French problems with the implementation of cooperative housing
Conference “About the city with its inhabitants”
October 23 and 24, 2013
French problems with the implementation of cooperative housing
Jacques Prades
Cerises-Université de Toulouse 2-Le Mirail
Description of the problem
There are two main types of housing in France:
- private, that is, ordinary apartments, which le Corbusier called “vertical settlements”, operating until 1972, and then – houses. In 1972, the Chalendon Law was passed, which firmly rooted individualistic tendencies in French society;
- social, occurring mainly in blocks of flats (France has one of the largest blocks of flats in Europe). Their development was hampered by the policy of defiscalization, which at the same time increased the number of private rentals. Although a special act from 2000 obliges communities with more than 3,500 inhabitants to build at least 20% of social housing.
The existence of such large estates has led to the fact that the percentage of French people who are private owners is low (57%), compared to 80% in Spain and Italy. Given that ownership is not an indicator of wealth (prosperous Sweden and Denmark have a low percentage of private ownership) but of security, and in addition France is in a difficult economic position, the issue of ownership becomes urgent. And above all, it forces us to repel the debate between private property and public property. Social housing is a hotbed of violence – everyone knows that. It is becoming more and more difficult to become an owner due to the more expensive square meter.
Is there any solution?
Yes, cooperative housing! Two caveats should be avoided at the outset. The first of them makes us believe that private property is obsolete, and the future is usufruct. This thinking came from across the board and assumes we stop saying, I have a car. Ale: I have access to a car park. This kind of thinking, however, leaves a fundamental doubt: and who owns the car park? The second prejudice is a confusion of concepts: what is community property, public property or static property? We have a big problem with that in France. The public interest is still confused with the collective interest.
The public interest is a complicated category because it exceeds the particular interest, which is quite rare in the world of politics. Normally, the national agency is invoked to explain a decision in the public interest. The collective interest is easier to guarantee because it concerns small communities.
Why is cooperative housing the answer to the given problem?
First of all, because it is possible to integrate various social groups, including the least privileged, and at the same time – by no means altruistic – maintain its heterogeneity. This does not mean that we are in favor of prefabricated housing estates, but that the characteristic diversity should be preserved as a collective way of creation. An individualist society, in order to maintain continuity, must create homogeneity, mass, mass reproduction: through television, school, consumer goods, etc. To create heterogeneity is not narrow specialization, sticking to a hackneyed pattern or fortification. If there are strongholds, our task is to connect them. Create bridges. Only in this way can new connections and relationships be created that can undermine hierarchies.
In the light of what has been said so far, it can be said that the collective has nothing to do with the “gouverance” category. The cooperative can jointly decide what materials to use for construction, what technology to use and how to organize work. There are various interests that are subject to arbitration. This is one of the assumptions of the cooperative.
The cooperative proposes a new way of making decisions without abolishing power, i.e. ways of exerting pressure on one another. The cooperative only limits the side effects of power.
They tell us that you can do similar things without cooperative status. After all, status cannot protect against various derivations. However, we can double the power of the status by creating some kind of bylaws.