HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2014, 1:47 PM
Minato Ku's Avatar
Minato Ku Minato Ku is offline
Tokyo and Paris fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Paris, Montrouge
Posts: 4,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Sure, in theory the landlord can sell to somebody else, but what makes you think the Government will let that happen? I can easily see a scenario playing out where private landlords get abused by this system. Governments have a tendency to do this.
Fortunately, there are laws, governments can't do anything they want.
They can't deprive the owners without compensation to the height of prejudice and in this case, they can't force owner to sell.
City government will have to pay at market price or the owners would refuse to sell.

As I said earlier, it is a lot of noise for something that will have few effect, this will add few social housing but nothing more and this will be expensive for the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2014, 2:50 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023 View Post
There's a height limit.
Considering that apartment buildings in Paris have 6 floors on average, adding just one floor to all apartment buildings could potential house 365,000 new people (2.2 million / 6).
__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2014, 2:51 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minato Ku View Post
Fortunately, there are laws, governments can't do anything they want.
They can't deprive the owners without compensation to the height of prejudice and in this case, they can't force owner to sell.
City government will have to pay at market price or the owners would refuse to sell.
Is eminent domain not allowed?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2014, 2:52 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I think most would prefer Paris become a "golden ghetto" as opposed to wrecking the urban form.
The urban form has been wrecked long ago already.

What Paris needs is more 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12-floor buildings.
__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2014, 2:59 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Accessibility in the historically poor suburbs is only going to get better, which puts into question the sense of these moves to preserve a affordable housing in the core.
The sense of these moves is the absurdly outdated borders of the City of Paris over which the mayor has authority. It's as if NYC had never been administratively expanded beyond Manhattan.

So you know, the mayor of Paris is always like a hamster in its little wheel. Always needing to do something to justify his/her office, in a territory that makes no sense whatsoever. This is the great tragedy of Paris.

Only a new world war or a major financial meltdown (à la Greece) could force them to finally enlarge Paris administratively.

The most absurd thing is when the mayor of Paris tries to control pollution within his/her small territory, with no cooperation and in fact total disregard for the large urban chunks that lie beyond the administrative borders of the city. As if pollution stopped at administrative borders.
__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2014, 4:24 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Reducing local pollution will also tend to reduce overall pollution. Seems logical.

Add a floor to existing buildings? You know that's not plausible on a large scale, right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2014, 6:11 PM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
Reducing local pollution will also tend to reduce overall pollution. Seems logical.
When you block traffic on the specially built riverside expressways of Central Paris without consultation with the neighboring municipalities, just to satisfy the rich people who live in the center of the city, and you thus force car traffic to divert to congested small streets in the inner suburbs, you increase pollution, you don't reduce it.
__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2014, 7:16 PM
Minato Ku's Avatar
Minato Ku Minato Ku is offline
Tokyo and Paris fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Paris, Montrouge
Posts: 4,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
So you know, the mayor of Paris is always like a hamster in its little wheel. Always needing to do something to justify his/her office, in a territory that makes no sense whatsoever. This is the great tragedy of Paris.
Indeed, all these absurd laws are good examples of this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2014, 8:33 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
When you block traffic on the specially built riverside expressways of Central Paris without consultation with the neighboring municipalities, just to satisfy the rich people who live in the center of the city, and you thus force car traffic to divert to congested small streets in the inner suburbs, you increase pollution, you don't reduce it.
Depends on whether the outcome is less driving or more sprawl and more driving. I don't know the situation, and probably wouldn't recommend that for my city, but it seems likely to result in less driving.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2014, 9:01 PM
Ch.G, Ch.G's Avatar
Ch.G, Ch.G Ch.G, Ch.G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
Considering that apartment buildings in Paris have 6 floors on average, adding just one floor to all apartment buildings could potential house 365,000 new people (2.2 million / 6).
I was thinking about this. Why not incrementally reduce height restrictions over a number of years? The result would be a skyline defined by gentle undulations rather than the stark extremes (à la Montparnasse) that most people fear.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2014, 10:05 PM
Ch.G, Ch.G's Avatar
Ch.G, Ch.G Ch.G, Ch.G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Inclusionary zoning approaches like Chicago or New York just put the costs directly onto developers and stunt the growth of housing. They carry an implicit policy that the housing occupied by poor people should be equal in quality and location to the housing occupied by wealthier people... I find this very troubling. Housing may be a "human right" but the poor classes should have to live in older/smaller/less valuable housing than wealthy people, just as the middle class does.
Ugh. I hate this/find this very troubling as well. At the risk of sounding like a right-wing caricature, I will add that I think it's also very un-American. The micro-apartment trend (well, "trend") is perfectly illustrative. A lot of folks on the left decry it because they claim compact spaces are inhumane, a pretty fucking classist value judgment: It's perfectly fine when you willfully subject yourself to dorm room living for four years on your parents' dime in the name of higher education, but it's unacceptable for the relatively poorer to prioritize, say, a centralized location over extra living space to save time/money on their commute? (You're allowed that kind of agency; they're not?) But their preferred outcome--large units for everyone!--is an obvious nonstarter. So the cobbled together compromise solution we're left with still privileges one group--the poorest--over others--the poor--restricting the latter's access even more and, in fact, perversely disincentivizing financial success for those just above the cut-off. Talk about a moral inversion. Yet this system, in which a token but arbitrary handful of the more destitute are spared at the expense of, among others, the slightly less destitute, is somehow preferable to one that only a hardened Marxist could argue doesn't still have the capacity to reward those who merit it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2014, 10:20 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
Considering that apartment buildings in Paris have 6 floors on average, adding just one floor to all apartment buildings could potential house 365,000 new people (2.2 million / 6).
Right, but that would be incredibly expensive, probably illegal in many cases (issues with fire code and the like), would anger Parisians, would threaten private property ownership, and would harm the streetscape.

Why make Paris uglier to prove some point about economic heterogeneity at the core? Paris has some of the best regional transit on the planet. Nothing wrong with working class people commuting from the periphery; they won't have Mexico City-style three hour hell commutes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2014, 10:22 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Brisavoine View Post
The urban form has been wrecked long ago already.

What Paris needs is more 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12-floor buildings.
This is nonsense. Paris has the best preserved and most beautiful urban core of any megacity on the planet. The last thing Paris needs is more redevelopment of the core. You would destroy the "golden goose".

Paris is probably the most beloved city on the planet. Don't mess with incredible success.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2014, 1:08 AM
Minato Ku's Avatar
Minato Ku Minato Ku is offline
Tokyo and Paris fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Paris, Montrouge
Posts: 4,168
There are plenty buildings above 10 floors in the 11th to 20th arrondissements.
Building more there would not change a lot of thing.
Nobody think about building 12 floors building in the Marais or Quartier Latin but it would pose no real aesthetic problem inside most of city limits.

The City of Paris (not including La Defense and other suburbs) is one of the european city with the highest number of high-rises in Western Europe.
There are more than 50 high-rises above 300 ft in the city proper of Paris, only London (which cover a much larger area and now is more open to high-rises) has more.
Even Frankfurt has less high-rises above 300 ft than the small city proper of Paris.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2014, 2:22 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minato Ku View Post
There are plenty buildings above 10 floors in the 11th to 20th arrondissements.
Building more there would not change a lot of thing.
Nobody think about building 12 floors building in the Marais or Quartier Latin but it would pose no real aesthetic problem inside most of city limits.
IF the debate is only about adding a few floors to the 12th, 13th, 19th, and 20th, then I agree. These are not particularly architecturally significant areas, and yes, there are already many highrises (though I will point out that the highrise sections are generally the ugliest and least desirable parts of Paris).

But the others, generally no, except maybe right at the city limits. Obviously the core is worthy of preservation, and should not undergo major change.

From an outsiders perspective, I don't see the problem. You already have possibly the most beautiful city. You have fantastic transit to the suburbs. It seems that there is no major issue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2014, 3:18 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
Yet this system, in which a token but arbitrary handful of the more destitute are spared at the expense of, among others, the slightly less destitute, is somehow preferable to one that only a hardened Marxist could argue doesn't still have the capacity to reward those who merit it?
If you're interested in a somewhat long and boring read, I'd recommend Blueprint for Disaster, written about the CHA.

Basically this is the story of CHA's colossal failure during the 20th century, spurred in large part by a national and local desire to focus on only the poorest and worst-off Americans. In the minds of conservatives, when it comes to government programs, there is a very fine line between safety net and socialism.

However, when you give special treatment to only the worst-off, you create all kinds of harmful side effects and perverse incentives, sometimes enough to doom the program altogether. Conversely, the most successful government programs are those like Social Security and Medicare that everyone is eligible for.

To get back to the topic at hand: does Paris have these same types of restrictions on micro-units? Most building and zoning codes in first-world cities were liberal responses to the "horror" of the c.1920 slums. Well-meaning regulations that set minimum unit sizes, capped density, ensured open space, access to light and ventilation, etc. Certainly the last time I was in Paris I stayed in a very small 1-bedroom Montmartre apartment with maybe two tiny windows in the whole place, both looking out to a tiny light well. I never felt claustrophobic or unpleasant - if I needed space it was easy to head out to the boulevard.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...

Last edited by ardecila; Dec 24, 2014 at 3:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2014, 3:30 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
However, when you give special treatment to only the worst-off, you create all kinds of harmful side effects and perverse incentives, sometimes enough to doom the program altogether. Conversely, the most successful government programs are those like Social Security and Medicare that everyone is eligible for.
This isn't necessarily true, though. There are many fairly successful public housing programs and many failed ones. I don't think one can make a blanket statement that public housing is a failed idea, even if (in the case of Chicago) it certainly was not a success.

Hong Kong is like half public housing. Singapore has a huge public housing program. Huge proportions of urban units in northern European cities like Stockholm are public housing. Even in the U.S., plenty of cities have semi-decent public housing that remains desirable to this day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2014, 4:04 AM
Dr Nevergold Dr Nevergold is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 20,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
Ugh. I hate this/find this very troubling as well. At the risk of sounding like a right-wing caricature, I will add that I think it's also very un-American. The micro-apartment trend (well, "trend") is perfectly illustrative. A lot of folks on the left decry it because they claim compact spaces are inhumane, a pretty fucking classist value judgment: It's perfectly fine when you willfully subject yourself to dorm room living for four years on your parents' dime in the name of higher education, but it's unacceptable for the relatively poorer to prioritize, say, a centralized location over extra living space to save time/money on their commute? (You're allowed that kind of agency; they're not?) But their preferred outcome--large units for everyone!--is an obvious nonstarter. So the cobbled together compromise solution we're left with still privileges one group--the poorest--over others--the poor--restricting the latter's access even more and, in fact, perversely disincentivizing financial success for those just above the cut-off. Talk about a moral inversion. Yet this system, in which a token but arbitrary handful of the more destitute are spared at the expense of, among others, the slightly less destitute, is somehow preferable to one that only a hardened Marxist could argue doesn't still have the capacity to reward those who merit it?
I consider myself a political moderate, not in the American sense, but in the actual real sense of the phrase. Politics in modern America are shifted far to the right of centrist policies and democratic (small d) policies.

As such, I believe government has a strong role to play in regards to housing and even local governments in terms of zoning for housing.

Government has a responsibility. A democratic, people-responsive responsibility to mandate affordable, clean, livable housing. Not necessarily through direct ownership or construction of buildings, but policies to promote larger units, properly accessible education and infrastructure and transportation services, etc.

I'm not sure if what Paris is doing is the right thing or the wrong thing, but cities and states/nations need to promote limited housing inflation, interest rates on mortgages that discourage profiteering on flipping properties, and many other policies to ensure units are built large enough to live in.

You see a lot of condo units in the 1960's and 70's that were over 1,000 sq ft where average incomes could purchase keep shrinking. Now its common for affordable new units to be 500, 600, maybe 700 sq ft for a barely affordable unit.

I'm not here to say I have a solution, but government owes itself to promote policies to make for larger units with more affordable prices. It doesn't happen when government has complete control and ownership, and it doesn't happen when the market runs amok without any rules or regulations. The answers are more nuanced and the gov't has a strong role to play.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2014, 11:04 AM
New Brisavoine New Brisavoine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Right, but that would be incredibly expensive, probably illegal in many cases (issues with fire code and the like), would anger Parisians, would threaten private property ownership, and would harm the streetscape.
That has already been done in many streets and avenues of the most central areas of Paris, such as Boulevard Haussmann.

For example here, there were 5 floors added to what used to be a 3-floor building (so it's now an 8-floor building):



Or here, in a Medieval area of the most central part of Paris, one to two floors added:



Or here, 3 floors added:



Or here, BEFORE:



AFTER:



Or here, 4 floors added:



Or here, 3 floors:

__________________
New Axa – New Brisavoine
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2014, 5:03 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G View Post
The micro-apartment trend (well, "trend") is perfectly illustrative. A lot of folks on the left decry it because they claim compact spaces are inhumane, a pretty fucking classist value judgment: It's perfectly fine when you willfully subject yourself to dorm room living for four years on your parents' dime in the name of higher education, but it's unacceptable for the relatively poorer to prioritize, say, a centralized location over extra living space to save time/money on their commute? (You're allowed that kind of agency; they're not?) But their preferred outcome--large units for everyone!--is an obvious nonstarter. So the cobbled together compromise solution we're left with still privileges one group--the poorest--over others--the poor--restricting the latter's access even more and, in fact, perversely disincentivizing financial success for those just above the cut-off. Talk about a moral inversion. Yet this system, in which a token but arbitrary handful of the more destitute are spared at the expense of, among others, the slightly less destitute, is somehow preferable to one that only a hardened Marxist could argue doesn't still have the capacity to reward those who merit it?
All of this bears repeating. Great post!
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:50 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.