New York: On the Upper West Side, a House Divided by Income

[TheIrishman]

New York: On the Upper West Side, a House Divided by Income

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/nyregion/on-the-upper-west-side-a-house-divided-by-income.html

<< Even as so many crises roiled the world recently, the news that a development on the Upper West Side of Manhattan would proceed with a brand of distasteful social engineering still managed to command international attention. The building, in what is known as Riverside South, a stretch of land reaching below 72nd Street that seems largely like a pop-up location for people who have never heard of Katz's deli or the G train, had received approval from the city for separate entrances — one for wealthy residents and one for those earning far less who would occupy the project's affordable units, in a separate wing. >>

[TheIrishman]

Poor doors: the segregation of London's inner-city flat dwellers

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/25/poor-doors-segregation-london-flats

<< Multimillion pound housing developments in London are segregating less well-off tenants from wealthy homebuyers by forcing them to use separate entrances. >>

[needFREElunch]

This is really not divided by income but rather have a lucky few that won a lottery to get subsidized housing who get to live in luxury apartments for pennies on the dollar of the market rate of rent.

It really is discussing how the government forces developers to allow the lazy/poor/unemployed to get to live I luxury apartment complexes when the market rate would allow for much higher rents.

[Swordsoffreedom]

Lets put it this way whales go in one door so everyone knows your rich
Everyone else we let you live here but go in through the poor door so just acknowledge that you are subsidized and work your way up to the rich door if you want to avoid this stigma.

It is a difficult question though
How, and to what extent, should the city mandate economic integration? The Riverside development is unusual, and even vaguely radical, in the sense that its luxury units are condominiums rather than rental apartments.

Still having separate doors is a weird way to protest by developers, they get tax breaks so they shouldn't be raising a fire under their feet.
Still a bit snobby though.

[Inotanewbie]

This is really not divided by income but rather have a lucky few that won a lottery to get subsidized housing who get to live in luxury apartments for pennies on the dollar of the market rate of rent.

It really is discussing how the government forces developers to allow the lazy/poor/unemployed to get to live I luxury apartment complexes when the market rate would allow for much higher rents.

This is correct. The government seems to be in the business of letting the lucky few get a free lunch.

[TaunSew]

If the government wanted to address poor housing among the poor then they would put an end to the slum lord apartments.  Slum apartments are only slums due to the slum lord who owns them.  Don't for a moment assume all slum apartments are $50 a month, most of them are essentially market rate minus a few hundred dollars dollars (not enough to excuse the terrible conditions).

Donald Sterling was charging $800+ a month (before utilities) for his slum apartments in Los Angeles that had mold, broken pipes and no air conditioning.