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

[dowie]

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

Well, that isn't true the questions are completely open here.

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.

It's not about whether the three scenarios should occur - the question is given those three scenarios (all of which can and do occur in the UK).

Two of them involve the same site one of which is the same building and the other is separate blocks.

You've already answered that in scenario 1 you want them all to have access so you don't need to reiterate that - the addition question there is who pays for it and whether you see that as different to the other scenarios?

 

[Dis86]

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?

But the poor people aren't being forced out. They just haven't contributed the same so can't use all the facilities. I can't pay for a bottom spec Audi A1 and expect to drive out with an RS6, can I?

 

[arknor]

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?

and your assuming it's some expensive service charge, most service charges in an apartment are a few pence per month I doubt the pool is hugely expensive

 

[FoxEye]

It's hard to get upset if one set of tenants is paying £xxx more than the others, and are getting extra services in return.

I'd stick them all in the same block tho. Let the rich have to gaze upon the poor, and let the poor see how the other half lives. I don't believe in apartheid. We really don't want slum blocks and decent blocks.

I'd be happy for the rich tenants to subsidise essential services for the poor tenants (cleaning, etc), but stuff like a theatre or pool, well it's much harder to make a case for why that should be subsidised.

I'm guessing there's a public swimming pool somewhere nearby, after all.

 

[Dis86]

and your assuming it's some expensive service charge, most service charges in an apartment are a few pence per month I doubt the pool is hugely expensive

You're wrong. It's incredibly expensive to maintain a pool.

 

[dowie]

and your assuming it's some expensive service charge, most service charges in an apartment are a few pence per month I doubt the pool is hugely expensive

Yes, the assumption of a high service charge is literally in the question: £6000. That is approximately what some residents have apparently been paying in the development in question too, it's not just some random figure though that shouldn't be relevant - are you not capable of answering the question regardless, based on principle alone?

 

[Roar87]

Just make friends with people who have access to the pool, but no you're not entitled to use property you haven't paid for

 

[weringo]

most service charges in an apartment are a few pence per month

Good job with the trolling so far (you had me), but you went too far with this one

 

[d_brennen]

I can't think of anything worse than having to share a pool/gym in a block of flats, no matter how posh. I'd rather have my choice of facility

 

[neocon]

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

Except when it comes to buying a house and you'll definitely not want them next door.

 

[Dis86]

I can't think of anything worse than having to share a pool/gym in a block of flats, no matter how posh. I'd rather have my choice of facility

The last one I did was 3 pools, a steam room, sauna, ice-room and 2 bubble pools. Plenty of choice there. Don't think the building's finished yet though.

 

[FoxEye]

Except when it comes to buying a house and you'll definitely not want them next door.

Poor people are...? Anti-social? Poor people are bad neighbours? Poor people are dishonest? Aggressive? Loud?

Poor people are...?

You sound like a lovely chap who doesn't generalise people at all.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

and your assuming it's some expensive service charge, most service charges in an apartment are a few pence per month I doubt the pool is hugely expensive

You are living in cuckoo land

 

[dowie]

I'd stick them all in the same block tho. Let the rich have to gaze upon the poor, and let the poor see how the other half lives. I don't believe in apartheid. We really don't want slum blocks and decent blocks.

I'd be happy for the rich tenants to subsidise essential services for the poor tenants (cleaning, etc), but stuff like a theatre or pool, well it's much harder to make a case for why that should be subsidised.

It isn't always going to be practical to fit them into the same block though, in some cases a high rise won't be approved for whatever reason, the site might have approval for different blocks.

Does paying for cleaning for the poor flats apply in the case where there are different blocks too?

Or how about where the posh development is on one site and the private flats on another - would be a bit weird if you buy a flat and then discover that part of your management fee is being used to pay for some cleaners in another block of flats 2 km away that the original developer happened to build as a planning requirement?

Also, just out of principle, why should the private buyers or indeed buyers later down the line be on the hook for these cleaning fees?

Likewise, supposing one of the shared ownership people eventually pays off all the equity then sells his flat privately - a new tenant moves in who is simply a private tenant now - why do they get subsidized by other private tenants at a different block?

 

[neocon]

Poor people are...? Anti-social? Poor people are bad neighbours? Poor people are dishonest? Aggressive? Loud?

Poor people are...?

You sound like a lovely chap who doesn't generalise people at all.

Decrease property value for one thing.

It's nothing to do with me being nice.

 

[FoxEye]

It isn't always going to be practical to fit them into the same block though, in some cases a high rise won't be approved for whatever reason, the site might have approval for different blocks.

Does paying for cleaning for the poor flats apply in the case where there are different blocks too?

Or how about where the posh development is on one site and the private flats on another - would be a bit weird if you buy a flat and then discover that part of your management fee is being used to pay for some cleaners in another block of flats 2 km away that the original developer happened to build as a planning requirement?

Also, just out of principle, why should the private buyers or indeed buyers later down the line be on the hook for these cleaning fees?

Likewise, supposing one of the shared ownership people eventually pays off all the equity then sells his flat privately - a new tenant moves in who is simply a private tenant now - why do they get subsidized by other private tenants at a different block?

They're linked by virtue of the fact that the developer only gained permission to build the luxury flats by agreeing to build the slumdog flats

The alternative is what, btw? Let the slumdog flats crumble and go to ****, let the developer and the posh block sever their ties and wash their hands of it..

I mean your question is similar btw to "Why should rich people pay tax that gets spent on services they won't use, that only poor people use?" It's a fairly bleak attitude to take regarding providing essential services to the general populace. I have no issue (in general) with the wealthy subsidising essential services for the poor/for everyone.

I appreciate not everybody has the same view

 

[dowie]

Poor people are...? Anti-social? Poor people are bad neighbours? Poor people are dishonest? Aggressive? Loud?

Poor people are...?

You sound like a lovely chap who doesn't generalise people at all.

It's not about generalising for all but rather the risk - if you have say 150 social housing tenants then yes there is a higher risk there, especially if some of the tendencies are simply housing association people with their rent covered. The majority might be lovely neighbours but the obvious risk is obvious.

Yes bankers can do coke etc.. but if you've got some proper smackheads who are in social housing because they can't hold down a job then you've potentially got people who might be up at 4am etc.. don't really care about their surroundings/communal areas etc.. as they don't own the flat.

You have a higher chance of social issues, petty theft etc.. It's not so much that given someone lives in social housing they're definitely going to be a problem it is more that given someone is a complete **** up who commits crime and/or can't hold down a job then there is a very good chance they'll require social housing and given a large pool of social housing there is a good chance you'll have at least a few complete **** ups present.

That isn't snobbery it's just the reality of life in council estates and housing association blocks across the country.

 

[Dis86]

They're linked by virtue of the fact that the developer only gained permission to build the luxury flats by agreeing to build the slumdog flats

The alternative is what, btw? Let the slumdog flats crumble and go to ****, let the developer and the posh block sever their ties and wash their hands of it..

I mean your question is similar btw to "Why should rich people pay tax that gets spent on services they won't use, that only poor people use?" It's a fairly bleak attitude to take regarding providing essential services to the general populace. I have no issue (in general) with the wealthy subsidising essential services for the poor/for everyone.

I appreciate not everybody has the same view

I'll ask you my A1 and RS6 question then. Manufacturers need low volume, efficient engines to be able to build high volume, high power engines. Should I therefore have the right to an RS6 if I pay for an A1?

 

[dowie]

They're linked by virtue of the fact that the developer only gained permission to build the luxury flats by agreeing to build the slumdog flats

The alternative is what, btw? Let the slumdog flats crumble and go to ****, let the developer and the posh block sever their ties and wash their hands of it..

The developer has severed their ties regardless, I'm not sure what you mean there. Again the social housing is managed by a social housing company, the private housing is managed by a separate management company (this is a fairly standard set up).

I mean your question is similar btw to "Why should rich people pay tax that gets spent on services they won't use, that only poor people use?" It's a fairly bleak attitude to take regarding providing essential services to the general populace. I have no issue (in general) with the wealthy subsidising essential services for the poor/for everyone.

I appreciate not everybody has the same view

We're not talking about general taxation though, we're talking about specific private individuals. Also who is to say that later on one of the residents in say a shared ownership flat or formerly shared ownership flat that has been sold on isn't wealthy?

Are you not able to answer the questions?

Does paying for cleaning for the poor flats apply in the case where there are different blocks too?

Or how about where the posh development is on one site and the private flats on another - would be a bit weird if you buy a flat and then discover that part of your management fee is being used to pay for some cleaners in another block of flats 2 km away that the original developer happened to build as a planning requirement?

Also, just out of principle, why should the private buyers or indeed buyers later down the line be on the hook for these cleaning fees?

Likewise, supposing one of the shared ownership people eventually pays off all the equity then sells his flat privately - a new tenant moves in who is simply a private tenant now - why do they get subsidized by other private tenants at a different block?

 

[neocon]

I personally think people that don't work , don't need to live in London, just my opinion though. It's a big country, they'd benefit from some fresh country air.