If your a 20 use the back door please,i'm an 80

Five floors of affordable housing will face away from the Hudson River and have a separate entrance, elevator and maintenance company, while 219 market-rate condominiums will overlook the waterfront.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/class_doorfare_ZIEobiEylc8G1uQAcLZn1O

They might as well just build the 20s in Detroit, a much more practical arrangement.

Except that MIXED income, instead of ghettoization (medieval European style) is one of the main points of the program, and why the developers receive FAR bonuses, tax breaks, and cheap long-term mortgages.

This goes against the spirit of what an 80/20 building is supposed to be. The city should not accept this arrangement. What they are doing effectively means two buildings and not one. Totally Ok, except when getting public money to achieve a social aim.

Yes. this shoudl be blocked. Disgusting!

Ideally they could incorporate my plan on having each family keep its own garbage instead of shipping it all through the upper east side.

And be sure the affordable apartments don't have windows. Why would low-income people need windows? They should be happy they're being allowed to live in a former industrial zone.

that's just a mini-version of the US society, you have guts to advertise it as a free or fair world, then why deny this situation's existence?

What if they make it a clearly posted condition of the lottery, and then only people who are truly willing to pay only 1,050 in Lincoln Square for a two bedroom apartment with a separate door have to suffer the indignity.

@URBAN DIGS.
Any studies on whether developers can't get true full market rents on the non-regulated rents in an 80/20 building. Does the building wind up discounting rents due to the subsidized renters living there? Extell is clearly acting on the belief that splitting the two buildings will mean they can charge the 80% building more. I'm just not sure there's data that supports this.

Riversider I don't want to sound like a developer apologist, but elsewhere I read that they are not using the bonus zoning rights in this building itself, but lawfully transferring it to a nearby building. This arrangement already means that the 80 and 20 portions are not in the same building.

I believe the 'separate door' arrangement has also been used in the williamsburg waterfront buildings edge/nsp.

The practice of transferring the 20 component anywhere else (and sometimes it goes to another borough) should be disallowed altogether.

Granted at the end of the day it produces more housing, which is much needed, it recreates many of the problems of the NYCHA approach: a ghettoized poor population, with children not knowing how middle-class and wealthier people socialize and behave.

They don't learn the generally-accepted (by middle class and up) polite verbal behaviors, professional dress, and decorum that they'll need to get and keep even the lowest-rung office jobs. Moreover, they have zero chance of learning the financial and life-planning habits of the non-poor -- living for anything beyond the present moment.

pier45, if that's the law...
i had not heard that.

I don't think the developers are motivated by a truly quantifiable increase in what they can charge the 80s if there are no 20s in their immediate midst. They're motivated by a tiny percentage of inappropriate behavior from the 20s, as vocalized by a small number of whiny 80s, most of whom are politically motivated and think nothing of lying to achieve their political goals (the Fox Radio Dittohead thing).

Buildings that aggressively screen 20s applicants can achieve harmony. Now those "Dormandy Court" type market-rate post-college renters all stuffed into apartments in nice buildings -- much more likely the source of problem behaviors, according to everyone in rental buildings I've talked to.

BTW, Extell's been named as the entity that's proposing the Jim Crow entrance. But isn't their partner in this the famously nefarious Carlyle Group? Or did they drop out, or are doing other nearby buildings?

But in
2008, the city changed regulations in a way that made it almost
impossible for developers to include the affordable units outside the
luxury buildings.

http://therealdeal.com/blog/2011/09/02/more-and-more-rental-buildings-going-with-80-20-program/

It will be interesting if there is in fact a requirement for one building. I could see Extel instructing its laywers to argue one building for 80/20 and two buildings when forbidding the 20% rent restricted residents from using the better facilities or entering the upscale section.

I don't like it. It defeats the purpose of what the City recently started requiring, which is that they not allow separate low income housing. Developers used to be able to have the low income housing in a total separate building, and sometimes not even in the same neighborhood. The City does not allow that, but this seems to violate the spirit of the law.

Also....it sort of stigmatizes the 80s too, in that they now very publicly have "the projects" attached to their building, which people might not have been so aware of had all this negative press not come out.

Everyone should live in a big gymnasium. Next to each equal person's cot should be a ditch where they can store their own garbage, so none of it gets shipped by other people who didn't generate it.

Together and Equal.

As I read the article, the proposal is to have affordable housing in one building, but not use all of the avaialble air rights in that building, and transfer air rights to an adjacent, market rate building. Sounds perfectly reasonable. It probably also avoids having to provide full services to the adjacent buildings to tenants whose rent does not even cover the cost of services.

But for those tenants, the developer wouldn't be able to build at all.

BTW, in reality if they COULD build in a completely different NYC neighborhood they could build 2-4X as many affordable units. I.e. if in return for more height in a fancy Manhattan area they could build units anywhere in the five boroughs, the supply of housing would go up by more than forcing them to build the units in the fancy Manhattan area. Or they could have a "height permit" for sale and use the cash to fund vouchers which would get you even more rental housing in farther afield areas. I get that. But since they do have to build them in the same area, and the goal is economic integration, not just cheap housing, they ought to be integrated.

The econonomics of rental buildings is that none would get built without the 80/20 financing. This feels shady, but Extell was a huge contributor to Cuomo, so maybe those dollars were well spent. We'll see.

I think I was wrong here. Post clearly says condo, which I missed.

I also missed the condo detail, but in the end it's all the same.

There have been quite a few condos built that had more-affordable apartments available (at least initially) to lower-income buyers, with time-based segue to market rate for those units. They could have taken that route. But they didn't. They're getting millions of dollars worth of breaks, by taking on tenants. Theirs wouldn't be the first building with way wealthier unit owners and poorer renters ... condo conversions of rent-regged buildings have that, without Jim Crow, and life goes on happily.

Fail, condo version.

And Extell's frat-boy press statement regarding the whole Jim Crow door is arguably the most disgusting detail.

Me, Alan, and RS all agreeing. I may just take off for a week or two just to enjoy the moment.

He started it.

>Me, Alan, and RS all agreeing. I may just take off for a week or two just to enjoy the moment.

JasonTheRetard10006 now grey, therefore forced to read what other "greys" have to say. Wow, Jason, Riversider and Alan.

Listen, at the end of the day, some people who earn plenty of money and who weren't harmed at all by all of this will sue and receive a big windfall settlement, and then everyone else will have to pay more including the middle and working class 20% who this was intended to help in the first place. But at least a lesson will be learned by a bunch of people who didn't do anything wrong, and some useless politicians will continue to lobby against term limits citing the strength of their work on the lawsuit.

I think this is similar if not exactly what Extell did with the Aldyn and the Ashley. Seperate buildings but they did share a gym under the building. The Ashley was 80/20 and faced east, while Aldyn had the river views.

Question for you all -- If you paid the going rate for a condo in one of these buildings (like the Caledonia in Chelsea where a 1 br is $1M+), would it at all bother you that some lower or middle income tenants are getting the same thing for a fraction of your costs? Just curious.

Question for you all -- if you earned the going rate in a high-paying field for the same number of hours of hard, smart work as someone in a competitive low-paying field, would it at all bother you that you're earning a high multiple of what the other guy's earning? Just curious.

Also, what if you're short and know that tall people on average earn considerably more than short people? Would you be burning with envy such that it ruins your life? Just curious.

Me, I'd move to Bangladesh and set myself on fire if I had to endure either scenario. [And lots of SE readers would celebrate, I know!]

Speaking of highly inappropriate and unnatural mixing of the classes, you know who I really feel sorry for? Hedgies who are forced to live in the same building (and share the same elevators with!) lawyers and doctors.

But, you know, noblesse oblige and all that.

so Alan says NO

Well the Caledonia made the lower floor rental units with substancially lower ceilings,and it makes a big difference.
A clever way to add to building apartheid would be to have seperate elevator banks for floors X and above.

Nothing new, basically the same as cruise ship logistics.

"Granted at the end of the day it produces more housing, which is much needed, it recreates many of the problems of the NYCHA approach: a ghettoized poor population, with children not knowing how middle-class and wealthier people socialize and behave.They don't learn the generally-accepted (by middle class and up) polite verbal behaviors, professional dress, and decorum that they'll need to get and keep even the lowest-rung office jobs. Moreover, they have zero chance of learning the financial and life-planning habits of the non-poor -- living for anything beyond the present moment."

***

And how will these poor children learn all this simply by living in the segregated "20" section of one of these mixed buildings?

Greenpoint. Another one (albeit all-rental), but with a little less offense offered up:
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130822/REAL_ESTATE/130829958#article_tab

I wonder if the gym is included in rent (and other amenities, for that matter), or if the lower-income tenants will have the same opportunity to pay extra fees that almost certainly can't afford.

Problem: "Also, what if you're short and know that tall people on average earn considerably more than short people? Would you be burning with envy such that it ruins your life? Just curious. "

Solution: "Well the Caledonia made the lower floor rental units with substancially lower ceilings,and it makes a big difference. "

The lower floor are rental units because they are less valuable. Views are worse. It's not so much a ceiling height issue as having more of a street view.

Michael Bloomberg's townhouse has a street view.

Just A Handful Of New York City Apartment Buildings Have An Actual 'Poor Door'

Read more: http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/08/27/how-common-are-nycs-poor-doors-photos/#ixzz2dDXqhaoF