The 5th plan under de Gaulle was powering up social housing (HLM= Habitat à Loyer Moderé), the goals and the stakes were high.
Under Pompidou, no big changes, still a good economy in France and the usual motto "When construction industry goes on, everything goes on" (Quand le bâtiment va, tout va !).
Giscard is president and we have the first petrol crisis... A high immigration rate, but the big objectives are shifted to the new "villes nouvelles" (middle class residential area), the progress on those "cités ouvrières" ( blue collar districts) was stopped and in most of France, the HLM investments were reduced, the curb was flattening and most of those "social housings" were used by higher income people (in fact those HLM were just as good in quality, in that era, then the "non social" product, and those built in Paris were taken over by white collar administration people (mostly)!
Mitterand first mandate is the breakdown of the social housing investment... The curve starts sloping down, 25% less each year, then 50%... Political funding through most of those building project is catching up with the left. It took almost twenty years to the right to create the model of the funding pump, but the left raise the rates in a few years. In 1985 the Communist Party rate was about 2% of the building cost (schools mostly) and was considered high (read much too much)... Several years later it would go to 4% for the PS and RPR.
This mess was stopped by a law on party funding... And a general amnesty ! To start up again, this time fully illegal, through big engineering firms that were sharing the loot through architectural contests... The two major firms (one left, one right) are in prison today! Of course... The beat goes on...! (see the latest trial on Ile de France).
In the meantime, The Communist Party was "killed" by Mitterand and lost most of it's popular strength, most went to Le Pen (extreme right) party... And were anyhow anti-immigration in the beginning!
The social housing "bubble" had shrank so much in all the country, that poor people were thrown out in the streets (Coluche, Abbé Pierre and the "Restos du coeur").
Most Mayors of smaller cities felt as a "plague" the fact to have really low income social housing (In French HLM system, the local mayor has 51% of decision in HLMs of his commune ). Those who relied on industry kept building them (workers) while other stopped, being more uppish residential areas...
Those discrepancies went so far that a new law had to be voted, that would oblige building a quota of HLM or be fined... Today, most prefer to be fined!
It's a full generation between Pompidou and today. The "New Cities" have evolved but the old "Cités" are still mostly as poorly equipped as before, in transportation, in services... And mostly in work! Those parents are out of work and their kids out of school...
There has been several projects to upgrade those districts but most of those solutions would take a dozen years, as it was not a priority. Fiscal help was given by the "Zones franches" (free trade areas) and in education by "priority educative centers"... Those labeling were felt as an iron branding of "unter mensch" ! And anyhow most efforts were just peppered...
It re-inforced communitarism and illegal traffics. Those "gangs" exist since kindergarten, as most never get out of their district, everyone knows everyone and fighting "cops" is seen as heroic. Still, most of them are just very frightened kids and thus often quite violent, specially when they can't see a way out.
Cars started to burn at night... They still do, and they will keep burning till we don't find an issue !
The "Karsher" answer is, of course, not the good one ! But it won't be easy to catch up with twenty years of messed up districts, of paranoia, of districts that are ghettos (for both sides). And it is not the politics of either side who will win this battle, as, alas, it goes further then the longest political mandate (5 years).
Some old timers would say that it's the perverse effect of de-centralization... And truly bad social politics from all sides ! "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
Political funding through most of those building project is catching up with the left. It took almost twenty years to the right to create the model of the funding pump, but the left raise the rates in a few years. In 1985 the Communist Party rate was about 2% of the building cost (schools mostly) and was considered high (read much too much)... Several years later it would go to 4% for the PS and RPR. This mess was stopped by a law on party funding... And a general amnesty ! To start up again, this time fully illegal, through big engineering firms that were sharing the loot through architectural contests... The two major firms (one left, one right) are in prison today! Of course... The beat goes on...! (see the latest trial on Ile de France).
Not that it doesn't make sense, but you cover a lot of ground in your comment and some things are more insinuated than explicitly stated. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
In Paris intra-muros, getting a HLM was way faster if you had a RPR party card...
About the fines imposed on commune with low HLM rates, it should be noted that Neuilly, the extremely wealthy suburb where Sarkozy was mayor, has 3% of its housing as HLM, whereas the law imposes 20% ... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
In that era, the major contractors would negotiate between themselves on who would get the contract, the others, bidding much too high or much too low... Then on the next project they would take turns. In those "false" bidding. That would allow for the "true" price to be just 2% over what was anticipated...
Or, when they had to keep the price on the level, there would be some good reasons to find those 2% on the building design, often without the architect knowing (thus the use of the engineering firm whom by law must team with the architect on such public projects)!
2% on a school would mean, for example, to shift aluminium window frames to PVC ones... Or to replace false brick on concrete by grout!
Each part of that comment, of course, could be covered in a diary, but my intention here, was more to give a feedback of the general attitude in time that led to the present situation... Those big trials of those firms were as hot a few years ago then the Fitzgerald's indictments are today in US.
It was less true in rural areas, but worked quite well in the suburbs of big cities. It is not the cause of the diminution of HLM, but points to a very sick way of having a school or an HLM done in a given district. (today it's more about the "roundabouts")!
Why did the social housing dip in the Mitterand's years, that still remain incomprehensible to me.
In those years I worked on a project (government funded) on public spaces in one of those "burning" districts. Because of EU funding on schools for music, the "team" (mayor, ministry of equipment, ministry of cities, city hall urbanists) decided for a design of one of those schools... Just in the middle of most gangs boundaries...(those kids wanted a basketball arena, that's what they told me)! I asked what sort of music school would it be... A classical one with violins, trumpets, and such.. Behind bars, because... You know, those instruments have a price...! I replied they should invite me for the burning after the inauguration... And it did burn indeed ! That school, (about 2 million Francs) was not what was needed there... But because they had to show that work was being done on this city, and with somebody's else money, they just did it !
This sort of stupidity has been going along for years... And deep rooted projects were not funded, because of no direct political feedback, or too costly !
In some rare cases some good work has been done and could be followed today... "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
It sounds like the HLM was originally meant as "public housing", and primarily for immigrants. As funding fell for this area, and the economy took a turn for the worse, the better HLM housing was bought up by the middle class and up. This meant that the worse HLM areas became kind of "slums". And there was not really new government money to build more HLM, so there is no longer adequate housing for the immigrants. Richer areas don't want new HLM because they view it as "too poor", bringing in the wrong kind of people? so what new housing for the lower class is built, is built in the lower class areas. And now, these areas are "slums", filled with first and second generation immigrants, who are poor, dissaffected, high unemployment?
Sorry, but this is a serious attempt to confirm that I am understanding--I wouldn't be surprised if I really missed the point on some of this.
They are definitely not "slums". The older ones built after the war aren't just on par with today's comfort rules (acoustics and thermal rules).
The main problem was more of the urban master plan, modern style, with no "real" streets, but big blocs and towers amid open space supposed to be gardens and children games and parking. Hence a huge "private" space versus the classical public space (the street). The police cars can't easily go in those areas that are not leveled (pseudo gardens with stairs, mounds, trees, etc.)!
In most areas, you have a 300 000 people district facing 30000 people living in little house circa 19th century, often older people in retirement... But those vote, while most of the others don't ! That's why the proposition that immigrants could vote on local elections such as the city hall ones is so important !
Several years ago, a law allowed people living in HLM to buy their flat! The general idea, was to get rid and privatize many of those buildings, raising money to build new ones... But it mostly complicated things, as some flats were own by some people but not the others in the same building...
Today, Borloo's scheme is to build quickly, very cheap housings! But he's lowering the overall comfort rules (just like after the war). Meaning that the inhabitants will have to heat more in winter, among many other points such as handicapped rules, etc. Up to now, the buildings standards were the same, and state funded the buildings and the rent... I'm not very happy with this way of building "cheap"! As it will cost much more in a few years to upgrade those buildings...!
To answer another question, drugs are not really the problem... You have the same dealers in Paris, the usual police chase, and no local flare of violence... Drugs are the local economy of these districts, just as stolen cars, etc. As in the cartels, it helps whole families in everyday life...! The "Lords" of those gangs are helpful for the locals who, in turn, don't really help the police !
Some authors here have done some analogy with middle-age big village structure. The show of power through fights, the coat of arms of each "house", but also the fact that a young couple (15) just can't manage to be together without all the village knowing it and the "Lords" taking a share of the young girl (or the family shutting up the young girl and protecting her against her will) !
A child of 8 in those districts must know at least 200 names and faces, just to cross those open spaces to go to school, whereas it's urban counterpart never knows more then 50 (and that's a maximum).
Those districts are not urban cities, even if they sometimes look like one. The "anonymity" of the urban dweller doesn't exist... And thus progress is slow! "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
