Lower-Income Residents

A controversial plan to have the lower-income residents of a New York City luxury condo go in and out through a separate entrance has officially been given the green light.

The 33-story building, now under construction at 40 Riverside Boulevard on the Upper West Side, will contain 219 luxury units facing the Hudson River.

There will also be a segment on floors two through six that will contain 55 street-facing units for the building's poorer residents. This segment will have its own entrance.

Residents living in the lower-income part of 40 Riverside will be prohibited from using the attractive amenities commonly found in Extell properties, including a gym and a swimming pool.

Extell's proposal, which has been widely described as a "poor door" policy, was approved under the city's Inclusionary Housing program, which allows developers to use more square footage than they'd ordinarily be allowed to -- provided they set aside some units in their building for affordable housing. For doing so, developers also receive millions in tax breaks.

================================================================
http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-front-doors-one-percent-120700147.html

Front Doors Are for the One Percent Only

Income inequality has dominated Democrats’ political rhetoric across the country, with politicians in Washington and on the campaign trail introducing plans to narrow the growing gulf between the rich and the poor.

Yet, in the country’s largest city, which recently elected a mayor who ran on a platform that derided income inequality, the issue is getting more and more visible - especially for some of New York’s low-income residents living in buildings that segregate them from their rich neighbors.

That’s right: So-called “poor doors” (or separate entrances for poor people, usually located in the back of the building, out of view from the upper-class tenants) are increasingly common among New York’s swanky residential buildings that house the super-rich alongside a handful of low-income people in order to get tax credits from the city.

Last week, the New York Department of Housing Preservation and Development approved a request by a swanky new condo on the Upper West Side to have a separate entrance in a back alley for its lower income residents (in New York City that means people with an annual income of $51,540 or less).

The front doors, meanwhile, will be reserved for wealthy tenants only.
 
Last edited:

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
The change to a Serfdom Society in the U.S. is gaining speed everyday.

The 1% are busy segregating themselves from the rest of America at breakneck speed.
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
I don't have a problem with it.

What I see is two different condo developments existing side-by-side (or 'smashed' into one building). This is also the new trend in hotels. Different brands, appealing to different customers, are now being built in the same building.

Personally, I'd much rather enter/leave through the "poor door" even if I was wealthy. I don't enjoy being around snobbish wealthy a-holes (although many wealthy are not like that).

I imagine the separate gym and swimming pool is to allow the wealthy celebrity types to enjoy the facilities without fear of stealth cell phone photo's of them being posted all over the 'net.

Fern
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
don't want to use the poor door move into one of the expensive ones.

fuck this is a idiotic thing to whine about.

edit: oops didnt' see it dmcowen who posted. fuck man get over the fact that some people have more money then you and get perks from it.
 

Argo

Lifer
Apr 8, 2000
10,045
0
0
While a bit tacky, I don't see a problem. They are getting subsidized housing in return for lacking access to certain amenities.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
I don't have a problem with it.

What I see is two different condo developments existing side-by-side (or 'smashed' into one building). This is also the new trend in hotels. Different brands, appealing to different customers, are now being built in the same building.

Personally, I'd much rather enter/leave through the "poor door" even if I was wealthy. I don't enjoy being around snobbish wealthy a-holes (although many wealthy are not like that).

I imagine the separate gym and swimming pool is to allow the wealthy celebrity types to enjoy the facilities without fear of stealth cell phone photo's of them being posted all over the 'net.

Fern

I doubt any celebrities are living in that area. Upper West Side is full of families. Everywhere you turn there's a pregnant woman. Disgusting. Also, the pool and gym are part of the perks for the (higher income) residents.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,256
136
I don't have a problem with it.

What I see is two different condo developments existing side-by-side (or 'smashed' into one building). This is also the new trend in hotels. Different brands, appealing to different customers, are now being built in the same building.

Personally, I'd much rather enter/leave through the "poor door" even if I was wealthy. I don't enjoy being around snobbish wealthy a-holes (although many wealthy are not like that).

I imagine the separate gym and swimming pool is to allow the wealthy celebrity types to enjoy the facilities without fear of stealth cell phone photo's of them being posted all over the 'net.

Fern

I agree. I am sure the people with access to the amenities also pay much higher condo fees.

I personally think it is nice they are putting in 55 affordable condos. Better than squeezing the lower wealth people out of the area all together.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
I agree. I am sure the people with access to the amenities also pay much higher condo fees.

I personally think it is nice they are putting in 55 affordable condos. Better than squeezing the lower wealth people out of the area all together.

First of all, the developer most likely did it for tax purposes. Second, there's a huge project (for poor people) between West End Avenue and Amsterdam Avenue between 60th and 65th street. The poor in that area aren't hurting for space. IIRC, LegendKiller used to live in the area.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,256
136
First of all, the developer most likely did it for tax purposes. Second, there's a huge project (for poor people) between West End Avenue and Amsterdam Avenue between 60th and 65th street. The poor in that area aren't hurting for space. IIRC, LegendKiller used to live in the area.

No one builds low income housing out of the kindness of their heart. Doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
Yes they are.. break neck speed.

How are the planning to enforce this I wonder?

Basically you have High and middle income units all mixed in on one building yet the rich don't want to be seen near people of middle or low class income. If the well to do don't want to mingle with these folks then find a building that doesn't have affordable units in it, that's why they are called affordable anyway, cause most people especially in NYC can't afford those higher costing units and are not part of the 1%. They are in the 99% majority.

This just lacks basic human integrity. They are inviting people from different socio-economic backgrounds to live there, and then setting up built in segregation? Why not build a separate building? OH because then they wouldn't get the tax breaks - because one of the privileges of being rich is that you get to exploit the poor with impunity.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,779
48,467
136
I agree. I am sure the people with access to the amenities also pay much higher condo fees.

I personally think it is nice they are putting in 55 affordable condos. Better than squeezing the lower wealth people out of the area all together.

Extell most likely included affordable housing to bump the allowable density and get some tax abatement, something developers commonly do. I don't necessarily have a problem with the affordable component not having access to the amenities since they aren't paying the assessments...which probably exceed their annual salaries.

NYC is also a market where investors from abroad parking their wealth have created a scenario of ever increasing prices and a pack of developers who only want to build high end and ultra high end residential.

The city/state should consider an additional tax on non-owner occupied units in the downtown area to ply back into affordable housing developments. The number of these things that are left vacant is astonishing and is detrimental to the city.
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
This reminds me of the Titanic movie where the rich segregated the poor people at the very bottom of the ship and didn't allow them to come to the top. I feel like we are regressing back to the 1900's all over again with the Oligarchs coming into power again.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
but this was all passed under the watchful eyes, and with full support of the liberals of new York.

How can that be?
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
They have the money, they make the rules. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
This reminds me of the Titanic movie where the rich segregated the poor people at the very bottom of the ship and didn't allow them to come to the top. I feel like we are regressing back to the 1900's all over again with the Oligarchs coming into power again.

Yep, look at all the smug America hating bastards in here that basically just calling us "Steerage" because we're not rich like them.

Let em be smug.

The rich in France got smug and look what happened to them.

History always repeats itself because humans suck, especially to each other.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Didn`t the condo developers just hire that NYPD cop who was assigned desk duty for choking that guy to be head of security??
 

Joepublic2

Golden Member
Jan 22, 2005
1,097
6
76
Awesome; who wants to see the dmcowen674s of the world that early in the morning?

The rich in France got smug and look what happened to them.

Those people were literally starving; not wheezing heavily as their diaphragm strains against their 300lb bulk as they post about the coming revolution in an internet browser.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,249
55,798
136
No one builds low income housing out of the kindness of their heart. Doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.

If they didn't build it out of the kindness of their heart, then why does what you said before apply?

The city gave them a bunch of money in exchange for building "affordable" units. (Note: they aren't actually affordable to most people) The city can, and should, demand that in exchange for their money the affordable residents aren't treated like second class citizens. If the developers don't like it they can always not build there, as there will be someone else waiting right behind them who will.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
This just lacks basic human integrity. They are inviting people from different socio-economic backgrounds to live there, and then setting up built in segregation? Why not build a separate building? OH because then they wouldn't get the tax breaks - because one of the privileges of being rich is that you get to exploit the poor with impunity.

Because building a 2nd building would be way more expensive.

What people would rather have, are 2 different buildings, further splitting the people?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,249
55,798
136
Because building a 2nd building would be way more expensive.

What people would rather have, are 2 different buildings, further splitting the people?

That's not what is happening here though. Here's what it is:

1. Developer wants to make building that exceeds various NYC regulations.
2. Developer wants tax breaks, etc from city.

3. In response city grants exemptions and tax breaks in exchange for the inclusion of some lower priced units.

This has nothing to do with the expense of multiple buildings, this has to do with the developers taking city money to do something and then doing it in a shitty way. The city should, at a minimum, eliminate this practice going forward in buildings that get city tax breaks, etc.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
That's not what is happening here though. Here's what it is:

1. Developer wants to make building that exceeds various NYC regulations.
2. Developer wants tax breaks, etc from city.

3. In response city grants exemptions and tax breaks in exchange for the inclusion of some lower priced units.

This has nothing to do with the expense of multiple buildings, this has to do with the developers taking city money to do something and then doing it in a shitty way. The city should, at a minimum, eliminate this practice going forward in buildings that get city tax breaks, etc.

Why are they building so many low income units? It used to be that a developer just needed one or a handful.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
If they didn't build it out of the kindness of their heart, then why does what you said before apply?

The city gave them a bunch of money in exchange for building "affordable" units. (Note: they aren't actually affordable to most people) The city can, and should, demand that in exchange for their money the affordable residents aren't treated like second class citizens. If the developers don't like it they can always not build there, as there will be someone else waiting right behind them who will.

The city approved the two door plan.