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

#261

Post by hackeraccount » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:18 PM UTC

kcorbitt wrote: post #184

rcpt wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People aren't very noisy. Cars are

I don't know... I lived in Barcelona for two years recently and had pretty bad luck. In addition to one-off incidents, some consistent noise issues we had: - The Pakistani restaurant below our apartment would regularly host receptions/weddings until 2-3am. The sendoff typically involved groups of 20-30 people banging large drums loudly and singing as the happy couple walked out and were driven away. - We had a neighb…

recently moved half a mile further out from city center and can attest to all of this. Hookah bar in my case was blaring music at 1AM. People in various states of inebriation shouting to each other outside my bedroom window.

There's less car traffic too but that was such a background noise that I hardly noticed it. Though truthfully the first week or so at the new place I was conscious of it's absence.

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

#262

Post by marcusverus » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:18 PM UTC

ketzo wrote: post #18

cm2187 wrote: post #8

> One quarter of residents in the French capital now live in government-owned housing, part of an aggressive effort to keep lower-income Parisians — and their businesses — in the city. I think they meant "...and their votes"

People always say this like a gotcha, but aren’t politicians supposed to do stuff that they think people will vote for?

> aren’t politicians supposed to do stuff that they think people will vote for?

This is generally true, but there is a line beyond which this becomes problematic.

Surely you wouldn't support explicit vote buying, where a politician promised to repay voters with public cash after the election! If such a scheme were permitted, democracy would quickly cease to become a marketplace for ideas. It would devolve into a patronage system. Most of us would immediately recognize such a scheme as dangerous and question the legitimacy of any so-called democratic government whose majority was bought in such a manner. Do you agree that this would be a problem?

Why would this cease to be a problem if the kickbacks were paid in-kind, and only made available to the poor?

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

#263

Post by adrian_b » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:20 PM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #71

ecshafer wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is GDP per capita relevant, especially not adjusted for purchasing power parity? For Austria the GDP per capita PPP is at $67-69k depending on the estimate, which would put it somewhere between 27 and 33 place of US states, so roughly in the middle. If you compare the Quality of Life Index, Austria is 9th, USA is 15th. Freedom Index - Austria is 93, USA is 83. HDI USA is 20th with 0.927, Austria is 22nd with 0.92…

I have worked for some time in Austria and I have many friends who are US citizens.

While the latter have indeed revenues that seem much higher, I would say that there is no doubt that the quality of life of my former Austrian colleagues was higher, based on purchasing power, balance between job and personal life and quality of food and environment.

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

#264

Post by WaitWaitWha » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:20 PM UTC

jvanderbot wrote: post #173

smeej wrote: post #169

> The program has allowed Mr. Chaillou and his wife to raise their two boys in the city. But he knows that the future of social housing will always face at least one big challenge: “The problem is that once you get in, you never want to leave.” I think this is the reason so many in the U.S. are skeptical of/resistant to such plans. Why work your butt off for 10 years to get to a place where you can afford a nice dwel…

> instinctively repugnant To some. In very-red areas that I have relatives, they're happy to do a food drive, make donations, help pay for weddings or funerals, or show up to help repair houses. When you have 100 cousins and 10 brothers, this is a viable option. They frequent each others businesses, work on interconnected industries, and in general help out however they can. It's not instinctively repugnant to help ,…

> by taking some from those with more and giving it to those with less is almost instinctively repugnant

I think the first part of this statement is crucial to the full meaning. It is not about charity[0]. It is about redistribution of wealth by force is repugnant.

[0] This 2022 reports states US is #3 in charity (giving). https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-resea...

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

#265

Post by abdullahkhalids » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:20 PM UTC

hollerith wrote: post #232

simonw wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it takes more energy and more carbon emissions to walk a mile than it takes to drive a vehicle a mile" I've never heard that before, can you expand on that?

I don't remember where I heard it, only that it was an expert on agriculture saying it. The easiest way to see that it is plausible is to note that only 400 years ago, something like 90% of all human labor went into growing food, which is the way agricultural societies had always been everywhere. The way society was able reduce that to the 5% or so it is today was to use fossil fuels. The first big reduction came wit…

When people suggest that we reduce the number of cars driven, they are generally not talking about reducing commercial delivery vehicles [1]. Obviously our civilization depends on moving essential stuff around, and we need to do continue doing that, albeit with a electrified fleet of trucks/vans. The problem is with private cars, electric or internal combustion.

[1] Excluding Uber style car-based food delivery services.

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

#266

Post by rsynnott » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:22 PM UTC

082349872349872 wrote: post #161

rsynnott wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all the way up to artists and baristas in their garrets under the roof. I don't think there was any significant crossover between lifts not existing and _baristas_ existing. For a start, lifts predate proper espresso machines.

Good point; please substitute the appropriate word for the service worker who doles out glasses of wine from behind a zinc counter. (or did zinc also postdate lifts?)

Zinc counters feel very much an early 20th century thing to me. Like, I'm sure they had zinc in the 19th century, but it's hard to imagine that bars were made out of it.

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

#267

Post by baud147258 » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:22 PM UTC

bertjk wrote: post #93

baud147258 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What are the mechanics of how this works? If I agree to buy a property for a million dollars, does the city get a chance to match that price? there's a French wiki page on this: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_de_pr%C3%A9emption_urbai... But basically, yes, the city has 2 months to match the price. The city can also offer a lower price, which can be refused (so no sale at all) or can be argued in front of a spe…

So does this mean that every sale of any building can take at least two months?

From the experience of a few friends who've bought appartments these last years, two months would be the minimum here in France.

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

#268

Post by andrepd » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:23 PM UTC

digging wrote: post #128

rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> build taller As someone who lives in an area with plenty of high-density residential buildings, I can attest that this is a perfect recipe for creating congested cities with such intense light and noise pollution.

Light pollution is relatively easily solved, there's just not much will to do so. Noise pollution is best solved by reducing car-dependency which is a non-starter in most North American cities; I can't speak for Europe but I understand Paris to have undertaken a serious revolution in purging cars within the past decade.

Both the fight against car dependency and the housing policy in TFA have been spearheaded by the current mayor, Anne Hidalgo

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

#269

Post by hollerith » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:23 PM UTC

ramblenode wrote: post #217

fnord123 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's false. People will not go into suspend mode when not walking; they still burn calories. A very large person would burn about 130 calories walking a mile. i.e. one large latte. And most people who are this large are not at risk of a caloric deficit by burning an extra 130 calories.

I agree that OP's assertion sounds dubious (especially considering the entire supply chain) but calories are a measure of energy, not CO2. You need to know the rate of CO2 emitted per kcal.

I'm not claiming that the CO2 exhaled by people is relevant. I'm claiming that growing food requires significant energy inputs unless you want to go back to the world where most human labor went into growing food.

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

#270

Post by corford » Wed, Mar 20, 2024, 4:23 PM UTC

everforward wrote: post #242

corford wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone agrees there's a shortage: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/19/end-of-... A few choice paras (if people don't read the full article): "The forthcoming general election is once again likely to be dominated by claims about a housing shortage and a dire need to build more homes. Housebuilding is an article of faith across the political spectrum. The evidence, however, does not support this…

That argument presumes that housing is consumed the same way it was 70 years ago, and that the location of the housing is irrelevant. I know lots of places where there are empty, cheap houses. They're not close to any good jobs, the only Internet they have is 3G, and the schools suck because the county is poor (because no one wants to live there). I also suspect housing consumption per-capita is up as people move out…

I think the main argument they are making is that affordability is less a demand/supply issue and more a tax policy issue. Implication being: if you cap rental income, you'll see a fall in private landlords but not necessarily less housing stock than if there were no rent controls.

>I'm not sure what they're pointing to as the reason for housing prices if it's not supply and demand.

They are saying the uncapped rental market makes housing as an asset class extremely profitable i.e. simple supply & demand argument is not strong enough alone to be the only driver.