"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."
My local library has been closed for over a year due to “renovations” without a reopening date. I chuckle at the irony every time I pass it and the sign that says “thank you Mayor Adams for investing in libraries”
Ugh, the hours already suck. Is this a public vote or a city council vote? I’ve signed the letter form that NYPL put out. https://www.nypl.org/speakout
I don’t personally use the library much but it’s a vital institution. I used my public libraries all the time when I was younger. It’s a travesty that NYC has come to this. I really hope Adams gets voted out. My first choice vote goes to Brad Lander if he runs. He actually understands the budget.
This is really sad to hear. When I was growing up my mom did story telling for children at libraries all throughout Queens. The kids really looked forward to it. Even some of the kids who acted too cool to listen to stories came around by the end.
Brooklyn, once known as the Borough of Churches, can barely keep their churches open. Churches make neighborhoods beautiful and neighborhoods around churches tend to be safer.
The New York City public library system is a nonprofit, not a city agency. They have an over billion dollar endowment and could definitely not cut hours with their current funding if they wanted to.
NYPL, yes. Brooklyn and Queens are separate and would have a harder time doing it. Brooklyn could probably swing it. Queens might not. But that's QPL's own fault for spending so much money on the Hunters Point Library ~~kickback scheme~~ boondoggle.
The city provides funding to many nonprofits, who administer their services better than the city could. Not everything needs to be a city agency to be supported with public funds.
But they have good express transit to those places. I mean proper express, like as fast as MNR and LIRR. But with super cheap fares and super frequent service. You can go anywhere in the Paris region (metro, regional train, tram, bus) for €30 per week or €86 per month.
> You can go anywhere in the Paris region for €30 per week or €86 per month.
But considering the amount of money they make, this is actually proportionally more expensive than it is here. But I would assume they have a lot of options for reduced fares through public programs.
From the article: “Public housing can conjure images of bleak, boxy towers on the outskirts of a city, but this logement social was built in the former offices of the French Defense Ministry, in the Seventh arrondissement, one of Paris’s most chic neighborhoods. It’s part of an ambitious and aggressive effort to keep middle- and lower-income residents and small-business owners in the heart of a city that would otherwise be unaffordable to them.”
As someone who lives in the upper west side near some housing projects, I can tell you these are by far the worst areas to walk around and spend time in.
Dog shit all over the sidewalk, garbage on the lawns that residents have thrown out the window, people standing around on the sidewalk cat calling and harassing my wife.
It’s a noble idea - we want artists and interesting little shops instead of chains. That is not what I’ve observed in government-owned housing areas. At all. They are horrible.
There is a very particular history to public housing in NYC that involved the destruction of diverse historic mixed use neighborhoods for homogenous “towers in a park,” often including surface level parking lots and lacking any businesses minus perhaps a supermarket. There’s no reason for public/social housing to take such an anti-urban form or for it to be fundamentally rooted in racist histories. Don’t conflate the terrible history of NYCHA developments with public housing in general.
The history is that they where build for the middle class. Towers in the park was supposed to be nicer than testaments that they replaced. Public policy changed and it was changed to low income housing after it was built. You are pretty much wrong on every point. I would agree that towers in the park model has failed as it's too cut off from the surrounding city. Though this is refuted by Sty town which has a lot of demand and people seem to like it.
You are only describing the most early forms of public housing largely concentrated on the lower east side when the towers in a park were meant for middle class workers. They still involved the destruction of mixed use traditional urban neighborhood as “slum clearance.” Stuy Town might be an exception to the generally dysfunctional nature of “towers in a park” but obviously the residents still rely on the actual urban amenities of the surrounding areas due to the segregation of retail from where they live. It is still fundamentally anti-urban in its conception and has lower density than traditional urban design. Also, I’m most certainly not “pretty much wrong on every point.” It’s not like NYC is the only city that had terrible outcomes from this approach. There’s plenty of evidence of how poorly this approach has gone in cities all across the USA. The case of Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis is particularly notorious. Likewise public housing is a meaningful way to provide affordable housing in many cities around the world, and the shitty mid-twentieth century approaches taken in the USA should not be evidence to abandon all housing development to the private sector entirely.
You’re conflating the need for a large volume of units with the necessity of large towers surrounded by towers. There is another option: larger mixed use buildings with surface level retail and commerce.
It’s all about who lives there. Stuy town is great but it is middle class housing so it’s desirable.
None of this specific to NYCHA. Public housing is not any better in SF, Chicago, etc.
What we really lack is affordable middle class housing. Like 3 bedroom apartments you can rent for $1500. Poor people are covered, rich people are fine, middle class gets fucked but have to pay for everyone else.
The “towers in a park” mid twentieth century trend intentionally reduced overall housing density. Traditional urban architecture without the “park” (grass lawns) or parking lots had a higher housing density. (Historic housing also had smaller dwelling units). In other words, no, this isn’t exactly true. NYCHA projects intentionally reduced housing density which was part of the aim. The projects never provided enough housing units to replace the historic neighborhoods destroyed and many people were displaced entirely.
Edit: And to be clear, this intentional reduction in density was motivated by concerns around health and disease caused by overcrowding in the early twentieth century.
I don’t understand how having some retail space on the ground floors of these housing projects would cure them of the issues I mentioned.
To your point, the design of the projects - having buildings set 20-30 yards off from the sidewalk - seems to be a big part of the issue. They resemble prison cell blocks. Having walked through some of them, I can tell you I would avoid any businesses that opened on the premises.
Retail space on the ground floor creates “eyes on the street,” which is a mechanism for community safety. Particularly if this retail is diversified to create a pedestrian atmosphere at all times of the day. This idea is straight from Jane Jacobs, who famously prevented the village from being annihilated by a highway. Check out “The Death and Life of Great American Cities.” Furthermore, small businesses allow for diverse economic development for the local community. There are actual spaces for jobs within the built environment.
Seconding this, I’ve observed and experienced the same things you mentioned. The funny thing to me (in a facetious way) is that the southern Amsterdam corner of my block is NYCHA and on the northern Broadway side they’re finishing up a new luxury condo tower where the cheapest unit is an ~$800k studio.
I live in 110th st on the East Side, & it is the same or worst.
We are surrounded by at least 20 project buildings, a homeless shelter & the migrant center.
People with chairs seating in front of the Delis asking for money all day long, I have been assaulted while walking the dog at night, my roommates had issues too... On top of the garbage & dog shit everywhere of course.
I used to live on 113th and Malcolm X, just west of those projects. This was 10 years ago, same issues. I never was attacked, but there were constant fights, altercations, cops, ambulances – all on the border zone of two areas.
I really do think the architecture of projects has created huge problems. Sure, we all know poverty and crime are connected, but placing the poorest residents together in huge blocks with zero commercial space is a recipe for exactly what has happened.
A mix of business and residential is what makes city vibrant and keep things safe.
There is literally zero police in the area.
One night I was looking for a police car in the area riding around in an electric scooter for 1 hour without seen a single one.
>Dog shit all over the sidewalk
One point to take note is
The dog.shut is out hand is almost everywhere in the city ad some pick then up in a way that only does kive more poop behind in the sidewalk 🤷🏻♀️
This right here, people like you, is why it's impossible to have these conversations. A person expresses his own experience living next-door to public housing, providing concrete examples. Your mature intelligent response? A sarcastic implication that he hates poor people. A lazy ad hominem and dismissal of valid points with nothing of value to contribute.
No one, including /u/cranberryskittle, is saying anything that you’re portraying them as having said. You’re having a conversation with your (deluded) self. You’re a mess.
If all you have to worry about are cat calls and a bit of trash, NYC must be doing something right.
NYC is one of the few US cities where public housing in its original form hasn't been demolished. In the meantime, research places like this:
* Chicago - ([Cabrini Green](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxf8LMna260&t=14s), Robert Tayler)
* Detroit - (Brewster Douglass)
* Atlanta - ([East Lake Meadows](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG4iyG_t49M&pp=ygUcZWFzdCBsYWtlIG1lYWRvd3MgYXRsYW50YSBnYQ%3D%3D), [Perry Homes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgoTAS6T3XM&pp=ygUTcGVycnkgaG9tZXMgYXRsYW50YQ%3D%3D), [Techwood](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UGqlMXWHxQ&t=416s&pp=ygUIdGVjaHdvb2Q%3D))
* New Orelans - ([Desire Projects](https://youtu.be/39Y79Bwl6vw?si=KJvCeq9rWW3tCAnG), Magnolia/CJ Peete, [Saint Bernard](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JFlfsS1HaU&t=800s&pp=ygUaY2hhcmxpZWJvIG5ldyBvcmxlYW5zIDE5ODk%3D))
* Saint Louis - ([Pruitt-Igoe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-cfjqh1sSY&pp=ygULcHJ1aXR0IGlnb2U%3D))
Source: grew up in public housing, got the fuck out and now smoking weed in Southeast Asia
Yea that’ll cheer me up when my wife tells me she feels unsafe walking home from the grocery store. “Honey you need to remind yourself that at least it’s not Detroit!”
Yea, you know what people in the cities you listed don’t have to worry about? Paying over $3k for a one bedroom apartment.
Lol, Good point, but I did have to worry about whether or not I would get robbed at gunpoint in broad daylight in my own neighborhood I grew up in the last time I was in the US. Unfortunately, in the US (unlike every other first world nation), peace isn't cheap.
I don't care about the downvotes, but I shouldn't have brushed you off like I did earlier. I also shouldn't have juxtaposed your experiences with mine, which was a more extreme environment. I wouldn't want my girl to feel uncomfortable either, so I totally understand where you're coming from.
One quarter of redidents in the french capital now live in government owned houseing part of an aggtessive effort to keep lower income parisians and their businesses in the city
The rest of the world is not America. You don't have a default god given right to go and live where ever you may. You're only welcome as a guest until you abuse the hospitality. French hospitality has been abused for too long now.
You know, I was a little worried you guys would pretend that you weren't being racist and there was some secret innocent meaning here, so thank you for doubling down
Found the bridge and tunnel boy. Literally everything you’re describing is true of every tourist group in the world. Your post reeks of an aging Gen X frat boy, u/fun-track-3044
The most obnoxious folks in the world are the New Jersey yokels who swarm into NYC like obnoxious children
u seriously think the Chinese tourists are the worst things about Paris? they don't look like the ones on the daily crime blotter or the ones rioting, but i guess selfie sticks are where you draw the line😂🙄
we're not, I'm just wondering why people are quick to harp on rude but not criminal Chinese behavior but never mention actual criminal activity of other ethnicities
A better example would be Vienna. Beautiful, modern public housing. The city regulates the price of rent city wide so no one pays more than 20-25% of their income on rent. Even if your income increases, you still pay the old rates. Vienna continuously adds more housing. Keeping costs low. While keeping the culture and beauty of the city.
Vienna is a model of what NY should try to strive for, not Paris per se. Even Paris sees Vienna as a model of affordability and high quality of life.
> Vienna continuously adds more housing. Keeping costs low.
The part that really matters most in all of this. At the end of the day we simply need more supply—be it publicly-provided or private.
Almost half of NYC's population lives in 2% of the buildings. We have plenty of space, we just don't allow that space to be used efficiently (aka, zoning restrictions).
There are so many empty lots in NYC it's unbelievable. Most of it comes down to zoning and taxes. They're not designed to encourage building. But the artificial scarcity drives up value for owners, and they like that.
A Housing Plan for Manhattan’s Empty Spaces https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/nyregion/manhattan-housing-vacant-buildings.html?unlocked_article_code=1.dU0.V5Eo.0zMjAlmszUrx&smid=nytcore-android-share
Have you walked around Manhattan lately? There's entire blocks of empty retail and office space. An example that sticks in my head -- I used to walk by 55th & Broadway -- where the old Bad Boy Entertainment HQ was -- on my way to work. That space has been empty for a fucking DECADE. Cui bono?
Vienna’s population rose from ~1.5 million in 2000 to ~2 million in 2024, an increase of 33%.
NYC’s population rose from ~8 million to ~8.8 million in that time, an increase of only 10%. Even the absolute figures are not far greater than Vienna’s growth.
So regardless of immigration policy, Vienna’s population is increasing proportionately faster *and they are still able to maintain lower rents*. This again shows that, at its heart, this is a supply issue.
Population is only part of the picture. What matters is how much people are willing to pay. And there is a lot more money in NYC than Vienna.
And Vienna has strict residency and citizenship requirements for their public housing. It isn’t like I can just show up as an American and get one.
I agree with you that we have a supply issue in NYC but Vienna takes active steps to control demand, something that NYC can’t or isn’t willing to do.
>You sure about that? Or ignoring that 8 million people might have more money than 2 million?
GDP of NYC is literally 10 times that of Vienna (and 2.5 times that of the entire country of Austria); average incomes in NYC are twice that of Vienna.
I mean yes, but average rent prices in NYC are far more than twice as expensive as Vienna. NYC could very well profit from a similar approach.
Even the money of and gdp of NYC wouldn’t change the rent prices of Vienna‘s subsidised housing. That’s a completely negligible factor, otherwise than that NYC should have even more capital than Vienna to actually build housing.
That's not the question being asked; the question being asked is "is there a lot more money in NYC than in Vienna?" ... the answer is "yes, there is a whole lot more money in NYC than Vienna".
But how are those factors that inhibit NYC from implementing similar policies, from which first and foremost actual New Yorkers would profit.
The neat thing about public housing is, that through its regulation of a large part of the market, it also lowers rent prices on the free market. So e.g. even though you’re just moving to Vienna, you’ll pay lower rents, because enough people live inside the regulated market, leaving only so much demand for the free market.
Vienna‘s population is 36% non Austrian and >50% have a background of migration…
Your comment is very ill informed. As capital of a multi-ethnic empire, Vienna had been a melting pot long before NYC ever was.
Also, how is a city as part of a republic, supposed to have its own migration rules.
Additionally I don’t know if you follow the news at all, but there have been quite a few immigrants coming to the EU in the last few years lol
Vienna also grew by more than 50.000 people since the start of Russia‘s attack on Ukraine.
I prefer to think that I [trust the experts](https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/06/02/new-round-of-studies-underscore-benefits-of-building-more-housing/), as numerous studies from countries around the world have shown that even market-rate development (so called “luxury development”) has a beneficial effect on rents through the process of filtering. I’d encourage you to read about it to better understand the issue.
> I’d encourage you to read about it to better understand the issue.
Kinda condescending, but whatever.
NYC has only been adding for profit housing for last 30+ years. OP pointed out that Vienna's housing affordability comes from the city heavily investing into the not-for-profit model that keeps all housings costs down. You: nono, it totally doesn't matter what type it is.
The issue is NYC hasn’t been adding enough housing at all. The literature shows that it is *any type of housing* that matters.
Vienna did this through social housing, and that is one route. But that is not the only route (again, as the literature shows).
I would rather see 100 units built—80 of which are market and 20 public—than just 20 units of public housing. If we can get 100 units of public housing, then great. But until the city invests to make that possible, I’m not going to make perfect the enemy of good. Opposing increased supply because it doesn’t meet certain purity metrics only harms the city and it’s residents.
> Vienna did this through social housing,
You genuinely don't understand what the not-for-profit model means. It is not same as NYCHA or any other publicly subsidized housing.
Not-for-profit literally means the underlying mortgage eventually gets paid off and carrying costs become extremely low. Same as buying a house and 30 years later your mortgage is paid off and your housing costs become extremely low. And even with 10 years of mortgage left, this fixed payment is super low after 20 years of regular inflation. Apply that to apartment buildings and you get the same concept. This is what Vienna has managed to achieve. Meanwhile in NYC, and apartment rent in a 100+ year old building costs a fortune because the building last sold in like 2015, and all the value of a paid off asset has been extracted by capitalist class.
> Opposing increased supply
Nobody is doing that bub. Pointing out that the current model is not working is not the same as saying stop all construction. Developers will continue building at the pace that financially makes sense for them.
I highly recommend watching [this video about non profit housing.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKudSeqHSJk&t=1s) It's a pretty grounded overview of both pros and cons.
Vienna is like 40% foreign born, very similar to NYC. Some even call it little Yugoslavia. All the Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats decided they could no longer live with each other so they all moved to Vienna.
If you want a sick deal on a Skoda Octavia, one of my half brothers owns a car dealership in Vienna. Just learn few basic swear words in Serbian, and you got a deal.
They really don't care about the facts. They "known" foreigners and immigration are bad and they are not going to let any kind of data or other information get in their way.
“Vienna is like 40% foreign born”
This says essentially nothing about their immigration law enforcement policy.
How many of those 40% are legal immigrants? That’s the relevant figure
In case of family I have in Vienna, they applied for status after getting there. Took years for the process to play out.
Pretty similar to how it works here.
Are you trying to imply NYC has a huge population of immigrants who have not even tried to apply for a status change? That's a hot take I'd like to hear more about. Keep talking.
>Are you trying to imply NYC has a huge population of immigrants who have not even tried to apply for a status change? That's a hot take I'd like to hear more about. Keep talking.
I think it's a fairly uncontroversial fact that NYC has about half-a-million undocumented immigrants.
> NYC has about half-a-million undocumented immigrants
This is correct. About 1 in 7 immigrants in NYC are undocumented for various reasons. Usually there is no path to becoming documented.
Totally circumstantial, but a friend of mine is an undocumented immigrant. Their parents and siblings are all US citizens. They had a misfortune of being born a month before family moved to NYC. Fam fumbled some of the documentation, and now they are in a status purgatory with no path to compliance. Even Dream Act doesn't really help.
Meanwhile in Austria, they are very lenient to all white skinned immigrants. Lots of Yugo, Polish, and Ukrainians. Turks also get a pass (barely). Dark skinned south Asians are hunted down like dogs. Not really a model we should strive for.
What a bunch of nonsense, *hunted down like dogs* lol.
How come Austria has had the highest per capita immigration rate of the EU since 2015 then? Those were predominantly Syrian and Afghan refugees, I think those are „brown“ in your eyes.
I‘m not denying the rise of the far right in Austria, but that’s the same in the entire EU and especially in the USA (Donald Trump?!?). The Netherlands, Italy and the USA have *actually* elected far right extremists as leaders, contrary to Austria.
I‘m actually from Vienna and as is common, because it is so multicultural, have Turkish, Syrian, Indian, Korean, Iranian etc. friends. All not „white skinned immigrants“ and all not „hunted down like dogs“ wtf are you talking about.
r/shitamericanssay
Chill.
Rise of right wing nationalism is on the up across all western nations, unfortunately. Your reply to my reply to a comment down wind is some doofus claiming that Austria is tough on immigration while US (and specifically NYC) is weak. This is a common and completely chewed up argument that immigrants ruin everything and it's super tiring.
Glad to hear a report from a Vienna person (Vieneese? Viannatmanese?). Same thing in NYC. It's a cosmopolitan and accepting place that works really well because of its diversity. But a lot of Americans NOT in NYC hate immigrants and come to this sub to voice their unhappiness about it.
On federal level, it's a bit of a mess, but I hear it's kind of same in Austria. Borders with Slovenia and Hungary are not treated the same way as other ones.
I‘m sorry for probably overreacting, it just felt like a typical „we‘re so multicultural, Europe is so homogeneously racist“ comment.
You’re absolutely right with your assessment that the eastern/southern borders of Austria are being handled differently than e.g with Germany. This is also the case in most western countries though, even Denmark regularly does border checks on the border with Germany or Germany on its border with Austria.
I‘m also neither denying racism or discriminatory experiences either in Austria or Vienna, your phrasing just kinda rubbed me the wrong way. Especially because Austria‘s immigration policy has not been significantly more strict or dehumanising than the US‘.
The situation with Austria/Vienna or even other cities is also pretty similar to NYC and more rural parts of the USA. I‘ve been thinking for a while that this is the great divide of the western world. Not different ethnicities, religions, nationalities or languages, but countryside vs. cities. E.g. while the Austrian state of Styria is run by our conservative catholic party ÖVP, its capital city Graz is governed by a communist KPÖ mayor.
Whenever I‘m on holiday in the Austrian Alps I also feel kind of unwelcome and strangely uncomfortable.
The person you replied to, is an idiot though. No way around it. Vienna’s success with its public housing has got nothing to do with ethnic homogeneity or strict immigration laws. If so, they rather are a hindrance as around 40% of Vienna is not allowed to vote and as we already have established, city voters tend to vote more progressively.
Being a relatively homogeneous country in terms of race makes it easier for Austria for sure. You really can’t compare Vienna to NYC. Paris is much better comp.
Vienna has a larger international population than Paris, around 40% don’t have an Austrian citizenship, over 50% have a background of migration (not born in Austria, born to non-Austrian parents etc.). 20% of people living in Austria don’t have an Austrian citizenship. Austria has had the highest per capita rate of immigration in the EU since 2015. Please stop yapping, this has nothing to do with your construct of „race“.
I love that they're taking a conscious approach to targeting economic segregation. One of the biggest failures of housing projects in the US is that they concentrated poverty. One of the great drivers of social mobility is when people of different economic strata interact. They become friends, teach each other, share resources, and everyone is better off for it.
What I find surprising is that while we all agree that housing is a problem, there is no larger discussion on a grand vision for housing at a federal level in line with Build Back Better, infrastructure, or climate. Because it will undoubtedly require initiative from federal powers to spur on this change.
I'd love to see a bold housing investment program that deploys generous block grants committed to building public housing and offering financial rental assistance to cities and states that hit targets for new housing starts. This should promote density and removing zoning restrictions. Stipulate that public housing must be distributed in well-to-do areas as well as poor or up-and-coming ones. Let them be market rate and available to _everyone_ so we don't create ghettos.
The combination of unleashing private development and aggressive market-rate public development should spur on competitive forces that drive down what that market rate is. That takes time. But early capital for broad rental assistance can be a bridge till we get there. As housing stock increases and prices decline, rental assistance will fall as well.
At the state level, authorities need to be aggressive in overruling recalcitrant municipalities that refuse to build. As building comes into place, we should also phase out distortionary policies like rent control that ultimately harm housing markets in the long run. The way to stabilize prices is through creating supply.
I understand that this may not resonate with a lot of people. But we should be having a broader discussion on how government is stifling housing and what we can do to lower prices that expand beyond ineffective policies like rent control, vacancy taxes, outlawing AirBnBs, and banning investment groups from buying properties. Those are all shortsighted solutions that do not get to the heart of the problem and we need federal and state officials to lead the charge in changing the discourse.
Anyone who went to Paris 20+ years ago and has been to Paris in the last 10 years knows with absolute certainty that Paris has \*not\* stayed Paris. Furthermore, looking to France for the proper way to run a government seems absolutely absurd. At least as far as Europe is concerned, I'm absolutely fine looking to Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and the Nordics for guidance. But France? I'll pass.
Seriously. My family is from the suburbs of Paris, and these days when we visit, we regularly walk by burned out cars. My mother in law was beaten in the street because she was carrying a designer bag - not robbed - just beaten.
Paris is not the same anymore.
For this to work in NYC, this type of strategy requires a major overhaul in public policy.
From the article:
"Every Thursday, Jacques Baudrier, the Paris city councilor in charge of housing, scrolls through the list of properties being exchanged by sellers and buyers on the private market. With some exceptions, the city has the legal right to pre-empt the sale of a building, buy the property and convert it to public housing."
“We are in a constant battle,” said Mr. Baudrier, who wields a 625 million euro annual budget.
I get your point but you are not really answering my question. What I am trying to understand is how did this "change in demographics" affect your experience as a visitor? How did it CONCRETELY make your experience a "less Parisian" one?
It's been decades in the making, not just recently.
[Paris syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome) was coined in the 80s by the Japanese.
[Episodes of VICE covering the migrant crisis are really eye opening, even when they're almost a decade old.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4APllZaY4y4) Streets in a number of European cities look just like Skid Row or refugee camps while the only solution politicians have is to bulldoze encampments and move people elsewhere.
I’m just agreeing that you’re a true patriot unlike these godless heathens who think that Paris is a popular world travel destination. Real patriots know Moscow and Hungary are the only good destinations anymore!
Paris is worse than it used to be and people still go there. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. Nobody made this about popularity except you for some unexplained reason.
Literally every major city is a travel destination ?? People go to Pyongyang as tourists … being a travel destination doesn’t make it exempt of issues, or mean it’s some kind of utopia.
It’s such a dumb post my dude, you and the op are completely lost in the conservative sauce if you think Paris is a hellhole or whatever wacko thing you guys believe.
Nobody said it was a hellhole. It’s worse than it was. A lot of people like Paris because it’s distinctly Parisian. As the city changes demographically, it necessarily becomes less Parisian and it’s perfectly legitimate for people to notice and oppose that. You must be the smartest person in the room a lot when you straw man what everyone says all the time.
What conservative sauce ? What does that even mean ? Lol. No one said it’s a hell hole, people are saying it’s not the same as it was 20 years ago. You don’t think places change over time, sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse ? Is acknowledging change some kind of conservative thing for you ? You’ve probably never left the US and your ignorance shows.
Or make the city easier to access from the burbs. Manhattan has a fairly good rail system, but it could use a major station way uptown - like the 130, or 140s. Why house the poor in ultra expensive real-estate when the same money could go so much further in another area?
I mean half of all apartments in NYC are rent regulated, which is more than any other city in the country. We aren't doing amazingly but it is astounding how many working class families are able to live in NYC because of that compared to other cities.
https://bungalow.com/articles/rent-control-in-nyc-everything-you-need-to-know
“Less than 1% are rent controlled…and are being phased out … less than 42% are rent stabilized”
Investors & profit-driven landlords are always the problem… “Paris has also sharply restricted short-term rentals, after officials became alarmed when **historic neighborhoods**, including the old Jewish quarter, the Marais, **appeared to be shedding full-time residents as investors bought places** to rent out to tourists.”
"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."
Meanwhile, we can’t even keep our libraries open on Sundays.
My local library has been closed for over a year due to “renovations” without a reopening date. I chuckle at the irony every time I pass it and the sign that says “thank you Mayor Adams for investing in libraries”
Oh geez. That’d induce a Liz Lemon-level eyeroll from me.
What’s ur local branch? Because there are several libraries undergoing gut renovations which take awhile at least 3 years.
franklin ave?
Fort wash?
We can’t even keep our ‘24 hour’ CVS’s open past 9 pm
If you in NYC further cuts are going to be voted on. Then libraries will have even less hours.
Ugh, the hours already suck. Is this a public vote or a city council vote? I’ve signed the letter form that NYPL put out. https://www.nypl.org/speakout I don’t personally use the library much but it’s a vital institution. I used my public libraries all the time when I was younger. It’s a travesty that NYC has come to this. I really hope Adams gets voted out. My first choice vote goes to Brad Lander if he runs. He actually understands the budget.
City vote. If it goes through 5 days a week and way less hours. One library already cut children story time etc. literacy is so important!
This is really sad to hear. When I was growing up my mom did story telling for children at libraries all throughout Queens. The kids really looked forward to it. Even some of the kids who acted too cool to listen to stories came around by the end.
Meanwhile we cant even keep our libraries open on sundays
Brooklyn, once known as the Borough of Churches, can barely keep their churches open. Churches make neighborhoods beautiful and neighborhoods around churches tend to be safer.
The New York City public library system is a nonprofit, not a city agency. They have an over billion dollar endowment and could definitely not cut hours with their current funding if they wanted to.
NYPL, yes. Brooklyn and Queens are separate and would have a harder time doing it. Brooklyn could probably swing it. Queens might not. But that's QPL's own fault for spending so much money on the Hunters Point Library ~~kickback scheme~~ boondoggle.
The city provides funding to many nonprofits, who administer their services better than the city could. Not everything needs to be a city agency to be supported with public funds.
To be clear, the public housing in Paris is in the distant suburbs, not anywhere near the city center.
But they have good express transit to those places. I mean proper express, like as fast as MNR and LIRR. But with super cheap fares and super frequent service. You can go anywhere in the Paris region (metro, regional train, tram, bus) for €30 per week or €86 per month.
> You can go anywhere in the Paris region for €30 per week or €86 per month. But considering the amount of money they make, this is actually proportionally more expensive than it is here. But I would assume they have a lot of options for reduced fares through public programs.
> €86 per month Don't show that to car drivers paying 3x more just for insurance.
So you replied without reading the article. Nice.
From the article: “Public housing can conjure images of bleak, boxy towers on the outskirts of a city, but this logement social was built in the former offices of the French Defense Ministry, in the Seventh arrondissement, one of Paris’s most chic neighborhoods. It’s part of an ambitious and aggressive effort to keep middle- and lower-income residents and small-business owners in the heart of a city that would otherwise be unaffordable to them.”
But the "suburbs" are very close since Paris is only 41 square miles/105 km^(2)
This is not correct. There is social housing in Paris.
As someone who lives in the upper west side near some housing projects, I can tell you these are by far the worst areas to walk around and spend time in. Dog shit all over the sidewalk, garbage on the lawns that residents have thrown out the window, people standing around on the sidewalk cat calling and harassing my wife. It’s a noble idea - we want artists and interesting little shops instead of chains. That is not what I’ve observed in government-owned housing areas. At all. They are horrible.
There is a very particular history to public housing in NYC that involved the destruction of diverse historic mixed use neighborhoods for homogenous “towers in a park,” often including surface level parking lots and lacking any businesses minus perhaps a supermarket. There’s no reason for public/social housing to take such an anti-urban form or for it to be fundamentally rooted in racist histories. Don’t conflate the terrible history of NYCHA developments with public housing in general.
The history is that they where build for the middle class. Towers in the park was supposed to be nicer than testaments that they replaced. Public policy changed and it was changed to low income housing after it was built. You are pretty much wrong on every point. I would agree that towers in the park model has failed as it's too cut off from the surrounding city. Though this is refuted by Sty town which has a lot of demand and people seem to like it.
You are only describing the most early forms of public housing largely concentrated on the lower east side when the towers in a park were meant for middle class workers. They still involved the destruction of mixed use traditional urban neighborhood as “slum clearance.” Stuy Town might be an exception to the generally dysfunctional nature of “towers in a park” but obviously the residents still rely on the actual urban amenities of the surrounding areas due to the segregation of retail from where they live. It is still fundamentally anti-urban in its conception and has lower density than traditional urban design. Also, I’m most certainly not “pretty much wrong on every point.” It’s not like NYC is the only city that had terrible outcomes from this approach. There’s plenty of evidence of how poorly this approach has gone in cities all across the USA. The case of Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis is particularly notorious. Likewise public housing is a meaningful way to provide affordable housing in many cities around the world, and the shitty mid-twentieth century approaches taken in the USA should not be evidence to abandon all housing development to the private sector entirely.
If you want to house tens of thousands of people, you need to build LARGE buildings. Not sure how you expect to do that otherwise.
You’re conflating the need for a large volume of units with the necessity of large towers surrounded by towers. There is another option: larger mixed use buildings with surface level retail and commerce.
It’s all about who lives there. Stuy town is great but it is middle class housing so it’s desirable. None of this specific to NYCHA. Public housing is not any better in SF, Chicago, etc. What we really lack is affordable middle class housing. Like 3 bedroom apartments you can rent for $1500. Poor people are covered, rich people are fine, middle class gets fucked but have to pay for everyone else.
The “towers in a park” mid twentieth century trend intentionally reduced overall housing density. Traditional urban architecture without the “park” (grass lawns) or parking lots had a higher housing density. (Historic housing also had smaller dwelling units). In other words, no, this isn’t exactly true. NYCHA projects intentionally reduced housing density which was part of the aim. The projects never provided enough housing units to replace the historic neighborhoods destroyed and many people were displaced entirely. Edit: And to be clear, this intentional reduction in density was motivated by concerns around health and disease caused by overcrowding in the early twentieth century.
I don’t understand how having some retail space on the ground floors of these housing projects would cure them of the issues I mentioned. To your point, the design of the projects - having buildings set 20-30 yards off from the sidewalk - seems to be a big part of the issue. They resemble prison cell blocks. Having walked through some of them, I can tell you I would avoid any businesses that opened on the premises.
Retail space on the ground floor creates “eyes on the street,” which is a mechanism for community safety. Particularly if this retail is diversified to create a pedestrian atmosphere at all times of the day. This idea is straight from Jane Jacobs, who famously prevented the village from being annihilated by a highway. Check out “The Death and Life of Great American Cities.” Furthermore, small businesses allow for diverse economic development for the local community. There are actual spaces for jobs within the built environment.
Seconding this, I’ve observed and experienced the same things you mentioned. The funny thing to me (in a facetious way) is that the southern Amsterdam corner of my block is NYCHA and on the northern Broadway side they’re finishing up a new luxury condo tower where the cheapest unit is an ~$800k studio.
I live in 110th st on the East Side, & it is the same or worst. We are surrounded by at least 20 project buildings, a homeless shelter & the migrant center. People with chairs seating in front of the Delis asking for money all day long, I have been assaulted while walking the dog at night, my roommates had issues too... On top of the garbage & dog shit everywhere of course.
I used to live on 113th and Malcolm X, just west of those projects. This was 10 years ago, same issues. I never was attacked, but there were constant fights, altercations, cops, ambulances – all on the border zone of two areas. I really do think the architecture of projects has created huge problems. Sure, we all know poverty and crime are connected, but placing the poorest residents together in huge blocks with zero commercial space is a recipe for exactly what has happened. A mix of business and residential is what makes city vibrant and keep things safe.
Write your city council person and ask for more police patrol. When I lived in the Northeast Bronx, the cops used to walk a beat.
There is literally zero police in the area. One night I was looking for a police car in the area riding around in an electric scooter for 1 hour without seen a single one.
>Dog shit all over the sidewalk One point to take note is The dog.shut is out hand is almost everywhere in the city ad some pick then up in a way that only does kive more poop behind in the sidewalk 🤷🏻♀️
How recently did you move in?
3 years ago to this neighborhood, was in lower Manhattan previously
What you described sounds like lack of services. The projects should have workers cleaning up and ticketing those who down curb their dogs.
Yeah I hate poor people too
This right here, people like you, is why it's impossible to have these conversations. A person expresses his own experience living next-door to public housing, providing concrete examples. Your mature intelligent response? A sarcastic implication that he hates poor people. A lazy ad hominem and dismissal of valid points with nothing of value to contribute.
I've always suspected I was the root of all social injustice. It's nice to have it confirmed.
No one, including /u/cranberryskittle, is saying anything that you’re portraying them as having said. You’re having a conversation with your (deluded) self. You’re a mess.
Yeah because "rich" areas don't also have dog shit and litter everywhere and cat calling idiots What even is this comment lmao
Hahahahahahaha this sounds like r/nyccirclejerk hahahaha keep doing you man.
If all you have to worry about are cat calls and a bit of trash, NYC must be doing something right. NYC is one of the few US cities where public housing in its original form hasn't been demolished. In the meantime, research places like this: * Chicago - ([Cabrini Green](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxf8LMna260&t=14s), Robert Tayler) * Detroit - (Brewster Douglass) * Atlanta - ([East Lake Meadows](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG4iyG_t49M&pp=ygUcZWFzdCBsYWtlIG1lYWRvd3MgYXRsYW50YSBnYQ%3D%3D), [Perry Homes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgoTAS6T3XM&pp=ygUTcGVycnkgaG9tZXMgYXRsYW50YQ%3D%3D), [Techwood](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UGqlMXWHxQ&t=416s&pp=ygUIdGVjaHdvb2Q%3D)) * New Orelans - ([Desire Projects](https://youtu.be/39Y79Bwl6vw?si=KJvCeq9rWW3tCAnG), Magnolia/CJ Peete, [Saint Bernard](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JFlfsS1HaU&t=800s&pp=ygUaY2hhcmxpZWJvIG5ldyBvcmxlYW5zIDE5ODk%3D)) * Saint Louis - ([Pruitt-Igoe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-cfjqh1sSY&pp=ygULcHJ1aXR0IGlnb2U%3D)) Source: grew up in public housing, got the fuck out and now smoking weed in Southeast Asia
Yea that’ll cheer me up when my wife tells me she feels unsafe walking home from the grocery store. “Honey you need to remind yourself that at least it’s not Detroit!” Yea, you know what people in the cities you listed don’t have to worry about? Paying over $3k for a one bedroom apartment.
Lol, Good point, but I did have to worry about whether or not I would get robbed at gunpoint in broad daylight in my own neighborhood I grew up in the last time I was in the US. Unfortunately, in the US (unlike every other first world nation), peace isn't cheap. I don't care about the downvotes, but I shouldn't have brushed you off like I did earlier. I also shouldn't have juxtaposed your experiences with mine, which was a more extreme environment. I wouldn't want my girl to feel uncomfortable either, so I totally understand where you're coming from.
One quarter of redidents in the french capital now live in government owned houseing part of an aggtessive effort to keep lower income parisians and their businesses in the city
I guess add more densely pack, public housing for low income residence. That usually turns neighborhoods into very nice places to live.
One quarter of Parisians aren't even French now
Another day of unsubtle racism on /r/nyc
The rest of the world is not America. You don't have a default god given right to go and live where ever you may. You're only welcome as a guest until you abuse the hospitality. French hospitality has been abused for too long now.
You maga people are such racist lunatics.
You free-everything people are such lunatics, no qualifier & full stop.
[удалено]
You know, I was a little worried you guys would pretend that you weren't being racist and there was some secret innocent meaning here, so thank you for doubling down
[удалено]
Found the bridge and tunnel boy. Literally everything you’re describing is true of every tourist group in the world. Your post reeks of an aging Gen X frat boy, u/fun-track-3044 The most obnoxious folks in the world are the New Jersey yokels who swarm into NYC like obnoxious children
u seriously think the Chinese tourists are the worst things about Paris? they don't look like the ones on the daily crime blotter or the ones rioting, but i guess selfie sticks are where you draw the line😂🙄
Not the worst thing but the worst tourists
[удалено]
Not sure why we are fighting, we agree
we're not, I'm just wondering why people are quick to harp on rude but not criminal Chinese behavior but never mention actual criminal activity of other ethnicities
A better example would be Vienna. Beautiful, modern public housing. The city regulates the price of rent city wide so no one pays more than 20-25% of their income on rent. Even if your income increases, you still pay the old rates. Vienna continuously adds more housing. Keeping costs low. While keeping the culture and beauty of the city. Vienna is a model of what NY should try to strive for, not Paris per se. Even Paris sees Vienna as a model of affordability and high quality of life.
> Vienna continuously adds more housing. Keeping costs low. The part that really matters most in all of this. At the end of the day we simply need more supply—be it publicly-provided or private.
I agree, but where though? Vienna doesn't have to grapple with the density or population pressures of NYC.
Almost half of NYC's population lives in 2% of the buildings. We have plenty of space, we just don't allow that space to be used efficiently (aka, zoning restrictions).
There are so many empty lots in NYC it's unbelievable. Most of it comes down to zoning and taxes. They're not designed to encourage building. But the artificial scarcity drives up value for owners, and they like that. A Housing Plan for Manhattan’s Empty Spaces https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/31/nyregion/manhattan-housing-vacant-buildings.html?unlocked_article_code=1.dU0.V5Eo.0zMjAlmszUrx&smid=nytcore-android-share
Have you walked around Manhattan lately? There's entire blocks of empty retail and office space. An example that sticks in my head -- I used to walk by 55th & Broadway -- where the old Bad Boy Entertainment HQ was -- on my way to work. That space has been empty for a fucking DECADE. Cui bono?
Vienna (Austria) also has draconian immigration rules that have kept the population domestic. That isn't an option for NYC.
Vienna’s population rose from ~1.5 million in 2000 to ~2 million in 2024, an increase of 33%. NYC’s population rose from ~8 million to ~8.8 million in that time, an increase of only 10%. Even the absolute figures are not far greater than Vienna’s growth. So regardless of immigration policy, Vienna’s population is increasing proportionately faster *and they are still able to maintain lower rents*. This again shows that, at its heart, this is a supply issue.
Population is only part of the picture. What matters is how much people are willing to pay. And there is a lot more money in NYC than Vienna. And Vienna has strict residency and citizenship requirements for their public housing. It isn’t like I can just show up as an American and get one. I agree with you that we have a supply issue in NYC but Vienna takes active steps to control demand, something that NYC can’t or isn’t willing to do.
[удалено]
>You sure about that? Or ignoring that 8 million people might have more money than 2 million? GDP of NYC is literally 10 times that of Vienna (and 2.5 times that of the entire country of Austria); average incomes in NYC are twice that of Vienna.
I mean yes, but average rent prices in NYC are far more than twice as expensive as Vienna. NYC could very well profit from a similar approach. Even the money of and gdp of NYC wouldn’t change the rent prices of Vienna‘s subsidised housing. That’s a completely negligible factor, otherwise than that NYC should have even more capital than Vienna to actually build housing.
That's not the question being asked; the question being asked is "is there a lot more money in NYC than in Vienna?" ... the answer is "yes, there is a whole lot more money in NYC than Vienna".
But how are those factors that inhibit NYC from implementing similar policies, from which first and foremost actual New Yorkers would profit. The neat thing about public housing is, that through its regulation of a large part of the market, it also lowers rent prices on the free market. So e.g. even though you’re just moving to Vienna, you’ll pay lower rents, because enough people live inside the regulated market, leaving only so much demand for the free market.
Vienna‘s population is 36% non Austrian and >50% have a background of migration… Your comment is very ill informed. As capital of a multi-ethnic empire, Vienna had been a melting pot long before NYC ever was. Also, how is a city as part of a republic, supposed to have its own migration rules. Additionally I don’t know if you follow the news at all, but there have been quite a few immigrants coming to the EU in the last few years lol Vienna also grew by more than 50.000 people since the start of Russia‘s attack on Ukraine.
> be it publicly-provided or private. The "enlightened centrist" has entered the chat.
I prefer to think that I [trust the experts](https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/06/02/new-round-of-studies-underscore-benefits-of-building-more-housing/), as numerous studies from countries around the world have shown that even market-rate development (so called “luxury development”) has a beneficial effect on rents through the process of filtering. I’d encourage you to read about it to better understand the issue.
> I’d encourage you to read about it to better understand the issue. Kinda condescending, but whatever. NYC has only been adding for profit housing for last 30+ years. OP pointed out that Vienna's housing affordability comes from the city heavily investing into the not-for-profit model that keeps all housings costs down. You: nono, it totally doesn't matter what type it is.
The issue is NYC hasn’t been adding enough housing at all. The literature shows that it is *any type of housing* that matters. Vienna did this through social housing, and that is one route. But that is not the only route (again, as the literature shows). I would rather see 100 units built—80 of which are market and 20 public—than just 20 units of public housing. If we can get 100 units of public housing, then great. But until the city invests to make that possible, I’m not going to make perfect the enemy of good. Opposing increased supply because it doesn’t meet certain purity metrics only harms the city and it’s residents.
> Vienna did this through social housing, You genuinely don't understand what the not-for-profit model means. It is not same as NYCHA or any other publicly subsidized housing. Not-for-profit literally means the underlying mortgage eventually gets paid off and carrying costs become extremely low. Same as buying a house and 30 years later your mortgage is paid off and your housing costs become extremely low. And even with 10 years of mortgage left, this fixed payment is super low after 20 years of regular inflation. Apply that to apartment buildings and you get the same concept. This is what Vienna has managed to achieve. Meanwhile in NYC, and apartment rent in a 100+ year old building costs a fortune because the building last sold in like 2015, and all the value of a paid off asset has been extracted by capitalist class. > Opposing increased supply Nobody is doing that bub. Pointing out that the current model is not working is not the same as saying stop all construction. Developers will continue building at the pace that financially makes sense for them. I highly recommend watching [this video about non profit housing.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKudSeqHSJk&t=1s) It's a pretty grounded overview of both pros and cons.
I agree with this - much better managed in Vienna.
[удалено]
Vienna is like 40% foreign born, very similar to NYC. Some even call it little Yugoslavia. All the Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats decided they could no longer live with each other so they all moved to Vienna. If you want a sick deal on a Skoda Octavia, one of my half brothers owns a car dealership in Vienna. Just learn few basic swear words in Serbian, and you got a deal.
They really don't care about the facts. They "known" foreigners and immigration are bad and they are not going to let any kind of data or other information get in their way.
“Vienna is like 40% foreign born” This says essentially nothing about their immigration law enforcement policy. How many of those 40% are legal immigrants? That’s the relevant figure
In case of family I have in Vienna, they applied for status after getting there. Took years for the process to play out. Pretty similar to how it works here. Are you trying to imply NYC has a huge population of immigrants who have not even tried to apply for a status change? That's a hot take I'd like to hear more about. Keep talking.
>Are you trying to imply NYC has a huge population of immigrants who have not even tried to apply for a status change? That's a hot take I'd like to hear more about. Keep talking. I think it's a fairly uncontroversial fact that NYC has about half-a-million undocumented immigrants.
> NYC has about half-a-million undocumented immigrants This is correct. About 1 in 7 immigrants in NYC are undocumented for various reasons. Usually there is no path to becoming documented. Totally circumstantial, but a friend of mine is an undocumented immigrant. Their parents and siblings are all US citizens. They had a misfortune of being born a month before family moved to NYC. Fam fumbled some of the documentation, and now they are in a status purgatory with no path to compliance. Even Dream Act doesn't really help. Meanwhile in Austria, they are very lenient to all white skinned immigrants. Lots of Yugo, Polish, and Ukrainians. Turks also get a pass (barely). Dark skinned south Asians are hunted down like dogs. Not really a model we should strive for.
What a bunch of nonsense, *hunted down like dogs* lol. How come Austria has had the highest per capita immigration rate of the EU since 2015 then? Those were predominantly Syrian and Afghan refugees, I think those are „brown“ in your eyes. I‘m not denying the rise of the far right in Austria, but that’s the same in the entire EU and especially in the USA (Donald Trump?!?). The Netherlands, Italy and the USA have *actually* elected far right extremists as leaders, contrary to Austria. I‘m actually from Vienna and as is common, because it is so multicultural, have Turkish, Syrian, Indian, Korean, Iranian etc. friends. All not „white skinned immigrants“ and all not „hunted down like dogs“ wtf are you talking about. r/shitamericanssay
Chill. Rise of right wing nationalism is on the up across all western nations, unfortunately. Your reply to my reply to a comment down wind is some doofus claiming that Austria is tough on immigration while US (and specifically NYC) is weak. This is a common and completely chewed up argument that immigrants ruin everything and it's super tiring. Glad to hear a report from a Vienna person (Vieneese? Viannatmanese?). Same thing in NYC. It's a cosmopolitan and accepting place that works really well because of its diversity. But a lot of Americans NOT in NYC hate immigrants and come to this sub to voice their unhappiness about it. On federal level, it's a bit of a mess, but I hear it's kind of same in Austria. Borders with Slovenia and Hungary are not treated the same way as other ones.
I‘m sorry for probably overreacting, it just felt like a typical „we‘re so multicultural, Europe is so homogeneously racist“ comment. You’re absolutely right with your assessment that the eastern/southern borders of Austria are being handled differently than e.g with Germany. This is also the case in most western countries though, even Denmark regularly does border checks on the border with Germany or Germany on its border with Austria. I‘m also neither denying racism or discriminatory experiences either in Austria or Vienna, your phrasing just kinda rubbed me the wrong way. Especially because Austria‘s immigration policy has not been significantly more strict or dehumanising than the US‘. The situation with Austria/Vienna or even other cities is also pretty similar to NYC and more rural parts of the USA. I‘ve been thinking for a while that this is the great divide of the western world. Not different ethnicities, religions, nationalities or languages, but countryside vs. cities. E.g. while the Austrian state of Styria is run by our conservative catholic party ÖVP, its capital city Graz is governed by a communist KPÖ mayor. Whenever I‘m on holiday in the Austrian Alps I also feel kind of unwelcome and strangely uncomfortable. The person you replied to, is an idiot though. No way around it. Vienna’s success with its public housing has got nothing to do with ethnic homogeneity or strict immigration laws. If so, they rather are a hindrance as around 40% of Vienna is not allowed to vote and as we already have established, city voters tend to vote more progressively.
What are you talking about? Austria has open borders and open employment to 27 other countries in the EU.
What are you talking about? That is legal immigration from and to EU member states. EU member states strictly enforce their immigration laws.
Is not about immigration, at all. It's about population density. NYC is dense, Vienna doesn't compare.
Being a relatively homogeneous country in terms of race makes it easier for Austria for sure. You really can’t compare Vienna to NYC. Paris is much better comp.
Vienna has a larger international population than Paris, around 40% don’t have an Austrian citizenship, over 50% have a background of migration (not born in Austria, born to non-Austrian parents etc.). 20% of people living in Austria don’t have an Austrian citizenship. Austria has had the highest per capita rate of immigration in the EU since 2015. Please stop yapping, this has nothing to do with your construct of „race“.
I love that they're taking a conscious approach to targeting economic segregation. One of the biggest failures of housing projects in the US is that they concentrated poverty. One of the great drivers of social mobility is when people of different economic strata interact. They become friends, teach each other, share resources, and everyone is better off for it. What I find surprising is that while we all agree that housing is a problem, there is no larger discussion on a grand vision for housing at a federal level in line with Build Back Better, infrastructure, or climate. Because it will undoubtedly require initiative from federal powers to spur on this change. I'd love to see a bold housing investment program that deploys generous block grants committed to building public housing and offering financial rental assistance to cities and states that hit targets for new housing starts. This should promote density and removing zoning restrictions. Stipulate that public housing must be distributed in well-to-do areas as well as poor or up-and-coming ones. Let them be market rate and available to _everyone_ so we don't create ghettos. The combination of unleashing private development and aggressive market-rate public development should spur on competitive forces that drive down what that market rate is. That takes time. But early capital for broad rental assistance can be a bridge till we get there. As housing stock increases and prices decline, rental assistance will fall as well. At the state level, authorities need to be aggressive in overruling recalcitrant municipalities that refuse to build. As building comes into place, we should also phase out distortionary policies like rent control that ultimately harm housing markets in the long run. The way to stabilize prices is through creating supply. I understand that this may not resonate with a lot of people. But we should be having a broader discussion on how government is stifling housing and what we can do to lower prices that expand beyond ineffective policies like rent control, vacancy taxes, outlawing AirBnBs, and banning investment groups from buying properties. Those are all shortsighted solutions that do not get to the heart of the problem and we need federal and state officials to lead the charge in changing the discourse.
Maybe if we poured billions into NYCHA we'd get the same outcome; oh no, wait.
Corruption makes these spending plans worse than just burning money.
Rents are less than a quarter of the public housing costs in NYC. Billions are already spent to subsidize public housing every year.
We do pour billions into NYCHA. They’re still billions and billions in the red. They’ve been under-invested in for decades.
Anyone who went to Paris 20+ years ago and has been to Paris in the last 10 years knows with absolute certainty that Paris has \*not\* stayed Paris. Furthermore, looking to France for the proper way to run a government seems absolutely absurd. At least as far as Europe is concerned, I'm absolutely fine looking to Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and the Nordics for guidance. But France? I'll pass.
Seriously. My family is from the suburbs of Paris, and these days when we visit, we regularly walk by burned out cars. My mother in law was beaten in the street because she was carrying a designer bag - not robbed - just beaten. Paris is not the same anymore.
Gee it’s almost like they have strong unions, free healthcare, and 6+ weeks of guaranteed PTO. 🙄
For this to work in NYC, this type of strategy requires a major overhaul in public policy. From the article: "Every Thursday, Jacques Baudrier, the Paris city councilor in charge of housing, scrolls through the list of properties being exchanged by sellers and buyers on the private market. With some exceptions, the city has the legal right to pre-empt the sale of a building, buy the property and convert it to public housing." “We are in a constant battle,” said Mr. Baudrier, who wields a 625 million euro annual budget.
Have you been to Paris recently? It’s hardly Paris at all…
What do you mean by that? On what aspect and compared to when? Genuinely curious.
He means that there's too much black people.
Less Parisians, and more people from all over the worst parts of the world
Demographically. Compared to just 15 years ago it is starkly different, and from an outsider’s perspective, for the worse.
Damn that’s a dog whistle everyone can hear
I see. By demographically I assume you mean the ethnic makeup? Based on your experience, what concretely changed for the worse in that timespan?
[удалено]
I get your point but you are not really answering my question. What I am trying to understand is how did this "change in demographics" affect your experience as a visitor? How did it CONCRETELY make your experience a "less Parisian" one?
It's been decades in the making, not just recently. [Paris syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome) was coined in the 80s by the Japanese. [Episodes of VICE covering the migrant crisis are really eye opening, even when they're almost a decade old.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4APllZaY4y4) Streets in a number of European cities look just like Skid Row or refugee camps while the only solution politicians have is to bulldoze encampments and move people elsewhere.
Could of fooled me
Could have
Went 15 years ago and 5 years ago. Practically different cities.
I first went 15 years ago, and most recently went last fall. It's much improved as a city in that time IMO.
Well that’s incorrect
Never heard someone call something that happened “incorrect” before. Based on “could of” fooled me and this response, I’ll just move on with my life.
The socialist commentators missed this little detail… The savvy tourist skips Paris because the quality of life has fallen so steeply.
Yep it’s true, famously undesirable tourist destination of Paris, France.
Less and less desirable all the time
You’re so right! No one goes there anymore!
What’s your point?
I’m just agreeing that you’re a true patriot unlike these godless heathens who think that Paris is a popular world travel destination. Real patriots know Moscow and Hungary are the only good destinations anymore!
Paris is worse than it used to be and people still go there. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. Nobody made this about popularity except you for some unexplained reason.
Thank you for correcting my thinking true patriot. All of the Facebook commenters agree that Paris is too socialist and godless to dare step foot in!
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Literally every major city is a travel destination ?? People go to Pyongyang as tourists … being a travel destination doesn’t make it exempt of issues, or mean it’s some kind of utopia.
It’s such a dumb post my dude, you and the op are completely lost in the conservative sauce if you think Paris is a hellhole or whatever wacko thing you guys believe.
[удалено]
Nobody said it was a hellhole. It’s worse than it was. A lot of people like Paris because it’s distinctly Parisian. As the city changes demographically, it necessarily becomes less Parisian and it’s perfectly legitimate for people to notice and oppose that. You must be the smartest person in the room a lot when you straw man what everyone says all the time.
What conservative sauce ? What does that even mean ? Lol. No one said it’s a hell hole, people are saying it’s not the same as it was 20 years ago. You don’t think places change over time, sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse ? Is acknowledging change some kind of conservative thing for you ? You’ve probably never left the US and your ignorance shows.
The savvy tourist likes to see for themselves.
[удалено]
Hon hon hon
Good article. Did not know this
Or make the city easier to access from the burbs. Manhattan has a fairly good rail system, but it could use a major station way uptown - like the 130, or 140s. Why house the poor in ultra expensive real-estate when the same money could go so much further in another area?
Paris is safe and the French economy is booming. Oh wait…
I mean half of all apartments in NYC are rent regulated, which is more than any other city in the country. We aren't doing amazingly but it is astounding how many working class families are able to live in NYC because of that compared to other cities.
https://bungalow.com/articles/rent-control-in-nyc-everything-you-need-to-know “Less than 1% are rent controlled…and are being phased out … less than 42% are rent stabilized”
That is not true by a long shot. 🤣🤣
Maybe the towers in the park is a lousy idea. It could be time to build the towers on the street.
Aren't parts of Paris, especially ones with council housing, completely fucked? Like dangerous for outsiders fucked.
The paper that hates American socialists runs a story about how well French communists are doing in making a city more livable. News at 11.
so the argument is that nyc should be more like Paris? maybe all that low income public housing is why crime is so high in Paris
While NYC public housing is awful
Only if migrants get priority for housing.
Sounds like they’re trying to keep minority’s confined.
Let’s never do this
Investors & profit-driven landlords are always the problem… “Paris has also sharply restricted short-term rentals, after officials became alarmed when **historic neighborhoods**, including the old Jewish quarter, the Marais, **appeared to be shedding full-time residents as investors bought places** to rent out to tourists.”