Alternate entrances/realities

Consider the reasons for having separate entrances to a given space, and how they identify the different groups of people who use or inhabit that space – whether service entrances, or the more controversial “poor door” in some New York City and London apartments with a more affordable block of apartments built in to offset the taxes of the ultra-luxurious ones, which feels still like a “service entrance” reimagined for less wealthy residents who most often end up being (in some way or another) in service of the rarified residents entitled to use the “main” door.

When is this more emotionally driven, meant to give/enforce even more status to one particular group over another? Is this meant to keep one group from even seeing another group, thereby preserving the space of the “sheltered group” through keeping it free from any trace of the other group(s)?

When is this more functionally driven, with a given group’s equipment or belongings either taking up a lot of shared/public space, or tending to bring traces of the outside indoors, thereby mixing the natures of the space that the more privileged inhabitants would rather keep separated?

What are the politics and functions of “alternate entrances” where you are? Have you ever used entrances not meant for you? What are the social consequences of doing so?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s