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

251–260 of 662 posts

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

#251

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

fnord123 wrote: post #193
bezier-curve wrote: post #186

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 Do you have a source for this? Sounds questionable.

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.

A single mile, no.

100 miles? That seems very likely. That happens far quicker for the energy leaking heat machine sitting in the seat.

So, while maybe the theme of the statement is correct?

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

#252

Post by _3u10 »

catlikesshrimp wrote: post #219
_3u10 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most demand for houses is from people. Most price increases are due to a lack of supply that exceeds population growth. Most lack of supply is caused by it being illegal to build higher / more dense, and a variety of other rules and regulations. Landlords are for the most part capitalizing on these broader market / regulatory trends.

I don't understand the downvotes. I honestly think what that is saying is true in a black and white way. Grandparent says: "get rid of all these complicated rent control and rent freezes and affordable housing scheme..." I think this is fertile for discussion. Rent freezes didn't work in Argentina (extreme example), my opinion is they don't work anywhere. But oversupply does reduce prices, as happened with evergrande…

Compare and contrast with Paraguay where you can build whatever you want whenever and there is an ample supply of housing and very little in rental returns.

Argentina is a great example. That said rent is also cheap in Buenos Aires. But I think that is due to the economy rather than rent control.

You’re right in that affordable housing in any real sense would be MASSIVELY unpopular with voters. You’d be looking at cutting values in half to reach 2000s levels of affordability or 75% to get to 1970s levels.

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

#253

Post by IncreasePosts »

walthamstow wrote: post #131
rafaelero wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean cities need it not to die? Would you say Monaco is dead? What about Zurich? Oslo?

Monaco, absolutely yes, because most of the workers commute from France, they don't live in Monaco. Zurich and Oslo, I don't see the connection, they both have workers of all kinds, old and young people. They're organic and alive cities.

Who cares if most of the people working there drive in from France?

The point in Monaco farthest from France is like a 10 minute drive away.

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

#254

Post by Tiktaalik »

asimovfan wrote: post #178
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…

Building taller means people see the sky less. In my home city that is the case and you definitely dont want that. Where ive been living the last few years, no building is above 3 stories and its wonderful.

Not necessarily.

There's a big difference between building a tall building with a large uniform floorplate that takes up much of a block and a tall building that is thin, only taking up a tiny slice of a block, and thus allowing sunlight to pass through.

For this reason gloomy Vancouver for a long time mandated point towers, for the purpose of maximizing light.

Paris' status quo of uniform 6 story streetwalls could arguably let in less light than a mixed amount of much taller thinner towers on 3 story podiums.

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

#255

Post by bombcar »

corford wrote: post #215
BoiledCabbage wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people who don't understand supply and demand think rent taxes are a solution to a lack of housing stock.

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…

Housing per capita may not be the best measurement, if households are changing. What may have been two parents and some kids in one house after the war may now be two separate households because of divorce, etc.

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

#256

Post by creaturemachine »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #174
Ragnarork wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, if your property is eligible for preemption, you have to declare that you intend to sell (at the price you wish) to the city, which can then tell you that - they don't intend to buy, in which case you can proceed with the sale - they buy at the price you've set - they make a counter-offer, which you have the right to refuse but then you also renounce to sell If there's a dispute on the price (especially in…

I tend to lean lefty, but this scheme makes me understand why libertarians want less government How much my home is worth should not be capped by whatever government thinks. That's bs If government is counter offering all of my neighbors and they are accepting it, then I am screwed. I either accept the government counter offer or I go to tribunal who will cite all of the government's recent purchases from my neighbor…

This isn't some government rug-pull on your idyllic picket-fenced suburban house. You might find housing to be different in other parts of the world.

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

#257

Post by bluefirebrand »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #240
bluefirebrand wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to lean lefty, but this scheme makes me understand why libertarians want less government How much my home is worth should not be capped by whatever government thinks. That's bs If government is counter offering all of my neighbors and they are accepting it, then I am screwed. I either accept the government counter offer or I go to tribunal who will cite all of the government's recent purchases from my neighbor…

Should land -- a scare, limited resource -- be a private or public asset? I believe you're coming at this from the former perspective. But, it's worthwhile to ask this question so that we can understand why it could make sense to give the public a say in how land is allocated and used. Also, I'd like to point out that when you say: > I tend to lean lefty, but this scheme makes me understand why libertarians want less…

> It's quite easy to replace `government` with `a large private company` in your hypothetical:

Yeah that's kind of my point!

This would very obviously be predatory if it were a real estate conglomerate, which is something government should protect people from, not actually just become themselves!!

> Should land -- a scare, limited resource -- be a private or public asset? I believe you're coming at this from the former perspective

This is completely irrelevant to the topic, because in this case we are talking about a situation where land is being treated as a private asset, and a government is acting like a private real estate conglomerate

You can challenge it on grounds of what "should" be, but that's an entirely different discussion

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

#258

Post by Ragnarork »

bko wrote: post #87
Ragnarork wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wo…

First things first, we're talking about income-based public housing attribution. Not racial. Although if policies in the past means ethnic minorities have been disadvantaged all other things considered, then that will overlap, but as a consequence, not by design.

Secondly, Paris' policies are decided by the mayor of Paris and the city council, and they're elected (mayor directly, city council semi-directly). Not by "unelected bureaucrats".

Then your comment makes no sense. Policies favoring social diversity are the exact same policies that led to getthoisation? Do we agree on what getthoisation means? Because those two things are exclusive.

You say you don't want bureaucrats to put their finger on the scale of who can live in an area, that's your opinion. But if you're saying this should be purely left to supply and demand, then somewhat it is still a (non-)decision to put the finger on the scale, at one extremity, and it will have a certain outcome. Whether this outcome is good or bad will be a matter of opinion in certain cases, but not in others, e.g. what impact this has on the local economy for example, whether this leads to a more or less appeased society, and so on.

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

#259

Post by bombcar »

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…

And you either have to make the "cheap places" more desirable (which raises their prices, but lowers pressure elsewhere) or you have to build more housing in the desirable areas.

You also have the issue that if someone does have a house, no matter what kind of house, it's a hassle and a half to move, so you have to provide some pretty darn strong incentives to get people to move.

My house ain't great, but I'd need something like $10-20k to consider moving to a nearly identical or even somewhat better house, just because of the costs and hassle associated with moving.

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

#260

Post by AnimalMuppet »

amelius wrote: post #225
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. So rich people need poor/middle-class people to keep cities alive? Maybe they should start charging for that ...

Rich people need to keep encountering not-rich people, rather than just live in a rich-person bubble. They need that, whether or not they want that.
Post reply on HN