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

#591

Post by rayiner » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 4:31 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #589

rayiner wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know if I’d call it “inexorable forces of nature” as much as economic financialization and industry consolidation run amok.

The arc of urbanization is thousands of years old! Once we figured out how to produce food at scale without much labor, it was pretty much over for decentralization.

Urbanization doesn’t require entire industries to be concentrated in a handful of cities. Wall Street and uncontrolled consolidation do that. The question is, can you achieve through public policy an economy where a large segment of jobs doesn’t involve delivering food to knowledge workers? I think you can, even today. Germany, for example, is quite urbanized, but far more decentralized (in terms of having many important large urban centers, plus many small urban centers) compared to say France or the UK.

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

#592

Post by burntwater » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 4:54 AM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #496

Jensson wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need better walls, aren't there standards that apartment walls need to be sound proof?

Remember that in the US at least, many dense buildings are incredibly old, from before soundproofing and such was really common. Living in a 1900s building in Brooklyn is vastly different from living in a 2020 building in Manhattan.

My early 1910s Manhattan building was fantastically quiet, with very thick walls. The only noise I ever heard was floor noise directly above me, never to the sides.

I'm guessing mid-1900s to early 2000s buildings are the problematic ones.

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

#593

Post by burntwater » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 4:57 AM UTC

circlefavshape wrote: post #343

circlefavshape wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 155lb human burns 177kcal when walking at 2.5mph[1], so that's 71kcal per mile There are 340kcal in 100g of wholemeal wheat flour[2], so walking one mile takes around 21g of wheat Wheat flour creates carbon emissions of 0.80 kg CO₂e/kg [3], so walking one mile creates carbon emissions of 170 g CO₂e Driving a vehicle powered by gasoline produces tailpipe emissions of around 400g per mile [4] [1] https://www.healthli…

However if the calories from your walk come from beef ... 100g of beef gives you 217 kcal [1], so you need 33g of beef for your walk Carbon cost for beef is 99.48 kg CO₂e/kg [2] So walking one mile fueled by beef creates ~3.3kg of carbon emissions, over 8 times what would be emitted if you drove [1] https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/foods/beef#nutrition [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1201677/greenhouse-ga…

If I'm reading this right it's not quite apples for apples, as it's comparing the cost to create and move the beef, but doesn't consider the cost to create the car, only the movement of the car.

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

#594

Post by Terr_ » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 5:19 AM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #337

jvanderbot wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ,…

>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 Unless you are gay, trans, not the right kind of christian, have mental issues, are progressive in any way, are willing at all to contradict their absurd views of reality, want cheaper electricity through green energy, want any form of public transit, their fa…

Went looking for literature, this doesn't quite address in-group charity versus general causes, but FWIW:

> All else held constant, rural respondents were almost 5.2 percentage points less likely to be a charitable donor, and donated less, on average, than urban donors, after controlling for human and social capital variables, such as education level, income level, health status, religious affiliation, family composition, and others. Rural respondents were significantly less likely to be donors to secular charities, and gave less on average to secular causes overall. These differences do not exist when comparing the religious giving of rural and urban respondents.

> However, rural donors donated a statistically significantly higher percentage of their income to charity than did urban donors. Also, rural donors are more likely to donate to religious causes than secular causes. Frequent religious attendance is associated with a higher probability of giving for rural residents, as is itemization of deductions on income tax returns.

-- Comparing Donation Patterns of Rural and Urban Donors -- https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/00...

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

#595

Post by mistermann » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 5:22 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #541

mistermann wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even further: extremely affordable technology now exists such that the leaders of our "democracies" could ask the public's opinions on such matters in a wide variety of fine-grained ways, or even better: facilitate a high quality moderated public conversation that actually involves the public on these and other matters. This may even be a requirement for a healthy society. Unfortunately, current styles of "democracy"…

Local democracies on housing questions are extremely consistent the world over: no more people near me. If there absolutely must be more people near me, they better be exactly like me.

I agree. But then on the other hand, there is a wide variety of ways that can be brought to bear to "encourage" humans to change their minds.

Alternatively, we could [1] consider waking up for even a short period of time and put some mental effort into considering whether our most sacred operating system may not actually be what it is advertised (and thus: believed) to be.

Is it not rather funny that thousands of incredibly smart programmers, systems analysts, etc are not able to even consider whether the system that controls our lives and well being, not to mention the literal continued existence of many thousands of innocent people throughout the world could maybe be substantially improved?

Day after day we engage in the pointing of fingers, funny how the fingers never get pointed at ourselves.

[1] Well, I am speaking a bit loosely: the laws of physics in this environment support it, but that does not guarantee that it is completely supported.

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

#596

Post by mpweiher » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 5:29 AM UTC

Hamuko wrote: post #527

mpweiher wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [car travel harder without making public transport better] Erm aren't you forgetting something? London just quadrupled its bicycle network. That seems like a massive improvement to me. When I lived there, biking was...let's be kind and say "less than ideal". Last time I visited I was amazed by the improvement, with protected two-way bike lanes right on the Thames and much more. https://momentummag.com/london-just-q…

Since when have bicycles been public transport?

Exactly.

Poster was presenting cars and public transport as the only two options, and complaining that one has been made worse without improving the other.

That completely misses the fact that there is in fact a third option that has been greatly improved, even if poster doesn’t like it.

Hence “Aren’t you forgetting something” rather than “you’re wrong”

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

#597

Post by mistermann » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 5:31 AM UTC

bedobi wrote: post #579

closeparen wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Local democracies on housing questions are extremely consistent the world over: no more people near me. If there absolutely must be more people near me, they better be exactly like me.

exactly! nimbyism is human nature, the irony is that no one appreciate they themselves are the person others don't want around, lollll if people are given the choice of anything, the answer most of the time will be "no"

Massive quantities of evidence exist demonstrating that human beings have at least some capacity to believe that they have concern for the well being of other humans.

Prime example: do you remember that big pandemic a few years ago? Do you remember how passionate most people were that everyone should go get their vaccinations, to protect each other? I sincerely think that these people genuinely believed that the feelings they were experiencing were sincere, and human belief even if non-genuine is an incredibly powerful force, maybe even the most powerful of all forces.

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

#598

Post by hollerith » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:22 AM UTC

hirsin wrote: post #457

hollerith wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, but some people here are asserting that the more urban density, the better, and neglecting to consider that if the density gets high enough, the commercial delivery vehicles are stuck in traffic most of the time or the residents of the city refrain from buying things that would enhance their lives if it weren't so expensive or tedious to move things around the city.

Which is why if you've ever lived far outside the city, you're tired of people from the city coming out to visit you to buy all the stuff they can't get in the city. Oh, no, it's the other way round, mostly. It's easier to deliver a quantity and variety of goods to a dense area than the sticks. Which is why "go shopping" is a suggestion for people going to NYC, not Tucson.

In deciding between a city where personal vehicles are banned or discouraged and a city where they are allowed, noting the virtues of cities over rural areas is relevant how?

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

#599

Post by closeparen » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:35 AM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #597

bedobi wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

exactly! nimbyism is human nature, the irony is that no one appreciate they themselves are the person others don't want around, lollll if people are given the choice of anything, the answer most of the time will be "no"

Massive quantities of evidence exist demonstrating that human beings have at least some capacity to believe that they have concern for the well being of other humans. Prime example: do you remember that big pandemic a few years ago? Do you remember how passionate most people were that everyone should go get their vaccinations, to protect each other? I sincerely think that these people genuinely believed that the feel…

The charitable impulse in municipal housing politics gets you a cluster of tiny trailer homes on a parking lot surrounded by a 8 foot fence in an industrial part of town far away. Maybe, if you are feeling especially magnanimous, a servant’s outbuilding in the shadow of your house.

It’s not in human nature to give charity that would elevate others to the same or, God forbid, higher status as compared to the benefactor.

Wherever a young person, newcomer, or upstart has a reasonable chance of attaining what the incumbents enjoy, you’re probably going to find them taking it through market competition, not having it allocated to them by a vote of the incumbents.

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

#600

Post by renewiltord » Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 6:57 AM UTC

TacticalCoder wrote: post #108

thuuuomas wrote: post #94

Why was this headline changed in such an editorializing way? “Mixed society” is a loaded term not present in the original headline.

Yup this makes no sense. Note that the original is also wrong: "How does Paris stays Paris..." . To me Paris is not Paris at all anymore. The government is in damage control before the olympic games and shall try to hide that Paris is not Paris anymore but Paris honestly became a sad thing to see. There are many tourists having an actual shock and it can be really bad: if I'm not mistaken japanese even have a hotline…

I've been there every now and then over twenty years. None of this Paris isn't Paris any more. Pretty much normal changing of a city.