‘Poor’ Doors: Mixed-Income Housing or segregation?

By: Dara Dillon

It started with a seemingly innocuous elevator ride in my own apartment building—an everyday journey from one floor to another that unexpectedly veered into a revelation about the stark realities of urban living.

As the elevator ascended, I struck up a casual conversation with a neighbor, someone who lived just a few floors above me. What began as small talk about the weather and the building’s amenities quickly shifted as they mentioned a recent gathering at one of the building's common areas, an event I had noticed but felt subtly barred from attending.

Curious, I inquired further, only to learn about the "other" amenities I had never accessed—facilities like a well-equipped gym, a rooftop garden, and a lounge, all exclusive to certain floors. My neighbor, perhaps unaware of my ignorance, casually remarked on the differences: “You know, the ones upstairs from the sixth floor.” I nodded, masking my surprise, as I realized I was on what was colloquially known among some as the "poor side."

This accidental exchange was my stark introduction to a physical and social divide that I had been blissfully unaware of—our building was split between the "poor doors" and the "rich doors." The more luxurious part of the building boasted a lobby with a concierge, high-speed elevators, and sleek, modern designs, while my section had none of these. The realization dawned on me harshly; despite living in the same vertical space, the experiences and amenities were worlds apart. Welcome to my world, where even the elevators have class consciousness. Paying over 3500 CAD a month (not in Downtown Toronto) on the "poor side," I had to ask myself—what exactly counts as "high income" or affordable living in a city where even the less privileged pay a premium?

This discovery set the stage for a deeper investigation into the dynamics of mixed-income housing—a concept designed to integrate different socioeconomic groups under one roof but often manifesting as anything but integrated. As I began to peel back the layers of architectural and social stratification right within my living space, the journey into understanding how such divisions impact community cohesion and individual lives was just beginning.

The concept of mixed-income housing is rooted in noble intentions—to blend diverse socio-economic backgrounds into cohesive communities, promoting equality and reducing urban segregation. Yet, the reality, as revealed through academic literature and case studies, often falls short of these goals. To understand why, an investigation into the systemic underpinnings of architectural and policy decisions in housing developments is essential.

The theory behind mixed-income developments, as outlined in urban planning literature, is based on the idea that physical proximity between different income groups can foster social interactions, dilute concentrated poverty, and create more vibrant communities. According to The Art of Inequality: Architecture, Housing, and Real Estate - A Provisional Report, mixed-income housing aims to leverage the economic stability of higher-income residents to support community services and amenities that benefit all residents.

However, the application of this theory is often compromised by the economic models used in housing development. Developers, driven by profit motives and market demands, may comply with mixed-income housing requirements in ways that do not genuinely promote integration. For instance, separate amenities such as different gyms, gardens, and even entrances are often justified as necessary to attract higher-paying tenants, which contradicts the principles of social integration.

To fully grasp the social dynamics and sentiments surrounding mixed-income housing, an exploration of perspectives from residents on both sides of the economic divide is essential. Social listening through platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Reddit, and other community forums provides a comprehensive view of how different residents perceive and experience the segregation embedded in their living environments.

On X, where many users share snippets of their daily lives, higher-income residents occasionally post about the amenities and lifestyle their side of the building offers. Tweets often feature images from the rooftop gardens or updates about social events in the luxury lounges. However, when prompted about the segregation within their buildings, the reactions vary. 

Some express discomfort and guilt, as one user noted

"It's awkward to have a pool party when we know half the building isn't invited. Feels exclusive in a bad way."

These insights suggest a recognition of the divide, and in some cases, discomfort with the inequality it represents.

Discussions on Reddit, particularly in threads related to urban planning and social equity, reveal a more detailed debate among these residents. Some defend the arrangements as a necessary evil to maintain property values and finance the upkeep of high-end amenities. Others criticize segregation, arguing that it contradicts the community spirit that city living should foster. 

"It’s like living in a gated community stacked vertically," one Reddit user described, questioning the long-term impact of such divisions on social cohesion.

Contrasting sharply with the above, the voices of lower-income residents paint a vivid picture of exclusion and resilience. On platforms like Facebook groups, residents share their experiences and challenges. Many express feelings of being second-class citizens within their own homes. 

"Every time I pass by the separate entrance, it’s a reminder that there are literal barriers within my living space," shared one person in a poignant Facebook post.

Despite these challenges, forums also highlight stories of community bonding and support among the lower-income residents. They organize their own events and support networks, which often go unnoticed on the broader social media platforms but are vital for their sense of community. 

"We may not have the fancy lounge, but our potlucks are full of heart lol," reads a post on X.

Analyzing these expressions across social platforms provides a nuanced understanding of the community dynamics in mixed-income housing. Sentiment analysis tools applied to tweets and Reddit posts show a general trend of dissatisfaction with segregated amenities, across both income groups, though for different reasons. Higher-income residents focus on the ethical implications and awkwardness of the divide, while lower-income residents speak more about the direct impact on their daily lives and community interactions.

Imagine what one elevator ride did

The revelation in the elevator marked a turning point in how I viewed my living environment. Before that moment, the discrepancies in amenities and access seemed like minor inconveniences, easy to overlook in the daily rush. However, once I became aware of the intentional design segregating the residents, each interaction and physical boundary took on a new significance, highlighting a divide that was both subtle and profound.

Delving into the systemic roots of these segregations has transformed my inconvenience into a concern for equity and social justice. This journey compels me to call on my fellow residents, policymakers, and developers to advocate for and implement more equitable housing solutions. For residents, I encourage engagement in community discussions and planning sessions, ensuring that your voices are heard and heeded as cities evolve. For policymakers, this investigation highlights the urgent need to revise housing policies to enforce not only the inclusion of affordable housing units but also the integration of amenities and communal spaces.

Developers, too, have a crucial role to play. As stewards of urban spaces, it is imperative to adopt and refine approaches like —designing and building environments that foster true community, regardless of income levels. This means planning not just for economic diversity but for social interaction and integration, creating spaces that naturally bring people together rather than divide them.