Entitlement by proximity (Development in London with fancy swimming pool bridge).

[dowie]

So the BBC posted some footage on Twitter today of a fancy swimming pool at a London development:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1399678383727034369

Picture here:

Now the HuffPo points out that some poorer people living in the social housing part of the development don't have access to it:

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/london-floating-pool-nine-elms_uk_60b61404e4b06da8bd7b3914

This is like the previous fuss made over two adjacent developments and a children's play area - In that case IIRC something was worked out, in other cases though when you're talking about expensive facilities then it doesn't necessarily seem feasible.

I'm curious about what people's thoughts are and whether they differ based on proximity - consider a developer wants to build 350 luxury flats with a posh lobby, concierge, private cinema, swimming pool, gym, business centre, rooftop terrace, rooftop resident's lounge, kids play area etc.. to be privately managed by a management company in return for a fat service charge. The developer also needs to build say 150 social housing flats - for a housing association to manage and rent at affordable rates or sell on shared ownership basis.

Scenario 1: All the flats are in the same massive tower block and the developer has decided to create a separate entrance (poor door) for the social housing flats vs a posh lobby and access to all the facilities for the private flats.

Scenario 2: The flats are built on the same site but in different blocks two private blocks with access to the facilities and one social housing block without access to the facilities.

Scenario 3: The private flats are built on one site and the social housing flats are built on another site 2 kilometres away in the same borough, the only thing linking them is the fact they're being built by the same developer and the social housing was a requirement by the borough council to get planning permission for the private housing.

Service charges cost the private residents say £6000 a year each on average to maintain the fancy facilities.

In all of the above scenarios, the private flats and social housing flats are separated, managed by different entities but the proximity differs - does that change your view re: whether the residents of the social housing are entitled to the facilities in the private housing?

Who should pay if the social housing residents are allowed access to the facilities? Are they just subsidised by an effective tax on the private residents? Do they get to cherry-pick and demand they be allowed to pay for say access to the pool/gym only for some low fee but the rest of the overall costs racked up by the private development they want nothing to do with?

 

[arknor]

I thought when a developer builds a property they have to by law include a % of social housing? so if that's the case everyone in the building should have the same rights.

the rich wouldn't be there either if it wasn't for the poor people living there since it would never have been given planning permission?

 

[jsmoke]

It's crazy how people can live so close and populated and be so divided. Social class Britain. It's an elitist world.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

I thought when a developer builds a property they have to by law include a % of social housing? so if that's the case everyone in the building should have the same rights.

the rich wouldn't be there either if it wasn't for the poor people living there since it would never have been given planning permission?

As Dowie mentioned, poor doors are used.

The interesting thing about this one IIRC is that even those with shared ownership are ineligible.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

It's crazy how people can live so close and populated and be so divided. Social class Britain. It's an elitist world.

It's called capitalism and the reason why you have free time to post on a forum. You're also part of the 1% global elite I'm afraid.

 

[Dis86]

I thought when a developer builds a property they have to by law include a % of social housing? so if that's the case everyone in the building should have the same rights.

the rich wouldn't be there either if it wasn't for the poor people living there since it would never have been given planning permission?

My neighbour has a private pool in his apartment, can I just come in and use that?

Also I may or may not have played a part in the design of this

 

[arknor]

As Dowie mentioned, poor doors are used.

The interesting thing about this one IIRC is that even those with shared ownership are ineligible.

I thought poor doors were deemed unfair or whatever and not used anymore? I remember they had a lot of hate in the media.

My neighbour has a private pool in his apartment, can I just come in and use that?

hardly the same thing is it this pool is pretty much a communal pool

 

[weringo]

I thought when a developer builds a property they have to by law include a % of social housing? so if that's the case everyone in the building should have the same rights.

What if the people in the cheaper flats don't want to spend £X thousand a year in service charge payments towards the maintencance of luxury facilities?

 

[dowie]

I thought when a developer builds a property they have to by law include a % of social housing? so if that's the case everyone in the building should have the same rights.

the rich wouldn't be there either if it wasn't for the poor people living there since it would never have been given planning permission?

OK, that answers scenario 1, what about the other questions - scenarios 2 and 3 and if a different answer then why? Also, who pays for it?

I thought poor doors were deemed unfair or whatever and not used anymore? I remember they had a lot of hate in the media.
hardly the same thing is it this pool is pretty much a communal pool

Why do you think they are unfair?

 

[Deleted User 298457]

I thought poor doors were deemed unfair or whatever and not used anymore? I remember they had a lot of hate in the media.
hardly the same thing is it this pool is pretty much a communal pool

Tbh it is a total nonsense term. It is just like a regular apartment entrance versus the ridiculously grand, decorated with freshly cut flowers and a concierge, main entrance. I'm sure some residents would rather the poor door than the main entrance if it meant a cut in service fees.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

What if the people in the cheaper flats don't want to spend £X thousand a year in service charge payments towards the maintencance of luxury facilities?

You missed the point, he doesn't want to pay for it

 

[arknor]

What if the people in the cheaper flats don't want to spend £X thousand a year in service charge payments towards the maintencance of luxury facilities?

we'd have to compare their service charges compared to the other peoples living there.

anyway still goes without social tenants the place likely would never have been given planning permission.

are we going back in time now to where the poor have to be invisible members of society ? it seems society gets less and less equal where as in my life time it was the opposite.

who with money would want to live near that noisy pool anyway? you can probably hear all the banging echoing around the building as the water sloshes around and people jump in

 

[chroniclard]

Just get poor people who are scared of heights, they won't want to use it. no way I would.

 

[dowie]

anyway still goes without social tenants the place likely would never have been given planning permission.

That is the case in all three scenarios though so isn't a reason for in scenario 1. You haven't specifically answered the other two does that imply you don't agree in those cases?

 

[StriderX]

Segregation will happen regardless of what measures are put in place, so the choice is between segregating by floor/section, building or by neighborhood.

I think that while neighborhoods tend to create their own cultures, the overt in-the-face acknowledgement that you share a building with people of lesser means is probably better in the long run, but I'm not sure.

 

[arknor]

That is the case in all three scenarios though so isn't a reason for in scenario 1. You haven't specifically answered the other two does that imply you don't agree in those cases?

it's all part of the exact same development unless each section were given planning permission separately.

I don;t believe planning permission should be granted based on "we will build poor people housing somewhere else" it should be part of the main development if that is one of the main considerations for planning permission, affordable housing.

everyone living there should be treated as equals or not at all. (I'm not suggesting all apartments be built to the same standard but they should have access to the same communal spaces)

I'm not the one making the decisions and I don't know exactly how's it's decided, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

 

[Dis86]

everyone living there should be treated as equals or not at all.

Why when they don't contribute the same?

 

[montymint]

Personally I don't like the idea of a "poor door" for the building, but it's completely fair regarding the none essential facilities like a pool.

 

[arknor]

Why when they don't contribute the same?

because obviously not everyone can do that...

jesus christ are certain people on here being dense for the sake of it?

the reason for affordable housing, social housing is because otherwise people wouldn't be able to afford to live there.........

are we a ll for gentrification and forcing the poor people out? where will the poor people who do the ordinary jobs live? if you want a gated community or whatever maybe don't do it in a city centre?

we are basically creating second class citizens it's disgusting

 

[weringo]

we'd have to compare their service charges compared to the other peoples living there.

You have avoided the question, but if you want some numbers lets say, excluding the luxury facilities, all residents pay £10 per sq ft service charge. The service charge for the luxury facilities is £8 per sq ft if borne by all residents or £16 per sq ft if borne solely by the tenants of the expensive flats.

Going back to the question, what if the people in the cheaper flats don't want to spend an extra £8/sq ft in service charge payments towards the maintencance of luxury facilities?