Periodical: Design Observer

Thesis: While mixed-income housing is a solution for  low-income housing problems originating in our cities, developers should offer an ethical solution for its users.

Summary:

The public housing system has developed many problems dating back to Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1933, he declared, “One-third of the nation is ill-housed”. He addressed the importance of housing and the failure to adequately house the American population. The Pruitt-Igoe housing project by Minoru Yamasaki was built to become the perfect example of urban planning and modernism, but in 1972

was demolished and became a symbol of failure of government intervention into housing problems. At one point affordable housing held hope and promise for cities’ poor communities, but now it has become centers for crime, violence, and gang activity. Therefore the upper-class community usually rejects affordable housing projects.  However, there is a better way to give affordable housing to our cities without concentrating crime and poverty, and promoting overcrowding and the development of ghettos.

Most cities are spreading out public housing into small low-density units throughout the city to resolve the housing problems. Private sector housing developers are producing mixed-income housing to create a solution to the issue of affordable housing concentrating in the poor sectors of the cities. Mixed-income housing provides affordable, and market-rated housing, where tenants with different economic status live. Mixed-income housing will give parents and their children access to better schools, and employment

opportunities since these developments are in better parts of the city. This is a great initiative that could better the housing community, however, mixed-income housing is creating a new problem for low-income city residents. Low-income tenants who are renting units at affordable rates are experiencing stigmas that inheres segregation. When we mention the word segregation, we quickly drive our thoughts to past events that occurred in our society. For more than 200 years before the Civil War, slavery existed in the United States. After slavery, segregation of whites and blacks got introduced to the United States. The legal system and police of the United States supported segregation.  But beyond the law there was always a threat by other systems of laws and customs such as The Jim Crow laws.  The Jim Crow was a system of laws and customs that enforced racial segregation and discrimination throughout the United States, especially in the South.

Although segregation was a racial matter in the past, new issues found in a mixed-income housing building are creating segregation based on economic status. Also, things such as entering through another door resembles some of the requirements African-Americans had to go through back then. Segregation was a hurtful part of African American’s lives living a stigma for their entire lives. Stigmas and hurt can happen to those tenants of low-income housing units, which are things any body should go through. Discrimination in housing, or any other place is wrong and goes against our human rights, therefore action is needed to end this problem from mixed-income housing to successfully resolve the problem in housing in the United States.

A development tower rising on the Upper West Side of Manhattan’s

waterfront in NYC known as “One Riverside Park” is a prime example of the problem of increased stigma caused by mixed-income housing. The building will offer luxury condos and affordable apartments in the same building, making it mixed-income. The future owners of the condos will have access to all the amenities of the building, while those who will be living in the affordable housing will not have access to these amenities, and will be required to enter through another door facing a different street. This situation created by the building’s developers has become known as the controversial “poor door”. It caught international attention due to the problem of segregation implied by the poor door: a topic that is not taken lightly in our current time period and society.

Moreover, this “poor door” situation clearly goes against human rights to housing, which is recognized by the United Nations (U.N.). According to the U.N., the human right to adequate housing requires “governments in all counties to respect, and protect their residents” by giving them the ability to live with dignity in their community. The living condition tenants renting the affordable units definitely are not living on these standards and are not living with dignity. Living with dignity does not come with the requirement of entering through a back door due to your financial status.  The Georgetown Journal states, “The poor door design concept is at odds with the fundamental precept underlying the human right to housing”. According to The Post, Councilman Robert Jackson has proposed a bill that would need city buildings receiving affordable-housing subsidies to give the same services, amenities and entrances to all tenants of a particular building regardless of rent price.  Sadly, this is not the first time mixed-income housing resident to experience segregation. According to the New York Times, a handful of other developments have similar arrangements to the “poor door”, such as a condo tower on the Brooklyn waterfront in Williamsburg. The Times reports, “Only one entrance offers a doorman, concierge and valet, but some renters said what they resented was not being able to use some of the condo tower’s amenities”. Amenities are something everyone should have access to if they inhabit the building. How would you feel if you are living in an apartment where you could not even go to the rooftop terrace or even use the lounge? Developers say amenities are marketing tools to lure high-paying tenants. Also developers point to rules governing rent-regulated leases as reason for restrictions. The main debate on whether every tenant in a mixed-income housing building should have access to the building’s amenities is if everyone has access to the building’s amenities, there would be no funds to cover the costs of such.

But there are several things that could be done to cover the cost to grant access to amenities to everyone. For example, well-designed common areas, such as community gardens can create the opportunity to generate the money is required to cover the cost of these amenities by creating communities activities. This also brings the community together, something mixed-income housing is not creating. Mixed-income housing is separating its residents.

On the other hand, some have spoken in defense of the “poor door” such as Josh Barro Building Insider editor. In his article he states, “Getting mad about the “poor door” is absurd. The only real outrage is that the developer had to build affordable units at all” (Barro). The Times reported, “Over 88,000 applications were collected for the Riverside South’s 55 affordable units” This just makes the problem even harder to resolve since the community itself has no other choice but to accept the inequalities they’ll encounter as tenants of the building. “I guess people like it,” Gary Barnett, founder and president of Extell, told the Times. “It shows that there’s a tremendous demand for high-quality affordable housing in beautiful neighborhoods.”  Extell also defends the two doors by saying “it complied with zoning laws by essentially creating two separate buildings”.  Extell is the developer company behind the riverside south towers. Additionally, The Crain’s New York Business expressed “ the point was to usher poor families into neighborhoods with good schools, transit, jobs and safety so they could escape the cycle of poverty. It was not to give them subsidized Central Park views, fancy lobbies, spas and rooftop swimming pools.” The article also mentions how banning separate entrances would also hurt project’s profit. In his article, “Behind the poor door”, Michael Sorkin states that mixed income-housing developers “are offered subsidies in the form of added bulk, a substantial tax break and cheap financing”. This makes me question whether the reason these projects are created is to help our city residents live in a better environment, or for the private sector housing developers’ economical benefit.

Although some people think mixed-income segregation is an irrelevant problem, they should recognize that this problem creates psychological damage, and hurtful experiences in our low-income city residents. According to studies conducted in several parts of the world, residents of mixed-income public housing are “widely stigmatized and associated with negative characteristics such as a propensity for criminal behavior and a weak work ethic” (Levy). Also, 35 mixed‐income residents in Chicago reported being “singled-out and differentially treated by both the Housing Authority’s administrative procedures for resident move and by their new, higher-income neighbors” (McCormick). As before stated, no human being, no matter color, race or economic status, should ever experience discrimination due to his or her circumstances. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. Therefore things such as “poor door” should not exist in our current society. We are all the same in God’s eyes.

These discriminatory practices are denying all people the equality that being human demands, therefore, discrimination in mixed-income housing should not exist. According to a Cityscape Journal “mixed-income strategies can succeed in spatially desegregating households by income and improving lives through environmental changes, but so far they have proven insufficient for overcoming social barriers and alleviating poverty” (Levy). If a mixed-income building is the answer to our affordable housing problems, then all the occupants of that building should share the same amenities of their wealthier counterparts, including the fitness center, pool and entertainment room, and receive the same level of courtesy and prompt service from the staff. If mixed-income housing cannot overcome the discriminatory practices implemented by developers, and find a balance so everyone has equal rights as tenant of the building, it is clearly not the best option to resolve the problem of housing in our communities.

Sources:

• SORKIN, MICHAEL. “Behind The “Poor Door.” Nation 298.16 (2014): 35-37. Academic Search Complete. Web. 24 Oct. 2015.
• “The ‘Poor Door’ Contradiction.” Crain’s New York Business 30.35 (2014): 10. ProQuest. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
• Bratt, Rachel G. A Right to Housing: Foundation for a New Social Agenda. Philadelphia, PA: Temple UP, 2006. Print.
• Georgetown University. Law Center. “Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy.” Georgetown journal on poverty law & policy. Web. 3 Oct. 2015
• Navarro, Mireya. “‘Poor Door’ in a New York Tower Opens a Fight Over Affordable Housing.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 26 Aug. 2014. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.
• Barro, Josh. “In Defense Of The ‘Poor Door’: Why It’s Fine For A Luxury Condo Developer To Keep Its Low-Income Units Separate.” Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 19 Aug. 2013. Web. 25 Sept. 2015.
• Levy, Diane K., Zach McDade, and Kassie Bertumen. “Mixed-Income Living: Anticipated and Realized Benefits for Low-Income Households.” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research2 (2013): 15-28. Print.
• CHASKIN, ROBERT J., and MARK L. JOSEPH. “Social Interaction in mixed‐income Developments: Relational Expectations and Emerging Reality.” Journal of Urban Affairs2 (2011): 209-37. Web.
• McCormick, Naomi J., Mark L. Joseph, and Robert J. Chaskin. “The New Stigma of Relocated Public Housing Residents: Challenges to Social Identity in Mixed‐Income Developments.” City & Community3 (2012): 285-308. Web.
• Gans, Herbert J. People, Plans, and Policies: Essays on Poverty, Racism, and Other National Urban Problems. New York: Columbia UP:, 1991. Print.

Featured Image by: Extell Development Company

Architecture by: Goldstein Hill & West Architects