Concerning the affordable homes…..the guardian also interviewed someone who owns a 25% share in the flat he lives in, rents still and has to use the poor door to get to. How much is his flat worth? £800,000. Apparently £200,000 for a 25% share in a flat is “affordable”.
Thats an unfortunate problem with shared ownership currently only offering a minimum of a 25% share, but there are meant to be ongoing plans to reduce the mimimum purchasable share to 1%, and to remove the limit on how many repayments can be made to repurchase the rest (staricasing). Currently you can only make a maximum of 3 repayments to buy the rest, so technically you would have to buy 25% at a time to purchase full equity. On my shared ownership, I only owe £25k back on the mortgage for my 50% share, but buying the rest at current valuation prices wouldn't be possible in 3 repayments, but I could make 2 and then buy however much is left on another mortgage.
there was a time in london where you could buy a 3 bedroom freehold house for £120k on a single salary without any gimmicks but since 2008 and the housing crisis alot of the people i went to college with, we will never be able to afford a home in london
Simply a financial argument, if the developers did not segregate, they would not sell their apartments. Private industry should not be tasked with supplying social housing it does not mix with their business models.
So you've just inadvertently admitted that developers and their private capitalist housing 'market' cannot solve the housing crisis. I've been trying to point this out to other right wing trolls who frequent this channel, thank you.
@@timmolloy7574 pretty much. When profit is the incentive why would you put a lot of time and resources into solving a problem that’s not yours. Govt should be taking charge here
Living in a council block now and putting up with awful anti-social behaviour, I would want to be separated from the social housing tenants. I don't blame the developers
@@Themystergamerragreed. I’d separate the two also. IMO legislation requiring the building of these properties is more than fair and developers aren’t responsible for providing luxury living to social housing tenants.
@@Robert-cu9bm That's pure whataboutism. You are right classism and elitism exist in many societies, however the particular branch of the UK elitism/classism based on antiquated laws over land ownership and royal lineage is particularly violent. Its' stains still resonate around the world in the long shadow cast by the former british empire. Brexit is just the latest symptom of that... But the UK also has a long history of labour movements and working class organizing, it's however all but dead lately...
@@pegasus713 , you're so right, and the House of Lords is a prime example of this. While most representatives have to be elected, the wealthy get their own arm of government which is inherited.
I'm in social housing (housing association) tbh... I wouldn't expect the same entrance as someone who's paid for their apartment... id just be grateful I have a brand new roof over my head. 🤷🏼♀️
I understand your perspective and agree with it. However, why would anyone get out of their way to actually want and create the distinction? That’s what the detail is.
@@siobhanair2659 well I'm poor. I'm in social housing. However I don't expect handouts. I've never used a food bank, not that I'd turn my nose up as I would if needed. I'm grateful tho I know how to budget and live within my means.... if you're lucky enough to have a brand NEW FREE roof over your head then you shouldn't be winging about what entrance you enter.. please!! The private occupants are paying thousands a month yet social housing tenants pay a few hundred or supported with housing benefit etc so what they get a nicer entrance? Well..... that's what they pay for! People are so entitled 🙄
this video also didnt mention the different rates such tenants will pay for grounds maintenance etc. Surely the housing association tenants dont want to pay hundreds a month towards pools, gyms, etc.
People who are criticising this model clearly don't own their properties or pay extortionate service charges every year. You would think very differently if you had to share the same communal spaces with people who haven't bought their property and have zero regard for the building. I'm not saying all social housing tenants are like this, but there is a large majority who think since they are not paying for the privilege to live in a certain place why should they bother with treating the building with any respect. Communal areas get trashed and then the service charges increase, and that mainly if not only effects the leaseholders. The developer I bought my property from hasn't implemented a "poor door" system, they have simply built a separate building for social housing as part of their 20% contribution to affordable housing.
What's the issue. If a person works hard enough to get qualifications and then works hard enough to buy their own property, why should those that haven't purchased have the same benefits? This is just a lefty gaslighting piece. Councils don't build social housing but instead force developers to offer up part of their development as blackmail to build in the first place. This video should be about inept councils and the lack of government investment into house building.
Sadly, it is a crafty way for government/local council to force private developer to sponsor social housing when it is the responsibility/mandate of government. The concept of "mixed community" for new development for better community intergration is a lie.
@@legendaryhamster2027 Yes, those people don't deserve social housing. They should live on the street honestly. IM sure many people would be so grateful to be given a warm safe house, regardless if the people paying more had a better entrance.
@@legendaryhamster2027yep agreed. Refuse all 3 offers and be made intentionally homeless to save the taxpayer another burden. Say it louder so the scrounge at the back can hear.
Large building developments often have segregation to reflect different service charges. The occupiers of the expensive homes pay £6-10k annually for things like concierge, gym memberships etc that would not be affordable to someone living in 'affordable' housing.
how annoyed would you be if you paid £1m for a 1 bed flat and you had people on social housing paying £100 a month for the same flat, same amenities, same reception, etc etc. Why is it shocking that people who pay get a different experience from people that don’t?
cuz we all need decent housing. and why should people be barred from using gyms and such even if they are willing to pay or things like play parks be split up? . the problem is rich people believe they are better and deserve better when they don't
Social housing tenants will probably wreck all the facilities, they certainly do not deserve a 'condo' just an apartment..... they can use the local sports centre.
@@PsychicLord wow I think you get the top prize for most ignorant comment of the day. Most people in social housing just want to live their lives in peace, and get the same opportunities as anyone else.
@@lewissmith5759 decent housing does not mean you should get a luxury flat for 100 bucks for the same price others pay 1 to 2 million bucks. The problem is you think you deserve a luxury flat, concierge service, marble floors by simply existing as a human. Decent social housing means a clean, affordable home not a luxury flat with a luxury entrance with concierge service. What comes next 100 bucks to rent a Lamborghini for you so that you do not fell less of a human ?
I don’t think shared ownership should be considered social housing. In my experience, people who part buy their house are invested and trying to get on as opposed to housing association who are just given their property. Also, I imagine in London you pay maintenance fees in those flats so if everyone does not pay the same then how can they all have the same benefits?
There's nothing wrong with this. Don't like it? Don't live there. Why should hard-working people who have paid for their house share everything with people who get handouts? btw I'm in the army so makes no difference to me, i would be on the social housing side if anything.
Because that would be the socialists dream. You sound like a sensible person so I think you're definitely following the wrong channel. I just come here to laugh at the comments.
I'd presume those that go into the "rich" door also pay an increased ground rent and higher council tax. I don't agree with the segregation according to wealth but you get what you pay for.
That is the case, the affordable house I have is in council tax band B (A being the lowest). The full value ones on the same street are D or E. It is purely because the reduced cost means fewer amenities. It the housing associations that request the second entrance do this in the case of flats, because access through the main entrance and and other amenities like the play areas and swimming pools would mean they can't sell the flats / housing below their market value.
Wow, so sorry to hear this. In New Orleans, some "integrated housing" segregation is enforced by having the doors painted a particular color. We can do better.
@Bal Rex I'm gonna be as brief as your 2 week old created account, troll. Everyone deserves decent housing, including your hateful a$$. Now, I'm done with you. Vanish and be gone.✌️
So most people have to pay through the nose to get a flat to live in, meanwhile scroungers somehow get the same thing for free and they're STILL complaining because they dont get to use the same door?
Why was there no mention of service charge? Housing associations prefer to keep amenities to a minimum to make upkeep costs of the communal areas as low as possible
Sorry but this is not true! A client has just signed for a flat in a converted house with no garden access, no door entry system, no weekly cleaner yet has a monthly service charge of £130.00. We're waiting for a response from the HA to find out what this covers. Just go onto any LA bidding site and you can see the breakdown in costs inc the service charges.
I think the thing here is though that it wouldn't cost the developers more to share the facilities with all residents, while with cars, more expensive cars cost the producers more so they have to charge more. Here they're actively seperating then, not on the ground of costs but solely because they're a different class.
@@freagle1075 Thats not true. Research and development costs for a Ford Fiesta is almost identical to a premium vehicle. The profit margins are just greater. Same for flying economy across the Atlantic. The guy with champagne and a bed is paying £12,000 whereas you are paying £750. They are subsidising the low end fares. You pay a lot more and get a little extra.
Class in UK 🇬🇧 has never left , would help if we had no royals . We had a wall built in middle of road back in the day to keep poor away from middle class .
Agreed about class in the UK in 2021,though its made out by many it doesn't exist anymore! Where I live now, which is social housing there is a communal garden that faces onto a private estate, there is a fence and trees as a barrier also. Anyway I recently recieved a communication about the garden, What was intresting though was the local private residents complained /objected to the original setting up of the garden, I think they can also access it as well now! The garden went ahead,but with a whole waft of regulations by the local council, ie no drinking alcohol, no kids making a noise, anyway sure you get the drift? The supposition is that the private residents, presume the more dominant and vocal regard the people in social housing as lesser persons than themselves, a quite astounding, and troubling view if you spend anytime thinking about it!!
It's just an extension of the argument that everyone deserves a roof over their head. Not just a roof over their head but their own flat. Not a flat if they have kids, they need their own house. And more kids means a bigger house. And more means they need more... Now it's not enough to have a roof over your head but you need to have the same as your neighbours. What about when they get a new tv? Should they get a new one too because their wealthy neighbours have one?
Section 106 is the dysfunctional thing, developers are simply doing what wealthy people want - to not interact with poor people. If the wealthy are "forced" to interact with the poor, they'll simply move elsewhere
You should be grateful for affordable housing, and stop being petty and worrying about what other people have. If you want to pull in a concierge, then get another job and pay for it
I'm not even rich nor can afford that upper class stuff but why should I stop or complain to anyone about it? Gimme a break. You get what you pay for. And you ever notice how first and business class passengers pay for the perk of things being nicer? Same difference.
Who gets free housing? You mean "landlords" right ? You know the ones who get a worker/the state to pay off their mortgages, other than that I can't think of anyone else who gets free housing?
I think those criticising this model have never lived in segregated mono-tenure developments. Because they would’ve known that they are worse than mix-tenure developments. And they do create ghettos and bigger social segregation everywhere they’re found in Europe.
I think you're missing the point. People don't have an issue with mixed tenure developments. They have a problem with it when it's clearly class segregated. It's downright Victorian.
What the Guardian ignores is that those people living in the affordable housing save money by not having to pay for a concierge, not having to pay for a large outdoor space, not having to pay monthly fees for a gym or sports club irrespective of whether they will use it, paying less council tax or that their property would not have even been built if the developer wasn't able to build a higher margin luxury property next door. The affordable property is being part subsidized by the luxury property. If the smaller affordable property was subsidizing the luxury property they would not build the luxury property they would just build the affordable ones which are easier to get planning permission for.
To be fair - if you have a really nice foyer then it will have associated high costs which will be passed onto the private tenants. If social housing tenants were to use it (and therefore contribute to its upkeep) it may make their accommodation no longer affordable. Its just a thought.
How much would the extra up keep be? The cost of maintaining most of these facilities is fixed - it doesn't depend upon how many people are going to use it.
@@vylbird8014 You're right to an extent - lighting and electricity for example would be the same no matter who walked through a reception. However, if the concierge offers a postal service/dry cleaning/ other services, these variable costs would increase with the increasing number of users. I don't think it's right that the private tenants have to pay off these excess costs within their ground rent fees and it would no longer be affordable for the social housing tenants if they were required to pay these charges. If the government could somehow subsidise these excess costs, I think there is an argument to be made about allowing the use of the private facilities.
Baylis Old School was my old secondary school. A large number of former students there would most likely be on the social housing side. Cut off from the play areas we were able to access as child who went to that school.
The Housing Policies of the last 50 yrs,from both Conservative and Labour parties, has perpetuated differences and segregation. The people of the UK, and I am one seem to go along with this? And ingrained in the psyche is the idea that if you can afford your own property, it has to be better than social housing in every way.The situation is not going to change without radical new ideas, and that in my opinion is just not going to happen,especially under the current UK Goverment which seeks to take us backwards in just about every way in society.
Why should these and let's face who live in social housing bring a lot of social problems to where they've even be in the same building as people who have worked hard in there lives to afford to live in a luxury property! This who idea of a percentage of all propertys even the super luxury one have to have a percentage of social housing is ABSOLUTELY APAULLING. YOU WANT TO LIVE IN ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES WIRK FOR IT!!!!!!
Oh don't just blame the government for all the maladies. The public are also responsible for taking this society backwards. Just like a spoilt kid with wealth of his parent the English human squanders the wealth gather by their colonialist forefathers.
I was walking into my local town centre yesterday, and an old office block demolished, will be turned into 28 new town houses said the new shiny advertising hoarding. Less then 50 metres to my left, and 50 metres to my right, are two former office buildings(the age before massive hubs of call centres etc), these buildings are used for housing, and you can buy a flat/apartment if you want! The best is one of these 1970/80s style office buildings is advertised as beautiful on the board outside. Really!!
It's understandable in places such as London, as you do get what you pay for. I'd imagine the price between buying and renting such property would be huge. I however live in the North-West, in a housing association home. I don't see much segregation besides the quality of homes being somewhat less than the bought properties, which I don't agree with. A mortgage for us would actually be cheaper than our rent, the main issue is that it's been hard to save for a deposit, even though we work, so the housing association are profiting from us each month.
@@Robert-cu9bm not true. You can have quality at an affordable price. It’s when you want luxury or extra amenities that should increase price. Having a low quality house is just bad construction practices.
We were lucky enough to be given our deposit by family, so we were able to buy. Our mortgage is half our rent. The government and banks should bring back 100% mortgages that work on proof of rent payments - if you can prove, say, 5 years of not missing any rent payments, then you can afford a mortgage.
Having worked for a developer, the issue tends to lie in the practicalities of separating areas in the building because they are owned and managed by different organisations. That said there are certain developments where poorer design choices have been made, that are definitely subject to comments made in the video.
That's just b.s, I have worked in real estate myself and it's absolute b.s. This is done primarily because "council tenants" are seen as undesireable individuals that doesn't fit into the marketing gimick a developer wants to portray in order to attract higher prices. In regards to "practicality" anyone can work in shared lobby. How do people work in a open plan office hmm?
@Lister Smeg 🤦♂ . Monetary value of any item is a projection. It's only valuable if a person things it's valuable. A "posh" apartment is a "posh" because you think it's posh. Others will call it a tacky hovel.
All around the world you have rich a poor suburbs . The suburbs are separated. If you pay for your own apartment then you expect quality for your investment. Public housing is given out. So why should they be mixed. Sorry but look around the world and there are countries were people live in real slums. Be grateful that in the uk you are provided with housing. But if you want the top quality then pay for it
The "big idea" was that, if you mix in a few horrible people with a lot of nice people, then it makes the horrible people become nice people. The reality, as everyone except Grauniad readers knows, is that the the few horrible people just make life unbearable for everyone else so all the nice people move out.
I personally DON'T believe that Private and Social housing should be a mixed affair. When you are someone paying over £1 Million for your Luxury Apartment with Luxury entrance and Concierge ... You certainly don't want to be encountering some of the less desirable individuals (and I'm not talking about DECENT FAMILIES or SINGLES). I'm referring to the loutish individuals who spit all over the place, leave their kids toys and garbage everywhere and blast their music all hours of the day and night! What decent minded person wants to pay a Premium to live with that. I actually don't blame their snobbery, to be quite frank. I actually wish they would have Social housing set aside for 'decent' low income Tenants and house the anti social types in the older buildings so they can live amongst like minded, badly behaved individuals like themselves .... Far away from peaceful, decent, law abiding folks! That's my Rant ... Now I'm going to have my dessert.
There are 3 different housing: private, shared ownership and social rent. And in this video you mixing up shared ownership with social rent together. Shared ownership is to buy property with a mortgage just like private but step by step.
Incorrect, shared ownership the developer retains partial ownership of the property, the tenant also takes out a mortgage but only on the part they own. In some arrangements they also have to pay some rent and, ofc, also services.
Media (and myself) would be outraged if social housing tenants had access to a full suite of luxury amenities when people who work and pay for their homes can’t get these sorts of luxuries from their properties. Perfectly sound solution to separate the two, in my opinion.
So is the argument social housing residents should have equal access to the gyms, swimming pools and so on? Or is it just not having a bin entrance? Or should this type of integration or non-integration be abolished together?
A comment made by someone who either did not watch the whole video or did not understand the points being made... or both. But congrats on the 5 likes.
Social housing does not give you the automatic right to a luxury lifestyle just because you are in the geographic proximity of those that can afford it.
@@DaveLowe28 Sure, that is "the way it works" now, but given that we can choose how it works, why should that be the way it works? You've just avoided the difficult question
why would you expect a fancy entrance when it's publicly funded? how else are developers going to attract private buyers if it's not segregated? this video is a joke
@@carlbirchall6869 but how would the building company's get profit? people wouldn't pay top prices when those get the same for free. Would certainly rub a lot up the wrong way.
@@JJ-ev9uz Because the state is subsidising it. The private building company will still get market rate it's just the state is paying for it rather than the tenant. Ultimately I suppose it depends on what the amenity is; whether it's a communal thing or a subscription based thing. If its communal there is no reason to segregate. If it's subscription based then yes I can see the logic in people who don't pay for it getting it - say for the example of the gym. But segregating people by entrance is just ludicrous. Its speaks of a society that expects certain people in it to never be seen, it would appear.
It’s similar to complaining that the facilities in the 5 star hotel are better and the rooms are much nicer. When all you can afford is to stay in a 3 star hotel. It’s called social housing for a reason.
Mix social housing with Market Housing it's a BIG mistake. That was done near from where I live in late 80's. The result is ALL market apartments are for sale or rent because social apartments and buildings are degraded with high levels of crime. Who talk in classism or etitism try live there.
Fact is, rich/poor, black/white cannot be FORCED to mix. I notice that Tony Blair who first pushed this, or bosses who run the developers do not live in these places.
Working in construction you can tell the difference in materials used in a private sell and a Housing association proprety. It goes as far as a housing association home having taps in their bathtub and a private property comes with taps and shower. I do understand that people that buy a home are paying for better fittings, not including a shower in a bath just because its Housing assosiation as someone who grew up in a council estate and now on a mortgage on my own property it's distastefull.
As far as I can see, all construction is shoddy compared to the work done in the past, proper craftsmen of their trade, not jobbers, all lost in the failure to continue true apprenticeships and pass on real skills.
@@realnoahsimpson for segregating people based solely on where and how they were born and degrading our society. if even that isn't obvious to you then you're not worth my time, goodbye
Least I no longer have to wonder why it was so hard to find this home behind a wall, up some stairs that are hidden behind the wall with a 6ft bush all along the top of the wall but fully open to the social housing flats across the carpark... Classic divide and rule 👍
I think you are mixing class and wealth here and definitely over egging the definition of class - there are only two classes (working - anyone working for someone else whether that is an on the tools or sat behind a computer, upper - the person that owns and runs the company the working class work for). The idea of middle class is a con to make people feel better about earning more than the minimum wage
Money doesn't equal behaviour. Not all "council" people are the same, just like not all people with money are decent. Please stop judging people it's gets you nowhere. Build a society where all people ate supported.
Thank you! My dad is a bus driver and his route goes through a business district as well as some poorer areas of the city. He says that his rudest passengers are the ones in nice suits who clearly are on their way to high-paying jobs (very few people drive into the centre as lack of parking makes it tough, so you get all sorts of people on the bus).
I think it’s only fair to the people that pay too dollar get top dollar treatment. The social housing is not a luxury treatment, it’s just purely for housing and nothing else. The whole of London is segregated and so what. There is always a divide between the rich and poor. That’s normal and part of life.
@@galegrazutis964 In other European countries a large majority of their housing is public rented, and it seems to work quite well actually. More affordability, availability and is of a better standard.
@@timmolloy7574 what is quite alarming is the human obsession and absurdity to still dominantly want to live in expensive, overcrowded, air polluted, crime filled cities instead of rural areas. The high demand for such city life is the problem, not politics.
Well - if you think about it - who is going to pay 4 times the price for the same building privately if you are able to access the same amenities via the social housing route. I think it makes sense to have separate amenities - that's what you're paying for. The private sector should not be burdened with developing social housing - that's something for the government to sort out. The reason for the development of ghettos in widespread social housing is a deeply rooted cultural problem and attempting to mix the people living there with private residents won't solve it anyway.
Not trying to be mean (and no, i am not the person who enters via rich door :D) but concierge and all those perks come at a price of service charge. So i see why there could be a separation
Private renter, walks through the front entrance of the building and proceeds to the hallway to enter the lift, to eventually reach home. Calls the "building maintenance " and reports the rubbish he saw by the lift, the brocken light in the hallway and the rubbish by the entrance. Social housing tenant, follows the same route to reach home. Switches on the tv, eats dinner and goes to bed!
So you want the same treatment, you say, as those that pay ‘top dollar’. What a sense of entitlement. I’m so pleased to pay taxes that subsidise these ungrateful people that probably have a better standard of living at the fraction of the cost most of us have to pay.
@@jasminejay5966 Someone who doesn't understand business. All products would go up in price if you couldn't "cheat the tax man". That means you would be paying more. They already take 35% of GDP. Do you think they spend that wisely, and do you think if they had more that would be spent well?
Why should the people paying for the houses have to mix with people that are living in the houses they're also subsidizing as productive members of society. Don't give me shi!, I grew up on a council estate.
Not only that but the so called “affordable” flats in developments like Nine Elms aren’t affordable at all. The Guardian interviewed one of the residents who uses the so called “poor door” to get to the flat which co-owns a 25% share of whilst also paying rent on it. And how much is his flat valued? £800,000. So he’s paid £200,000 to own a quarter of a flat that he still pays rent on and still has to use the poor door. I’d hardly call him poor to afford to pay up 200k on a property he still rents on. And that’s nothing against him it’s against a system which seems a 25% share on an £800,000 flat an “affordable” home. This country is nuts.
@@arghjayem A lot of shared ownership properties are bought by teachers, nurses, fire and police men/women because they can't even afford a full price property. It is quite alarming that such people's salaries are now considered 'poor' because they can't afford to buy a £800k flat.
@Philippa Richard they often are bought by overseas investors therefore languish vacant for months. The fancy entrance is ultimately a marketing gimmick in order to attract sales from affluent individuals.
@@PorterB what is quite alarming is the human obsession and absurdity to still dominantly want to live in expensive overcrowded, air polluted, crime filled cities instead of rural areas. The demand or such city life is the housing problem.
Lol I am outraged, yet I wouldn't even be able to pay for one of these 'affordable' flats ... so yea sorry for your poor door, at least u own a percentage of it.
It said including shared ownership, so this was referring to everyone whether they rent from the council/housing association or have shared ownership. My friend is a council tenant in a block like this and she goes through a “poor door” lol it’s not funny but you have to laugh
Concerning the affordable homes…..the guardian also interviewed someone who owns a 25% share in the flat he lives in, rents still and has to use the poor door to get to. How much is his flat worth? £800,000. Apparently £200,000 for a 25% share in a flat is “affordable”.
Thats an unfortunate problem with shared ownership currently only offering a minimum of a 25% share, but there are meant to be ongoing plans to reduce the mimimum purchasable share to 1%, and to remove the limit on how many repayments can be made to repurchase the rest (staricasing). Currently you can only make a maximum of 3 repayments to buy the rest, so technically you would have to buy 25% at a time to purchase full equity. On my shared ownership, I only owe £25k back on the mortgage for my 50% share, but buying the rest at current valuation prices wouldn't be possible in 3 repayments, but I could make 2 and then buy however much is left on another mortgage.
there was a time in london where you could buy a 3 bedroom freehold house for £120k on a single salary without any gimmicks but since 2008 and the housing crisis alot of the people i went to college with, we will never be able to afford a home in london
That's awful. £200,000 will buy you outright an entire luxury apartment elsewhere in the world.
The class system is alive and kicking and worse than ever.
exactly, and you don't even get to own the property
Ironic thing is, those privately owned properties are mostly empty, so those glossy concierges and grand playgrounds are pointless.
Owned by international oligarchs lol
None of your business
@@paulmessenger9836 huh?
Simply not true. This is a myth perpetuated by peasants at the school gate
Simply a financial argument, if the developers did not segregate, they would not sell their apartments. Private industry should not be tasked with supplying social housing it does not mix with their business models.
So you've just inadvertently admitted that developers and their private capitalist housing 'market' cannot solve the housing crisis. I've been trying to point this out to other right wing trolls who frequent this channel, thank you.
@@timmolloy7574 pretty much. When profit is the incentive why would you put a lot of time and resources into solving a problem that’s not yours. Govt should be taking charge here
Living in a council block now and putting up with awful anti-social behaviour, I would want to be separated from the social housing tenants. I don't blame the developers
Don’t they get government funding at a reduced interest rate?
@@Themystergamerragreed. I’d separate the two also. IMO legislation requiring the building of these properties is more than fair and developers aren’t responsible for providing luxury living to social housing tenants.
Elitism and Classism in the UK?? Who knew?? It's been such a beacon of class equality for soooo long!! 🙄
And everyone in NK is equal.
Name one society that doesn't have different classes.
@@Robert-cu9bm That's pure whataboutism. You are right classism and elitism exist in many societies, however the particular branch of the UK elitism/classism based on antiquated laws over land ownership and royal lineage is particularly violent. Its' stains still resonate around the world in the long shadow cast by the former british empire. Brexit is just the latest symptom of that... But the UK also has a long history of labour movements and working class organizing, it's however all but dead lately...
@@pegasus713 , you're so right, and the House of Lords is a prime example of this. While most representatives have to be elected, the wealthy get their own arm of government which is inherited.
They received flat for free and they have audacity to complain.
I'm in social housing (housing association) tbh... I wouldn't expect the same entrance as someone who's paid for their apartment... id just be grateful I have a brand new roof over my head. 🤷🏼♀️
I understand your perspective and agree with it. However, why would anyone get out of their way to actually want and create the distinction? That’s what the detail is.
Aqua StarSeed, you're far too sensible to be commenting here!
But it’s more than that and it’s a shame you don’t see that 🤦🏾♀️
@@siobhanair2659 well I'm poor. I'm in social housing. However I don't expect handouts. I've never used a food bank, not that I'd turn my nose up as I would if needed. I'm grateful tho I know how to budget and live within my means.... if you're lucky enough to have a brand NEW FREE roof over your head then you shouldn't be winging about what entrance you enter.. please!! The private occupants are paying thousands a month yet social housing tenants pay a few hundred or supported with housing benefit etc so what they get a nicer entrance? Well..... that's what they pay for! People are so entitled 🙄
this video also didnt mention the different rates such tenants will pay for grounds maintenance etc. Surely the housing association tenants dont want to pay hundreds a month towards pools, gyms, etc.
Wait! More money gets me more amenities? This is an outrage
I know, isn't it? LLOOLLLL 😂😂
When the bill for the annual service charge lands, I'll bet a lot of those owners wish they were going through the poor door!
They would have that cost already taken into consideration when calculating and forecasting their figures!
Atleast this is 100 times better than what’s going on in the US where zero units are “social”.
We pay extremely high taxes
People who are criticising this model clearly don't own their properties or pay extortionate service charges every year. You would think very differently if you had to share the same communal spaces with people who haven't bought their property and have zero regard for the building. I'm not saying all social housing tenants are like this, but there is a large majority who think since they are not paying for the privilege to live in a certain place why should they bother with treating the building with any respect. Communal areas get trashed and then the service charges increase, and that mainly if not only effects the leaseholders. The developer I bought my property from hasn't implemented a "poor door" system, they have simply built a separate building for social housing as part of their 20% contribution to affordable housing.
What's the issue. If a person works hard enough to get qualifications and then works hard enough to buy their own property, why should those that haven't purchased have the same benefits? This is just a lefty gaslighting piece. Councils don't build social housing but instead force developers to offer up part of their development as blackmail to build in the first place. This video should be about inept councils and the lack of government investment into house building.
Sadly, it is a crafty way for government/local council to force private developer to sponsor social housing when it is the responsibility/mandate of government. The concept of "mixed community" for new development for better community intergration is a lie.
I honestly don't have no problem with this and I'm poor. This is just more middle class guilt from Guardian readers.
People need to put their foot down and refuse the offer of a new home on the grounds of the entrance being around the side off the main street...
@@legendaryhamster2027 Yes, those people don't deserve social housing. They should live on the street honestly.
IM sure many people would be so grateful to be given a warm safe house, regardless if the people paying more had a better entrance.
@@mememachine5244 AMEN!!!!
@@legendaryhamster2027yep agreed.
Refuse all 3 offers and be made intentionally homeless to save the taxpayer another burden.
Say it louder so the scrounge at the back can hear.
Large building developments often have segregation to reflect different service charges. The occupiers of the expensive homes pay £6-10k annually for things like concierge, gym memberships etc that would not be affordable to someone living in 'affordable' housing.
how annoyed would you be if you paid £1m for a 1 bed flat and you had people on social housing paying £100 a month for the same flat, same amenities, same reception, etc etc. Why is it shocking that people who pay get a different experience from people that don’t?
cuz we all need decent housing. and why should people be barred from using gyms and such even if they are willing to pay or things like play parks be split up? . the problem is rich people believe they are better and deserve better when they don't
Social housing tenants will probably wreck all the facilities, they certainly do not deserve a 'condo' just an apartment..... they can use the local sports centre.
@@PsychicLord wow I think you get the top prize for most ignorant comment of the day. Most people in social housing just want to live their lives in peace, and get the same opportunities as anyone else.
@@PsychicLord ABSOLUTELY
@@lewissmith5759 decent housing does not mean you should get a luxury flat for 100 bucks for the same price others pay 1 to 2 million bucks.
The problem is you think you deserve a luxury flat, concierge service, marble floors by simply existing as a human.
Decent social housing means a clean, affordable home not a luxury flat with a luxury entrance with concierge service.
What comes next 100 bucks to rent a Lamborghini for you so that you do not fell less of a human ?
I don’t think shared ownership should be considered social housing. In my experience, people who part buy their house are invested and trying to get on as opposed to housing association who are just given their property. Also, I imagine in London you pay maintenance fees in those flats so if everyone does not pay the same then how can they all have the same benefits?
How dare people who pay more get better service, outrageous.
There's nothing wrong with this. Don't like it? Don't live there. Why should hard-working people who have paid for their house share everything with people who get handouts? btw I'm in the army so makes no difference to me, i would be on the social housing side if anything.
Because that would be the socialists dream. You sound like a sensible person so I think you're definitely following the wrong channel. I just come here to laugh at the comments.
They want a VIP experience and free housing wow 👌
+➀➈➁➈➃➇⓪➂⓪➂➁...🤝Thanks for watching send a direct message right ❤
YEP !!! 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
London central, cheap rent , best location all paid by the taxpayer
Fine, go back to the tower blocks.
I'd presume those that go into the "rich" door also pay an increased ground rent and higher council tax. I don't agree with the segregation according to wealth but you get what you pay for.
That is the case, the affordable house I have is in council tax band B (A being the lowest). The full value ones on the same street are D or E. It is purely because the reduced cost means fewer amenities. It the housing associations that request the second entrance do this in the case of flats, because access through the main entrance and and other amenities like the play areas and swimming pools would mean they can't sell the flats / housing below their market value.
Also if they only had one door, it would bring the privately owned properties down in price.
And to recoup that social housing prices would go up.
Your presumption is wrong. It’s not the case in my new build in central London.
@@_permanence what did you have to do to get your new build?
You mean people who pay more get more and aren't forced to interact with freeloaders being subsidized by their higher spending???
Sadly it isn’t the job of private developers to provide suitable social housing and I agree the housing system is dysfunctional
And neither should they.
Wow, so sorry to hear this. In New Orleans, some "integrated housing" segregation is enforced by having the doors painted a particular color. We can do better.
@Bal Rex I'm gonna be as brief as your 2 week old created account, troll. Everyone deserves decent housing, including your hateful a$$. Now, I'm done with you. Vanish and be gone.✌️
So most people have to pay through the nose to get a flat to live in, meanwhile scroungers somehow get the same thing for free and they're STILL complaining because they dont get to use the same door?
Why was there no mention of service charge? Housing associations prefer to keep amenities to a minimum to make upkeep costs of the communal areas as low as possible
Sorry but this is not true! A client has just signed for a flat in a converted house with no garden access, no door entry system, no weekly cleaner yet has a monthly service charge of £130.00. We're waiting for a response from the HA to find out what this covers.
Just go onto any LA bidding site and you can see the breakdown in costs inc the service charges.
I don't mind this at all! You pay more then you get better treatment.
True. It’s like when you pay more for a car, the more luxuries you get.
@@robertmoore2049 Which is ABSOLUTELY fair your paying more attention more.!!!!
I think the thing here is though that it wouldn't cost the developers more to share the facilities with all residents, while with cars, more expensive cars cost the producers more so they have to charge more. Here they're actively seperating then, not on the ground of costs but solely because they're a different class.
@@freagle1075 if you want to use luxury facilities then you need to pay more.
@@freagle1075 Thats not true. Research and development costs for a Ford Fiesta is almost identical to a premium vehicle. The profit margins are just greater.
Same for flying economy across the Atlantic. The guy with champagne and a bed is paying £12,000 whereas you are paying £750. They are subsidising the low end fares.
You pay a lot more and get a little extra.
Class in UK 🇬🇧 has never left , would help if we had no royals . We had a wall built in middle of road back in the day to keep poor away from middle class .
Getting rid of the royals wouldn't help a thing😂
Agreed about class in the UK in 2021,though its made out by many it doesn't exist anymore! Where I live now, which is social housing there is a communal garden that faces onto a private estate, there is a fence and trees as a barrier also.
Anyway I recently recieved a communication about the garden,
What was intresting though was the local private residents complained /objected to the original setting up of the garden, I think they can also access it as well now! The garden went ahead,but with a whole waft of regulations by the local council, ie no drinking alcohol, no kids making a noise, anyway sure you get the drift?
The supposition is that the private residents, presume the more dominant and vocal regard the people in social housing as lesser persons than themselves, a quite astounding, and troubling view if you spend anytime thinking about it!!
+MrHiggs royal family cost the British taxpayer £67 million in 2019 alone. They're leeches.
You will own nothing and you will be happy.
This video is straight from The Guardian's "Stating the Obvious" season.
It's worse though, it's recycling old material - basically re-reading through old articles and then asking for money having done it.
@Patricia 18 y.o - check my vidéó I expect you use the entrance to lots and lots of different apartment blocks.
Ye. Next up, why people who have never worked in 30 odd years can't afford to go to Barbados on holiday.
Outrageous that social housing doesn't get the chauffeurs and gold plated doors for the same price!!!
It's just an extension of the argument that everyone deserves a roof over their head. Not just a roof over their head but their own flat. Not a flat if they have kids, they need their own house. And more kids means a bigger house. And more means they need more... Now it's not enough to have a roof over your head but you need to have the same as your neighbours. What about when they get a new tv? Should they get a new one too because their wealthy neighbours have one?
Section 106 is the dysfunctional thing, developers are simply doing what wealthy people want - to not interact with poor people. If the wealthy are "forced" to interact with the poor, they'll simply move elsewhere
You should be grateful for affordable housing, and stop being petty and worrying about what other people have. If you want to pull in a concierge, then get another job and pay for it
I'm not even rich nor can afford that upper class stuff but why should I stop or complain to anyone about it? Gimme a break. You get what you pay for. And you ever notice how first and business class passengers pay for the perk of things being nicer? Same difference.
If you're getting your housing for free i'm not sure you get to complain about the entrance door
Who gets free housing? You mean "landlords" right ? You know the ones who get a worker/the state to pay off their mortgages, other than that I can't think of anyone else who gets free housing?
Imagine coming on RUclips in 2021 talking such shyte @dubguin
@@kitt6152 Your the one talking shyte
@@kitt6152 great point mate well made argument
@@skibbitybebop yawn, this was a week ago… I’m surprised there isn’t something else for you porky gammons to be outraged about by now…
I would gladly live there with the poor door that’s more than fine for me .
I think those criticising this model have never lived in segregated mono-tenure developments. Because they would’ve known that they are worse than mix-tenure developments. And they do create ghettos and bigger social segregation everywhere they’re found in Europe.
I think you're missing the point. People don't have an issue with mixed tenure developments. They have a problem with it when it's clearly class segregated. It's downright Victorian.
Servants used to live in the roof of the houses they worked, if this system goes uncheck it would go full circle.
@@theguythatcoment I really hope not!
What the Guardian ignores is that those people living in the affordable housing save money by not having to pay for a concierge, not having to pay for a large outdoor space, not having to pay monthly fees for a gym or sports club irrespective of whether they will use it, paying less council tax or that their property would not have even been built if the developer wasn't able to build a higher margin luxury property next door. The affordable property is being part subsidized by the luxury property. If the smaller affordable property was subsidizing the luxury property they would not build the luxury property they would just build the affordable ones which are easier to get planning permission for.
To be fair - if you have a really nice foyer then it will have associated high costs which will be passed onto the private tenants. If social housing tenants were to use it (and therefore contribute to its upkeep) it may make their accommodation no longer affordable. Its just a thought.
How much would the extra up keep be? The cost of maintaining most of these facilities is fixed - it doesn't depend upon how many people are going to use it.
@@vylbird8014 You're right to an extent - lighting and electricity for example would be the same no matter who walked through a reception. However, if the concierge offers a postal service/dry cleaning/ other services, these variable costs would increase with the increasing number of users. I don't think it's right that the private tenants have to pay off these excess costs within their ground rent fees and it would no longer be affordable for the social housing tenants if they were required to pay these charges. If the government could somehow subsidise these excess costs, I think there is an argument to be made about allowing the use of the private facilities.
Baylis Old School was my old secondary school. A large number of former students there would most likely be on the social housing side. Cut off from the play areas we were able to access as child who went to that school.
America is more like the movie clueless
Also separates those in social housing from each other, where previously they might have formed communities
*Divide* and *Rule,* perhaps.
Their time would be better served finding jobs than "forming communities" lol
......or destroyed the community as is so often the case
@@philliethagroin1244 You realise lots of people in social housing are already working, right? Some multiple jobs.
@@red_velvetcake1759 no he doesn’t, he clearly prefers to be blissfully ignorant
The Housing Policies of the last 50 yrs,from both Conservative and Labour parties, has perpetuated differences and segregation.
The people of the UK, and I am one seem to go along with this? And ingrained in the psyche is the idea that if you can afford your own property, it has to be better than social housing in every way.The situation is not going to change without radical new ideas, and that in my opinion is just not going to happen,especially under the current UK Goverment which seeks to take us backwards in just about every way in society.
I would suggest the segregation is being addressed locally to me in Scotland. Its still bad in the city's
Why should these and let's face who live in social housing bring a lot of social problems to where they've even be in the same building as people who have worked hard in there lives to afford to live in a luxury property! This who idea of a percentage of all propertys even the super luxury one have to have a percentage of social housing is ABSOLUTELY APAULLING. YOU WANT TO LIVE IN ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES WIRK FOR IT!!!!!!
@UCE-D88-NZIZuwyf8OEcYVBg you snob you think you are better than everyone else
Oh don't just blame the government for all the maladies. The public are also responsible for taking this society backwards. Just like a spoilt kid with wealth of his parent the English human squanders the wealth gather by their colonialist forefathers.
So different amounts of money buy different things? Wow, who would have thought it?
More fool the people that pay the million….I’d rather take the low key entrance any day. 🙂
Hello
It looks a bit claustrophobic and dangerous incase of a fire, but if the apartments look the same inside then the huge lobby isn't worth it.
@@digitallocations1423
All built to fire regulations.
If you're worried about fire, don't live in tower blocks.
I was walking into my local town centre yesterday, and an old office block demolished, will be turned into 28 new town houses said the new shiny advertising hoarding. Less then 50 metres to my left, and 50 metres to my right, are two former office buildings(the age before massive hubs of call centres etc), these buildings are used for housing, and you can buy a flat/apartment if you want! The best is one of these 1970/80s style office buildings is advertised as beautiful on the board outside. Really!!
It's understandable in places such as London, as you do get what you pay for. I'd imagine the price between buying and renting such property would be huge. I however live in the North-West, in a housing association home. I don't see much segregation besides the quality of homes being somewhat less than the bought properties, which I don't agree with. A mortgage for us would actually be cheaper than our rent, the main issue is that it's been hard to save for a deposit, even though we work, so the housing association are profiting from us each month.
Quality costs money.
If you want affordable houses, you have to accept the quality will be lower.
@@Robert-cu9bm not true. You can have quality at an affordable price. It’s when you want luxury or extra amenities that should increase price. Having a low quality house is just bad construction practices.
@@globalist1990
Quality takes time, time cost money. Therefore quality costs money.
We were lucky enough to be given our deposit by family, so we were able to buy. Our mortgage is half our rent. The government and banks should bring back 100% mortgages that work on proof of rent payments - if you can prove, say, 5 years of not missing any rent payments, then you can afford a mortgage.
the whole point of a house is to segregate yourself
And the whole point of a village is to integrate yourself.
Village not a city 🏙
Having worked for a developer, the issue tends to lie in the practicalities of separating areas in the building because they are owned and managed by different organisations. That said there are certain developments where poorer design choices have been made, that are definitely subject to comments made in the video.
That's just b.s, I have worked in real estate myself and it's absolute b.s. This is done primarily because "council tenants" are seen as undesireable individuals that doesn't fit into the marketing gimick a developer wants to portray in order to attract higher prices. In regards to "practicality" anyone can work in shared lobby. How do people work in a open plan office hmm?
@Lister Smeg My point is that people are trying to rationalise something that segregates people using utter b.s.
@Lister Smeg 🤦♂ . Monetary value of any item is a projection. It's only valuable if a person things it's valuable. A "posh" apartment is a "posh" because you think it's posh. Others will call it a tacky hovel.
@Lister Smeg and no one wants to hear or read about your selfish sense of entitlement.
@Lister Smeg bruh, they live in the same building hahaha, how insecure you are you need a better entrance to show off...
If it is 'complicated' then keep it away from the Guardian reader!
The amenities are paid by the owners. If the social housing units pay the same, they get it.
Waaah. We pay peanuts but want steak and lobster.
I see nothing wrong with not wanting to live next to poor people.
Getting to live better than the rest is the only motivation to work hard after all.
All around the world you have rich a poor suburbs . The suburbs are separated. If you pay for your own apartment then you expect quality for your investment. Public housing is given out. So why should they be mixed. Sorry but look around the world and there are countries were people live in real slums. Be grateful that in the uk you are provided with housing. But if you want the top quality then pay for it
The "big idea" was that, if you mix in a few horrible people with a lot of nice people, then it makes the horrible people become nice people. The reality, as everyone except Grauniad readers knows, is that the the few horrible people just make life unbearable for everyone else so all the nice people move out.
I personally DON'T believe that Private and Social housing should be a mixed affair. When you are someone paying over £1 Million for your Luxury Apartment with Luxury entrance and Concierge ... You certainly don't want to be encountering some of the less desirable individuals (and I'm not talking about DECENT FAMILIES or SINGLES). I'm referring to the loutish individuals who spit all over the place, leave their kids toys and garbage everywhere and blast their music all hours of the day and night! What decent minded person wants to pay a Premium to live with that. I actually don't blame their snobbery, to be quite frank.
I actually wish they would have Social housing set aside for 'decent' low income Tenants and house the anti social types in the older buildings so they can live amongst like minded, badly behaved individuals like themselves .... Far away from peaceful, decent, law abiding folks! That's my Rant ... Now I'm going to have my dessert.
This only applies to those who can afford it. The rest of us have to live with reality of being less than 5ft away from our neighbours.
There are 3 different housing: private, shared ownership and social rent. And in this video you mixing up shared ownership with social rent together. Shared ownership is to buy property with a mortgage just like private but step by step.
Incorrect, shared ownership the developer retains partial ownership of the property, the tenant also takes out a mortgage but only on the part they own. In some arrangements they also have to pay some rent and, ofc, also services.
@@arednie
They have to pay rent.
And here's the kicker, they're 100% liable for any problems with the building.
Media (and myself) would be outraged if social housing tenants had access to a full suite of luxury amenities when people who work and pay for their homes can’t get these sorts of luxuries from their properties.
Perfectly sound solution to separate the two, in my opinion.
So is the argument social housing residents should have equal access to the gyms, swimming pools and so on?
Or is it just not having a bin entrance?
Or should this type of integration or non-integration be abolished together?
Yeah and whast wrong wth that?
Why should someone on social housing have the same amenities as someone paying out of their own pocket?
Because Guardian. If you have something others don't then you're privileged and should share. You need to feel ashamed of striving to better yourself.
Do you often rub people's noses in it?
A comment made by someone who either did not watch the whole video or did not understand the points being made... or both.
But congrats on the 5 likes.
@@xophiyah7101 Orrr... they just have a different opinion? Shocking right ;)
@@legendaryhamster2027 Oh PLEASE tell me your being sarcastic PLEASE!!!
Social housing does not give you the automatic right to a luxury lifestyle just because you are in the geographic proximity of those that can afford it.
Why do "those that can afford it" get the automatic right to a luxury lifestyle then?
@@ster2600 because they pay for it. Until we live in a non-capitalist world, this is just the way it works.
@@DaveLowe28 Sure, that is "the way it works" now, but given that we can choose how it works, why should that be the way it works? You've just avoided the difficult question
@@ster2600 the rich will move to a different country. Then there will be no money for luxury for anyone.
@@thijsjong i haven't even told you what my suggestion is for making change, so how do you know the rich will move to a different country
why would you expect a fancy entrance when it's publicly funded? how else are developers going to attract private buyers if it's not segregated? this video is a joke
UK should be looking to Vienna on how to create a balanced market and non-market housing ecosystem.
Your title should be - How mainstream media segregates people.
So the Guardian built this building? Or is it just reporting on something you don't like?
@@timmolloy7574 Who labelled the entrance to the accommodation as 'poor door'?
why should people who don't have to pay get the same facilities as those paying?
I don't really think that's the point here though is it? It's more about segregating society. Like an overclass and an underclass dystopia.
@Salena if that's the case society would fall as we know it, otherwise what is the point in working and improving your life.
@@carlbirchall6869 but how would the building company's get profit? people wouldn't pay top prices when those get the same for free. Would certainly rub a lot up the wrong way.
@@JJ-ev9uz Because the state is subsidising it. The private building company will still get market rate it's just the state is paying for it rather than the tenant.
Ultimately I suppose it depends on what the amenity is; whether it's a communal thing or a subscription based thing. If its communal there is no reason to segregate. If it's subscription based then yes I can see the logic in people who don't pay for it getting it - say for the example of the gym. But segregating people by entrance is just ludicrous. Its speaks of a society that expects certain people in it to never be seen, it would appear.
@Salena Szo why work at a under your Outrageous theory!?
It’s similar to complaining that the facilities in the 5 star hotel are better and the rooms are much nicer. When all you can afford is to stay in a 3 star hotel. It’s called social housing for a reason.
If l could given you an infinite number of thumbs up l would!!!
Mix social housing with Market Housing it's a BIG mistake. That was done near from where I live in late 80's. The result is ALL market apartments are for sale or rent because social apartments and buildings are degraded with high levels of crime.
Who talk in classism or etitism try live there.
I have frequented these places and I must say it makes me embarrassed to be human. The residents really are the lowest of the low.
I was surprised at the man walking on the scaffolding with the material on his head.
If you gave out £50 notes some people would complain they are not new or crisp enough.
Fact is, rich/poor, black/white cannot be FORCED to mix.
I notice that Tony Blair who first pushed this, or bosses who run the developers do not live in these places.
Working in construction you can tell the difference in materials used in a private sell and a Housing association proprety. It goes as far as a housing association home having taps in their bathtub and a private property comes with taps and shower. I do understand that people that buy a home are paying for better fittings, not including a shower in a bath just because its Housing assosiation as someone who grew up in a council estate and now on a mortgage on my own property it's distastefull.
As far as I can see, all construction is shoddy compared to the work done in the past, proper craftsmen of their trade, not jobbers, all lost in the failure to continue true apprenticeships and pass on real skills.
@@paulburns1333
Yeah, that's how UK builders got their reputation as punctual craftsman🙄.
actually this is a sign that the affordable housing policy is working well
no... it isn't. it's a sign of social segregation and should be banned. any company that tries to do this should be nationalized without compensation
@@afgor1088 that’s theft
@@realnoahsimpson ok... so's rent what's your point?
it's not theft btw, it's punishment for what they're doing.
@@afgor1088 punishment for what?
@@realnoahsimpson for segregating people based solely on where and how they were born and degrading our society.
if even that isn't obvious to you then you're not worth my time, goodbye
It’s shocking that having less money means having less cool stuff
Least I no longer have to wonder why it was so hard to find this home behind a wall, up some stairs that are hidden behind the wall with a 6ft bush all along the top of the wall but fully open to the social housing flats across the carpark... Classic divide and rule 👍
well it could been worse at least its not based on skin like america area lol at least class difference have always bee common in human history.
I think you are mixing class and wealth here and definitely over egging the definition of class - there are only two classes (working - anyone working for someone else whether that is an on the tools or sat behind a computer, upper - the person that owns and runs the company the working class work for). The idea of middle class is a con to make people feel better about earning more than the minimum wage
I prefer the discreet poor door...I dont want a concierge knowing my comings and goings!
Money doesn't equal behaviour. Not all "council" people are the same, just like not all people with money are decent.
Please stop judging people it's gets you nowhere.
Build a society where all people ate supported.
Thank you! My dad is a bus driver and his route goes through a business district as well as some poorer areas of the city. He says that his rudest passengers are the ones in nice suits who clearly are on their way to high-paying jobs (very few people drive into the centre as lack of parking makes it tough, so you get all sorts of people on the bus).
Yes not all, but a higher percentage.
There is a movie about this type of buildings....... Top floors are always for the wealthy...... Interesting.....
High Rise, based on the book of the same name by J. G. Ballard I believe.
High Rise, but its more about social class and constrains on social mobility, it's main argument is not about inequality.
Before elevators the top floors were for the poor.
So your point being?
So you get what you pay for. And in case of subsidised housing you get more than you pay for.
I think you're missing the point. This is SOCIAL housing. It's not intended to be value for money.
I think it’s only fair to the people that pay too dollar get top dollar treatment. The social housing is not a luxury treatment, it’s just purely for housing and nothing else. The whole of London is segregated and so what. There is always a divide between the rich and poor. That’s normal and part of life.
If that's what you believe then why are you currently on a left wing news outlet 🤔 did they turn the comments off over at the daily torygraph ?
@@timmolloy7574 how can you believe any different??
EXACTLY social housing is just ment to keep you off the streets!!!
@@galegrazutis964 In other European countries a large majority of their housing is public rented, and it seems to work quite well actually. More affordability, availability and is of a better standard.
@@timmolloy7574 what is quite alarming is the human obsession and absurdity to still dominantly want to live in expensive, overcrowded, air polluted, crime filled cities instead of rural areas.
The high demand for such city life is the problem, not politics.
The best strategy is to scrap forced social housing and build completely separate buildings for each class
Get what you pay for, try going out to socialise.
They want to pay less but get all the perks? Cough up if you want to use it, simple.
Yeah, that's what I didn't get either... What's the problem here??
Shocking and disgraceful this should be stopped!
so why poor people want to mix with rich people ????
Does anyone asked the private residents if they want the social housing tenants there at all
Why they should be ask that in the first place?
@@henryprince9812 Are you for Real asking that!!!!????
Well - if you think about it - who is going to pay 4 times the price for the same building privately if you are able to access the same amenities via the social housing route. I think it makes sense to have separate amenities - that's what you're paying for. The private sector should not be burdened with developing social housing - that's something for the government to sort out.
The reason for the development of ghettos in widespread social housing is a deeply rooted cultural problem and attempting to mix the people living there with private residents won't solve it anyway.
Poor door ??? The great divide takes massive steps forward.
Not trying to be mean (and no, i am not the person who enters via rich door :D) but concierge and all those perks come at a price of service charge. So i see why there could be a separation
Private renter, walks through the front entrance of the building and proceeds to the hallway to enter the lift, to eventually reach home.
Calls the "building maintenance " and reports the rubbish he saw by the lift, the brocken light in the hallway and the rubbish by the entrance.
Social housing tenant, follows the same route to reach home. Switches on the tv, eats dinner and goes to bed!
So you want the same treatment, you say, as those that pay ‘top dollar’.
What a sense of entitlement. I’m so pleased to pay taxes that subsidise these ungrateful people that probably have a better standard of living at the fraction of the cost most of us have to pay.
Fool choke on your tax. But you cheat the tax man yearly with bogus expense claims
@@jasminejay5966 Great input. Thanks. I expect it’s dozy, inarticulate people like you we’re subsidising.
@@jasminejay5966
Someone who doesn't understand business.
All products would go up in price if you couldn't "cheat the tax man".
That means you would be paying more.
They already take 35% of GDP.
Do you think they spend that wisely, and do you think if they had more that would be spent well?
Well some of those people do Work full time and so subsidise themselves. But get the point!. So sick of entitled people.
Why should the people paying for the houses have to mix with people that are living in the houses they're also subsidizing as productive members of society. Don't give me shi!, I grew up on a council estate.
Its great to see levelling up working out so well
You are unbelievably lucky to live in one of these new developments to begin with. No sympathy from me.
I k ow its like wi ning the lottery
@@galegrazutis964 When you haven't even paid for a ticket.
Perhaps I'm missing something, what's the solution to this if you consider it a problem?
Flawed as it is the rich are being forced to live in the same neighborhood and that can be huge.
The biggest irony is that many owned flats are not even occupied, so no-one gets to enjoy the swish entrance.
Not only that but the so called “affordable” flats in developments like Nine Elms aren’t affordable at all. The Guardian interviewed one of the residents who uses the so called “poor door” to get to the flat which co-owns a 25% share of whilst also paying rent on it. And how much is his flat valued? £800,000. So he’s paid £200,000 to own a quarter of a flat that he still pays rent on and still has to use the poor door. I’d hardly call him poor to afford to pay up 200k on a property he still rents on. And that’s nothing against him it’s against a system which seems a 25% share on an £800,000 flat an “affordable” home.
This country is nuts.
@@arghjayem A lot of shared ownership properties are bought by teachers, nurses, fire and police men/women because they can't even afford a full price property. It is quite alarming that such people's salaries are now considered 'poor' because they can't afford to buy a £800k flat.
@@PorterB Welcome to Tory Britain.
@Philippa Richard they often are bought by overseas investors therefore languish vacant for months. The fancy entrance is ultimately a marketing gimmick in order to attract sales from affluent individuals.
@@PorterB what is quite alarming is the human obsession and absurdity to still dominantly want to live in expensive overcrowded, air polluted, crime filled cities instead of rural areas.
The demand or such city life is the housing problem.
I guess the "Saudi Sheik and Hollywood star"-investor class don't want to meet the riff-raff who pay the taxes....
Don't forget the Russian gangsters that need to launder their money by buying 200 apartments.........
The stigma of social housing and private housing I think will always remain in this country. Even if you try and mix it together.
Lol I am outraged, yet I wouldn't even be able to pay for one of these 'affordable' flats ... so yea sorry for your poor door, at least u own a percentage of it.
It said including shared ownership, so this was referring to everyone whether they rent from the council/housing association or have shared ownership. My friend is a council tenant in a block like this and she goes through a “poor door” lol it’s not funny but you have to laugh
waste of time investing in expensive homes/ apartments in Uk , move to Africa buy land for 4k and farming and build your mansion for $30k.
Only one down side of that . Africa
Except I don't want to live in a "mansion" built out of cow-dung thanks.
Perhaps next time the Guardian can enlighten us on how the market for cars is 'segregated' between those who can afford Ferraris and those who cannot?
Not every development has to have social housing depends on size
This video isn’t making the point the makers think it should.
It does however make other peoples point quite well.