Paris preserves its mixed society by pouring billions into public housing • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by TimPC » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 2:15 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #72

dangus wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, you’re assuming that this system is going to be like the underfunded and scarce public housing in the United States where a difficult to win lottery will be necessary to secure an apartment. In that sort of market of scarce supply, slumlords can overcharge for low quality rentals. But they couldn’t do that in a market where the government is offering a real alternative that you can actually get into. From…

Not Paris but NYC: > For many New Yorkers, the most desirable jackpot is not the New York Lotto, but to be selected in the city’s extraordinarily competitive affordable-housing lottery. Tens of thousands of people, and sometimes many more, vie for the handful of units available at a time. Since 2013, there have been more than 25 million applications submitted for roughly 40,000 units. Central planning has been tried…

Yes if you support 40,000 units and your demand is much higher you're going to have problems. That tells you the system is underfunded. Central planning hasn't universally failed in every aspect and every application. Central planning tends to do poorly at solving problems that market mechanisms solve effectively, but it's sometimes useful at solving problems that market mechanisms solve poorly.

Centrally planned universal healthcare is generally effective and much cheaper than other systems. The US has out of control healthcare costs with its free market system. The next most expensive country to the US has less than 50% of the administration costs so the free market has actually come up with a bureaucracy that is more expensive to administer than what the government creates.

In general, central planning fails when market mechanisms are replaced by using force to allocate something. That doesn't mean opt-in programs with voluntary registration are going to experience the same type of failure. We know replacing salaries with a gun and telling people what they have to work on is a bad idea. That doesn't mean all central planning ever is a bad idea. I don't think anyone seriously argues we should abolish federal, state, city governments and let my local neighborhood manage it's own policy but that's the logical extreme of all central planning failing.

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

#82

Post by spywaregorilla » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 2:16 PM UTC

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?

Because ~90% of the population was farming

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

#83

Post by penetrarthur » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 2:16 PM UTC

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.

When comparing two developed countries only using GDP/per capita, make sure that the person you are debating with is way less educated than you are.

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

#84

Post by yieldcrv » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 2:18 PM UTC

mebazaa wrote: post #34

As a Parisian, who is generally angry at the city’s housing policy (build taller!), I find the public housing of the past few years to be a great achievement. In general, public housing sits on the outer edges of Paris, but the city has been agressive in reconverting buildings in posher neighborhoods. It doesn’t really lead to reduced rent (because no additional supply), but it decreases social segregation. That alon…

> but it decreases social segregation. That alone is critical to keep a city alive.

I agree that is a net boon to society. I think the cross drift of ideas is a net positive, the human interaction can create more opportunities for those that have less, I don't think it reduces inequality meaningfully and I'm not suggesting that was a goal only that my prior statements might lead one to believe it does, but I've seen far more segregated cities be without many services during an infrastructure failure, because the people doing those services didn't live there.

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

#85

Post by TwoFerMaggie » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 2:19 PM UTC

seper8 wrote: post #19

[flagged]

Having lived in an actual third world country for a couple decades, I personally can't take statements such as "xx is becoming more like a third world country" seriously. I get the sentiment behind it though.

If I compare, for example, my experience living in cities in China vs cities in Europe, I would argue that the relative freedom of movement forces residents in Europe to confront the inequality in their everyday lives.

In China, on the other hand, such inequality can be easily covered up by either confining the migrant workers (an artificially created underclass of people without hukou[0] registration in the city but still seek opportunities there) in urban villages[1], or sometimes, simply cracking down on and expelling them through policy changes with little resistance[2].

I don't doubt the fact that you're not a sheltered person, but even the average urban residents in China can be oblivious to the plight or even the existence of such an underclass. I'd argue that one can be quite sheltered even if they live there, which is also by design. And this is actually quite common in relatively wealthy Asian countries, see this example [3] in Singapore of how people talk about maids.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_village_(China)

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/27/china-ruthless...

[3] https://youtu.be/QH9fX4KIhZg?si=Yp5KjI59Owc09fvd&t=1007

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

#86

Post by spaniard89277 » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 2:19 PM UTC

mebazaa wrote: post #34

As a Parisian, who is generally angry at the city’s housing policy (build taller!), I find the public housing of the past few years to be a great achievement. In general, public housing sits on the outer edges of Paris, but the city has been agressive in reconverting buildings in posher neighborhoods. It doesn’t really lead to reduced rent (because no additional supply), but it decreases social segregation. That alon…

Paris needs a new center. Like many other cities, build more places where people want to flock so you get pressure off the center.

Most new developments are in dead areas because nobody wants to spend time surrounded by ugly, bland and functional architecture.

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

#87

Post by bko » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 2:24 PM UTC

Ragnarork wrote: post #76

bko wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This doesn't force anyone's hand. If people don't want to live in Paris, that's their choice. No one is kidnapping them and shoving them in these apartments. On the other hand, if they want to, they have an avenue to do this (and it's still going to be difficult, supply isn't nearly as plenty as the private market), even if they don't have the income needed to find housing in the same area otherwise. > They're not so…

Let's not use euphemisms. You're encouraging a certain racial and identity makeup of a city. It's literally the same policies that led to ghettoization. I don't want (often unelected) bureaucrats to put their finger on the scale on who can live in an area. It's not wrong because it was used to exclude [group] from certain areas, it's wrong on principle. And if we allow that power to the state, there's no reason it won't be used by someone with ideals that don't align with yours

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

#88

Post by bombcar » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 2:25 PM UTC

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…

In the USA the government does things like this by subsidies to private people and businesses (section 8 housing is somewhat similar and is paid to landlords).

If the government wants to do this, they really should cut out the middle man and do it directly - purchase the building at something akin to fair market value and manage it themselves going forward.

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

#89

Post by justin66 » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 2:26 PM UTC

afpx wrote: post #3

Is Paris considered a great place to live? I've been there a couple times in the last few years, and it just seemed like every other big western city. (except for the police walking around with assault weapons.)

> except for the police walking around with assault weapons

So you've never been to North America. Where is it you're comparing Paris to, such that it seems like every other big western city?

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

#90

Post by bombcar » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 2:26 PM UTC

TimPC wrote: post #50

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 think the big issue is it's a lot harder to start social housing in 2024 when you have extremely limited historical action on it. But in general a city buying real estate is a hedge on real estate prices increasing in that city, which can be extremely useful for city budgets if you have any costs associate with housing some portion of the population. Most cities of a certain size find they can't function without so…

The other option is to greatly improve transportation where you can live 50 miles outside the city and still get to work in under 30 minutes.

This is very hard to do as you need exceptionally fast trains and well developed feeder lines.