[andrew_v4]

Not sure I completely agree, but I definitely do think this kind of project can be derailed by proponents who want to be uncompromising about it and don't think it's acceptable to compromise in something like location because its harder to get built where people don't want it.

An example people probably won't like is those mixed income buildings (can't remember where now) that had separate entrances for the subsidized units. It's definitely not egalitarian in some sense, but if it allows more subsidized housing to be built for people that need it, is it really better just to not do it?

[bilbo0s]

It was NYC. (Manhattan.) And they didn't have separate entrances for subsidized units, they had separate entrances for wealthy penthouse owners who really did have greater security concerns than the run of the mill residents living on lower floors. People who can afford a 20 to 50 million dollar penthouse do think long and hard about security.

But the masses simply ignored the service provision aspect and screamed "Why do you guys have a poor people door!?!?!"

[bombcar]

Honestly if having varying levels of service enables services that wouldn't exist otherwise, I'm all for it. First Class seats don't hurt me and subsidize my flights, so yay first class!

I've often wondered if mass transit would do better if we just openly had first class cars and otherwise segregated them on a price level.

[euroderf]

I guess I didn't get the memo. When we say "security" in this context, what do we mean ? Kidnaping ? Assassination ?

[FDSGSG]

More basic things like robberies. It's nice to have the building security guy open the door of your car and walk you inside when you're carrying hundreds of thousands worth of jewelry on you.

I don't live in a dangerous area (Westminster), but targeted robberies happen here too. I (and much less my girlfriend with her high jewellery obsession) wouldn't feel super comfortable living in a townhouse or apartment building without 24/7 security staff.

If someone wants to kidnap or assassinate you, this kind of security will probably do nothing to stop them. At least it'll disincentivize robberies, there are easier targets out there.

[perardi]

Mm, yes, this is closer.

You see this with other goods too, notably cars. Creating a car that meets all contemporary safety standards is hugely expensive.

Is that safety a net good? Yes. Does it have societal costs? You betcha.

[oh_sigh]

It is more expensive to build a separate entrance for certain classes, not less expensive.

And those kind of affordable housing schemes are a joke from a social perspective. Yes, it's great if you win the lottery. But it doesn't do much for the 99.998% of people who don't win the lottery.

[nitrogen]

It's probably still a net win to build separate entrances if they would lose significantly more money on decreased value of the non-subsidized units than the separate entrances would cost.