SFollowing the tragic death of young Nahel, shot dead by a policeman during an identity check on June 27, the “neighbourhoods” burned for almost a week. No, the city’s policy is not in question; no, the said “districts” cannot be incriminated. Unlike those of 2005, the riots largely overflowed from these districts and the rioters came from the most diverse geographical backgrounds.
On the other hand, we must not underestimate the achievements, both in terms of urban renewal and social renewal, of a city policy locally indebted to the dedication of housing professionals, voluntary associations and the inhabitants themselves.
Nevertheless, the explosion of violence that we have witnessed is the consequence of a situation which has less its origin in the construction of the large housing estates of the 1960s and the extension of the urban peripheries than in their management; which have deteriorated over time, too often serving as an outlet for an uncontrolled social housing allocation policy. It is in this sense that the policy of the city is concerned.
A process of spatial segregation that has not been reversed
And, if misfortune is good for something, shouldn’t the opportunity be seized to wonder about its future even though it was launched more than forty years ago without anyone seeing or the term nor the finality? This is evidenced by its mistakes since the launch in 1977 of 50 “Habitat and Social Life” operations – the beginnings of interventions in so-called “priority” neighborhoods – until the promulgation in 2021 of the law confirming respect for the principles of the Republic, intended fight against “separatism”.
Several reports from the Court of Auditors have demonstrated this: “urban policy” has not succeeded in reversing a process of spatial segregation. It is because it has always hesitated between two contradictory perspectives: that, initially, of a foreseeable end in the more or less long term, erasing the remaining stigmata of the modern Movement ; that, on the other hand, of a functional specialization of neighborhoods intended to ensure the social ascent of the most disadvantaged. The question being whether this latest development does not risk perpetuating a form of “separatism” which is all the more pernicious in that it would take on the mask of redemption.
Also, rather than opposing the trivialization of the political districts of the city to their instrumentalization in the service of populations that the vicissitudes of life have marginalized, would it not be appropriate, at the time of the changes that the development of the digital technology and ecology imprint on the urban space, to seize an opportunity to operate the transition which is now essential between a city consuming energy, colonizing space, segregated and an integrated city, proud of the diversity of its human resources and solidarity with its hinterland.
You have 50.37% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.