Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 662 posts

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#61

Post by rafaelero »

throwaway63467 wrote: post #48
bko wrote: post #4

The problem with charging below market prices for anything is that it necessarily leads to a mismatch of supply and demand. So the question is how do you allocate that supply? One way is to have hidden costs. This could range from straight up bribes, to paid consultants to fill out a lot of forms or talk to the right people, to just knowing someone Another way is a lottery which benefits a tiny percentage of people.…

It doesn’t take much to destroy a city with money, I can see it happen in a few cities in Europe now. Foreign money, mostly from non EU countries like Russia keeps pouring in raising the market value until no local can afford renting or owning an apartment anymore. Look at places like Sylt or some nicer towns in Switzerland or France, they basically got overrun by rich a••holes buying everything they could. Boggles m…

Local families are the ones getting rich by having their houses surge in price. And they are probably also the reason why new houses are not being built.

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#62

Post by bugglebeetle »

ecshafer wrote: post #24
bugglebeetle wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet Vienna is one of the most beautiful, livable cities in the world, with its masses of public housing, while major U.S. cities have homelessness crises and TV shows about house flipping for profit. Perhaps we should stop debating things based on the hokum of Econ 101 textbooks and look at what in the real world has actually worked (e.g. abolishing most forms of zoning, massive investments in public housing, rob…

The US also has a per capita GDP 50% higher than Austria ($52,131 vs $76,399). At $52,131 a year per capita GDP, Austria would be neatly in second to last place as the poorest state in the Union, as it would beat Mississippi at $47,190 but be beaten by West Virginia at $53,852. So perhaps the US policy is doing something correctly.

Oh yes, it’s much better to make 53K a year and live in West Virgina than Vienna. This is a sentiment with which everyone would agree.

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#63

Post by bko »

Ragnarork wrote: post #26
bko wrote: post #4

The problem with charging below market prices for anything is that it necessarily leads to a mismatch of supply and demand. So the question is how do you allocate that supply? One way is to have hidden costs. This could range from straight up bribes, to paid consultants to fill out a lot of forms or talk to the right people, to just knowing someone Another way is a lottery which benefits a tiny percentage of people.…

> So the question is how do you allocate that supply? To adress this specific question for Paris, they put an upper limit on your income to rent specific housing with lower rent. I'll scale down your caricature of an example though, the offers you can see are usually 15% to 20% under market price, not 75% like you seem to imply. Not exactly sure what is your point otherwise, the difference in terms of giving someone…

> This is not equivalent because giving someone that money doesn't mean they'll chose to live inside Paris, and this is a measure that goes beyond financial support.It's also a city policy aimed at achieving a specific population distribution.

I don't know, I would prefer the autonomy to choose where I live and how I spend my money. Why don't we afford the same respect to people that are less well off? Why do we want to essentially force them to live somewhere expensive when they would prefer to use that money elsewhere? They're not some pawn you can use to feel good about yourself. "Oh look at all these people from different cultures that live here". They're human beings

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#64

Post by 082349872349872 »

dangus wrote: post #11

This article reminded me of a thought I’ve often had: that the USA is a great place to live for the upper middle class and above, but it’s one of the worst wealthy countries to live in when you’re poor. From the context of the USA it seems downright amazing to see a society where public housing isn’t automatically assumed to be a number of bad things: taxpayer waste, crime haven, and antiquated disrepair. The benefit…

I've often suspected third world countries stay "third world" because being rich in a poor country makes it a great place to live?

(just as the second world countries which bordered the first seem to have done better than their ideological cores, it seems to me that first world countries which bordered the second have also done better)

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#65

Post by TimPC »

krona wrote: post #60
bedobi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think like you but no longer do. A city NEEDS to have people of all ages, backgrounds, income levels etc in it to not die. Yes those people who live in that most central subsidized housing are in some ways winning a lottery ticket, and the real policy is to build a lot more housing as close to the city as possible. But Paris are doing that! AND adding new public transit etc etc. This multifaceted approach i…

> A city NEEDS to have people of all ages, backgrounds, income levels etc in it to not die. Correct. Therefore, subsidized housing is good and more of it is better? No, it does not follow. What you say is correct, to a degree. Beyond that, it is incorrect. There are no solutions, only trade-offs.

If you agree the city dies without people of all ages backgrounds and income levels what is your alternative proposal to subsidized housing. It's just a fact that some income levels are being priced out of the city and certain occupations may become entirely unavailable without some mechanism of solving that gap.

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#66

Post by trgn »

brainwad wrote: post #20
bugglebeetle wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet Vienna is one of the most beautiful, livable cities in the world, with its masses of public housing, while major U.S. cities have homelessness crises and TV shows about house flipping for profit. Perhaps we should stop debating things based on the hokum of Econ 101 textbooks and look at what in the real world has actually worked (e.g. abolishing most forms of zoning, massive investments in public housing, rob…

Vienna has had the luxury of having had relatively little demand for housing for over a century. The population peaked in WWI and still hasn't recovered (it was 2.24m in 1916, 2.00m in 2023).

Manhattan's population dropped 25% from its peak in the early 1900s. Pre-war was just a different era, this is more of a function of changing living standards, people live larger, not of contemporary housing dynamics.

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#67

Post by jart »

dangus wrote: post #11

This article reminded me of a thought I’ve often had: that the USA is a great place to live for the upper middle class and above, but it’s one of the worst wealthy countries to live in when you’re poor. From the context of the USA it seems downright amazing to see a society where public housing isn’t automatically assumed to be a number of bad things: taxpayer waste, crime haven, and antiquated disrepair. The benefit…

Poison? More like extremely nutritious and very cheap. Maybe too nutritious. Thanks to modern technology, even the poorest among us can afford to look like King Henry VIII. Would you take that privilege away from them?

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#69

Post by 082349872349872 »

bboygravity wrote: post #52
bedobi wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think like you but no longer do. A city NEEDS to have people of all ages, backgrounds, income levels etc in it to not die. Yes those people who live in that most central subsidized housing are in some ways winning a lottery ticket, and the real policy is to build a lot more housing as close to the city as possible. But Paris are doing that! AND adding new public transit etc etc. This multifaceted approach i…

Why does everybody need to concentrate in huge cities? If Romans where able to relatively evenly spread their towns and population all over the place in the analogue age, then why aren't we able to do so in the digital age?

Rome may not have invented the apartment block (insula) but they sure were fond of their high density residential/commercial space...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insula_(building)

Re: Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing

#70

Post by rmbyrro »

bedobi wrote: post #10
bko wrote: post #4

The problem with charging below market prices for anything is that it necessarily leads to a mismatch of supply and demand. So the question is how do you allocate that supply? One way is to have hidden costs. This could range from straight up bribes, to paid consultants to fill out a lot of forms or talk to the right people, to just knowing someone Another way is a lottery which benefits a tiny percentage of people.…

I used to think like you but no longer do. A city NEEDS to have people of all ages, backgrounds, income levels etc in it to not die. Yes those people who live in that most central subsidized housing are in some ways winning a lottery ticket, and the real policy is to build a lot more housing as close to the city as possible. But Paris are doing that! AND adding new public transit etc etc. This multifaceted approach i…

In general, I'm against govt interventions like this, but in the case of housing, I agree with you. For a society to function in a healthy way, it can't be divided in social class "gettos". It is the responsibility of the State to spend public funds to avoid that. This is not about fairness and equality. It's about the long term survival of a society.
Post reply on HN