> The architecture of their home is telling them that they are inferior every time they enter their homes.
Rather is it telling them that the tax payers are paying for their home. The idea being that (for those without a permanent disability) social housing should not be something you stay in forever, rather only until you have the means to find a place to stay on your own. Is it necessarily bad that people are reminded of that?
> Is it necessarily bad that people are reminded of that?
Every time they have visitors, every time they go home, every time they get the post, every time their children see a playground they are not allowed to use [0]?
I live in fancy expensive luxury housing, next to mine there's even fancier, almost twice as expensive housing.
Is it bad that every time I have visitors, every time I go home, every time I get the post I see the wonderful infinity pools which I'm not allowed to use?
I'm not sure if there's a significant difference between my story and the one in the article.
Sure, I feel a tiny bit jealous every time I look out of the window. But that's just a reminder that I should work harder.
I think there is a difference, and the difference is that the developers of the property appear to have (at least, from my perspective) gone to some effort to actively separate these social housing tenants.
The law requires that a certain amount of this housing is made available for these people who are vulnerable (be it financially or socially or in health) but it seems that the property developers made an active effort to segregate these people from the rest of the residents based entirely on their financial status or ability to support themselves.
I agree that is horrible, but I think the mistake here is in mixing social housing into the same apartment block. Where I live social housing is in a dedicated building, typically located next to a public park.
Creating ghettoes by segregating and concentrating people into certain zones or buildings based on class, national origin, or perceived race is bad public policy that has many unwanted bad outcomes.
> based on class, national origin, or perceived race
Well it is you who are mixing “race” into this. I am just reading “people from whatever background that currently do not have the means to get a roof over their head”.
Do you actually think that you're being intelligent by saying this?
In reality immigrants separated into ghettos of affordable housing because they are generally poorer and don't have the means to get a roof over their head.
The very idea of these mixed housing developments is to not have these style of ghettos.
London is a very different city to your typical American city in that there's a lot of mixing of poor and rich areas.
Of course when there's a block of homes just for poor people in a rich area, since they're less likely to vote, the elected officials don't give a damn about them.
Public housing is only 'temporary' if we as a society choose to believe so. There is nothing that makes public housing inherently 'temporary' or undesirable.
Why must “social housing” be temporary? I have no problem with people living the entire lives in social housing if they do wish, as it’s a good way of distributing the wealth of countries, and the state can provide secure, affordable housing much better than capricious profit-driven landlords.
It's inefficient. Imagine going to the grocery store - you go in and buy what you want.
Now imagine you were taking money from one person and going to the grocery store to buy for a second person. How much do you take? What do you buy? It adds a layer of ignorance to something straightforward.
It's true enough that sometimes that's necessary - what if the person you're buying food for will starve to death if you don't act? - but to my mind it's something you do because you have to and something you stop doing when you can.
Social housing doesn’t have to cater to whims and desires like whether someone wants gold taps. It’s not a question of how many bedrooms a person really desires, it’s like a soup kitchen where there is one dish on offer and that is better than starving in the street.
Social housing is far more efficient than the options of leaving people homeless in the street, or relying on industry to self regulate, or of passing regulations that X% of housing must conform to certain price limits while still being liveable.
So let's say that council housing blocks were demolished and the land sold to a private developer to make profit off building some regenerations scheme with fewer homes but more luxury ones.
The people that lived there before gets their community destroyed through compulsory purchase orders.
And then they get out into a place that is is designed to show them their inferior place in the world.
Their community has been taken over by the rich moving in and they need to leave because they didn't have the ability to buy when prices were low.
All this is reminding them is that they are peasants and if they don't want to be treated like that then they should leave the city because they don't have the means to live there.
To be honest your attitude just makes it seem moral for the poor to attack the rich. Like burn down the luxury development that stole your home and put a label around your neck shouting that you're poor.
And I'm saying that in the living room of my privately owned flat in a housing development that's currently constructing social housing that will have a poor door, at least according to the plans.
Yes it s bad that people are continually reminded that they have no place in society. The chronic unemployed need support not chastisement. The people returning to work after lengthy illness need support not reminders of their place in the pecking order.
It is, but, like council housing, there will be a wait for sheltered housing. In the meantime, it's likely you're already in, or get put in a regular council house.
Additionally, not all conditions require sheltered housing levels of care - they just mean you won't hold down a job.
> rather only until you have the means to find a place to stay on your own
That's not been the political attitude of all UK parties. Even Thatcher's government thought life long social housing was acceptable, although they preferred home ownership.
Everyday people are “segregated” based on their wealth in some way. What area you can afford to live in, the car you drive, what restaurants you can afford to eat in, which fruits you can afford in the supermarket etc..
What makes housing special? Must social housing necessarily be located in one of the worlds most expensive areas in central London?
Are you criticizing capitalism in general？
I was referring to this specific case. In this housing example, extra infrastructure is being built for the purpose of segregating people. In your examples the segregation emerges less deliberately.
My previous implied question is still unaddressed. I.e. will this kind of segregation actually spur them on in a positive way, or is a negative effect possible (e.g. lowered self esteem, etc.)?
Rather is it telling them that the tax payers are paying for their home. The idea being that (for those without a permanent disability) social housing should not be something you stay in forever, rather only until you have the means to find a place to stay on your own. Is it necessarily bad that people are reminded of that?