Drawing on a distinction between equality and equity, Rick Jacobus argues that so-called 'poor doors' are a necessary compromise to promote affordable housing and neighborhood integration.
Jacobus points to the irony of fighting poor doors when the other option is to segregate the poor in vast under-served neighborhoods, out of sight and out of mind. "Real and meaningful economic integration will necessarily be uncomfortable. Some people will have more of everything and when we live together that difference will be awkward. To me, the 'poor door' controversy is all about avoiding that awkwardness." (via Planetizen)
The question for most cities is: are we willing to give up integration in exchange for more total housing units? It is a complex question but, fortunately, one for which there is compelling research to help us draw the right line.
Concentrating affordable housing in low-cost neighborhoods is clearly the most cost-effective way to provide affordable shelter, but a growing body of research shows that concentrated poverty leads to many terrible outcomes and economic integration in mixed-income communities offers dramatic benefits, especially to low-income children.
But the same research consistently finds that the benefits of integration come from locating in opportunity rich, healthier, and safer neighborhoods and not from direct social interaction with higher-income neighbors. People in all income groups don’t interact that much with their neighbors. So neighbors are not generally providing job leads or helping lower-income residents build “social capital.” This means that while neighborhood-level integration is essential, building-by-building integration may offer no additional benefit.
For inclusionary housing programs, I think this research says that if offsite units are located in a distressed part of town, the public loses something valuable. Cities require onsite units, not because they expect neighbors to barbecue together, but because onsite affordable units provide the best way to actually get affordable homes in higher income neighborhoods where NIMBYs routinely block development of dedicated affordable buildings. But when market-rate builders include affordable buildings on adjacent land, we have a rare opportunity for an even better outcome–we can build more units and help more families without giving up any of the proven benefits of neighborhood integration.
New York has now banned immediately adjacent affordable developments, but they continue to allow across-town offsite development. In fact, most Manhattan developers are providing their affordable housing not next door but in the Bronx.
..,.
I am not the only one who thinks that a little awkwardness is a fair price for the benefits of neighborhood integration. When Extell’s "poor door" units came up for rent earlier this year, 88,000 New York families applied for only 55 units. That is a lot of people willing to put up with some discomfort in order to get the affordable housing that their families really need.1
- 1. http://www.rooflines.org/4267/in_defense_of_the_poor_door/?utm_source=Oct%2020%20Weekly%20In%20Defense%20of%20the%20Poor%20Door&utm_campaign=October%2020%202015%20Weekly&utm_medium=email