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
