Mixing in Social Housing with Market Housing Creating Issues in New York Similar to Vancouver
This article in the New York Times highlights some challenges in incorporating social housing in a higher-end market condo building. This is an issue that may become more prominent in Vancouver as the City tries to generate new social housing units by requiring social housing in new market developments; particularly in higher density areas like the West End.
‘Poor Door’ in New York Tower Opens Housing Fight
New York Times, August 27, 2014
A 33-story glassy tower rising on Manhattan’s waterfront will offer all the extras that a condo buyer paying up to $25 million would expect, like concierge service, entertainment rooms, and unobstructed views of the Hudson River and miles beyond.
The project will also cater to renters who make no more than about $50,000. They will not share the same perks, and they will also not share the same entrance.
The so-called poor door has brought an outcry, with numerous officials now demanding an end to the strategy. But the question of how to best incorporate affordable units into projects built for the rich has become more relevant than ever as Mayor Bill de Blasio seeks the construction of 80,000 new affordable units over the next 10 years.
The answer is not a simple one. As public housing becomes a crumbling relic of another era, American cities have grown more reliant on the private sector to build housing for the poor and working class. Developers say they can maximize their revenues, and thus build more affordable units, by separating them from their luxury counterparts.
L’Hermitage in Vancouver has exactly that – a separate door for the SRO replacement and an adjacent combined hotel/condo lobby. The lobby for the SRO actually looks nicer than many “average” condo lobbies. A division by function, use or ownership seems ordinary course.
Also consider occupiers liability and insurance matters. A separate lobby for rental units owned by a develper places insurance, liability and maintenance issues on the developer – not the condo owners (as would apply in a shared situation).
As for access to facilities – I don’t see why renters couldn’t have access if they pay a fee. Many condos – even high end ones, share recreational facilities with integrated hotel operations (and end up paying through the nose to maintain high hotel standards).
L’Hermitage is an interesting example because it was built on a relatively large site. It will be interesting to see how some of the new West End tower rezonings proceed for two reasons:
1) the tower floorplates will be quite small, as will the lobby areas. This will present less of an opportunity to segregate the social housing and market condo lobbies.
2) If social housing requirements like the 25% requirement per the West End Plan are strictly enforced, developers will need to push values up for the market condo components of projects, thereby increasing the importance to minimize any negative perception of having “social housing” under the same roof.
Ultimately, social housing within the City’s definition can simply mean rental housing owned by the City or a non-profit, or even simply a co-op. These housing forms should allow some form of mixing of residents without creating a huge drag on the condo sales values (and the developer’s profit margin), though it will be interesting to see how developers and the City planning staff come up with creative solutions so that everybody wins.
I think (not sure) that the shorter Woodwards tower (W-32) has separate lobbies for condos and social housing – in one tower.
At Shangri-La in Vancouver, there are 3 parts to the tower – Hotel; Live-Work Residences and The Estates Residences.
Apparently, the Estates share the hotel lobby at 1128 West Georgia, while the live-Work Residences have a separate lobby at 1111 Alberni.
http://jaymcinnes.com/1128-w-georgia-st/shangri-la-(estates)
http://jaymcinnes.com/1111-alberni-st/shangri-la-(residents)
So even in this high end project, you have stratification of the classes….