1 month ago
7
January 29, 2026 — 5:00am
Behind two different doors in a proposed Mosman apartment block will lie two different realities.
Residents of 34 build-to-sell apartments in the Rangers Avenue complex will enter through two foyers. Tenants paying below-market rent for 10 affordable housing units will enter via another.
The idea that private buyers would have different entrances to less well-off residents in the same complex has echoes of a phenomenon dubbed “poor doors” that has long played out in London and New York. The debate surfaced closer to home when it emerged residents in key worker housing had a separate lobby to luxury apartment owners in the One Sydney Harbour towers at Barangaroo.
As NSW faces a wave of proposals for new apartment blocks – many of which must incorporate affordable housing for lower-income earners to win approval – Sydneysiders will increasingly be forced to confront an uncomfortable question: Are we designing social segregation into our city?
Critics condemn the trend as a form of “apartment apartheid” – splitting society’s haves from the have-nots, entrenching inequality and reinforcing stigma around lower-cost or subsidised housing.
The reality is not always so clear-cut. Some developers and community housing providers (CHPs), which manage the affordable housing units in mixed-tenure dwellings, can argue that separating the affordable housing units makes it significantly easier to manage the dwellings and ensures they don’t foot the bills for expensive amenities or maintenance fees.
Controversy over the use of separate entrances for the same building erupted in New York City more than a decade ago, when residents of the affordable housing units required by the city’s inclusionary zoning policy were provided with different front doors, lobbies and lifts to their homes.
In 2015, the city council banned builders, who received a tax break for providing some units for low-income tenants, from creating separate entrances for rich and poor residents.
The issue has also simmered in London. Mayor Sadiq Khan pledged a ban on the “appalling” use of separate entrances for private residents and social housing tenants in mixed developments after reports that lower-income residents could not access pools, car parks and bike storage, or had separate arrangements for postal services and bins.
Khan later issued guidelines to encourage “tenure-blind” developments where affordable homes were indistinguishable from private, high-end residences.
Sydney has so far escaped some of the more egregious discrepancies that have stoked divisions in those cities. But it also faces a sorely needed influx of housing of all shapes, sizes and tenures.
The Mosman proposal leverages the state government’s infill affordable housing incentives, which give developers extra height and floor space if they include affordable housing for at least 15 years.
The seven-storey complex, which overlooks Mosman Bay towards the city, will provide 44 units of two, three and four bedrooms. The affordable homes have been shuffled to the rear. They will be offered at 80 per cent of market rent – arguably still relatively expensive given their location.
Planning documents say the affordable housing dwellings have been designed “to the same high quality as the market apartments”, with a separate entrance but equal access to communal outdoor areas. They would “achieve good residential amenity” in terms of size, access to sunlight, natural ventilation, outlook, visual and acoustic privacy, storage and access.
“This is the preferred approach recommended by the [community housing provider] to allow for those units and access to those units to be placed on a separate strata title and manage strata levies and outgoings for the affordable housing apartments,” the documents said.
Indeed, Macquarie Law School Professor Cathy Sherry said so-called “poor door” arrangements were “not as entirely appalling as they sound”. They often meant the affordable housing dwellings were on a different stratum, meaning providers and tenants could avoid the costs of fancy foyers or pools.
“They definitely should not exist because of the social connotations and consequences, but they are usually genuinely intended to reduce community housing providers’ costs.
“Of course, the best solution would be that everyone uses the lobby, and it is of a standard suitable for all human beings … The market strata can pay for a concierge.”
Shelter NSW chief executive John Engeler says projects with affordable homes should be “tenure blind”.
“Apartment apartheid shouldn’t result as the consequence of affordable housing initiatives,” he said.
“Even the technical or design justification – such as reduced operational costs, less [expensive] strata fees – can be gotten around, as ultimately, they mask the social stigma that results.”
Developer lobbyist Tom Forrest, of Urban Taskforce, says a “salt and pepper approach” to including social and affordable housing might be preferable, in an ideal world, but it was difficult in practice.
“As long as you’re complying with all the relevant safety standards and building codes, I don’t see it as a shock-horror moment that the people who are paying $6 million for their two-bedroom apartment might be getting something slightly better than the person who’s getting either social housing or affordable housing with a substantial subsidy,” Forrest said.
Sydney stands to gain many apartment blocks in which private buyers live alongside social and affordable housing tenants in coming decades – not only due to the affordable housing incentives, but also through massive mixed developments in Waterloo and Macquarie Park.
While there appears to be some consensus that separating private buyers from lower-income tenants is, in principle, far from optimal, there is less clarity on whether the trend should be monitored, how that might happen, and who should be responsible. The issue is complex and involves a tangled web of state government portfolios, planning authorities, developers, architects, market forces and community housing providers – but, nonetheless, it warrants examination.
This might go some way to ensuring that more deeply entrenched social divides are not an unintended consequence of Sydney’s necessary push to build more homes people can afford.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
