The demolition and reconstruction policy initiated in 2003 to improve life in disadvantaged neighborhoods and increase social diversity has reduced the share of very poor households by 17% in favor of households with a modest and average standard of living, France Stratégie revealed on Wednesday. .
Twenty years after its creation, the National Agency for Urban Renovation (Anru), which pilots this policy initiated by the Borloo law, named after the former minister delegated to the City, has changed the sociology of the targeted neighborhoods, indicates the analysis note from France Stratgie.
The National Program for Urban Renewal (PNRU), which ended in 2021, aimed to restructure socially disadvantaged neighborhoods classified as Sensitive Urban Zones (ZUS) through major housing operations, with the aim of social diversity and development. sustainable.
To carry out their study, the authors relied on the housing file at the municipal level and on the cadastral sections, comparing 497 ZUS neighborhoods with a controlled group of 240 neighborhoods with similar characteristics but not renovated.
The PNRU had a significant causal impact both on the housing supply and on the population of the targeted neighborhoods, particularly in the neighborhoods where demolition operations were the most intense, analyzes France Stratgie while emphasizing that the latter are in average significantly less populated.
This impact results in a reduction in the share of social housing, initially predominant, and in a reduction in the share of the poorest households.
The latter was carried out essentially for the benefit of an increase in the share of households with a modest average standard of living.
Invest in real estate from €1,000. OUR rankings of the best SCPIs
Thus, in the quarter of the neighborhoods where demolitions were the most intense, which accommodate 6.5% of the population of all renovated neighborhoods, the PNRU caused a drop of 6 points in the share of social housing (- 9%), as well as a drop of 5 points (-17%) for the poorest households.
This effect was caused mainly by the demolition of housing which accommodated the most poor households as well as to a lesser extent by the construction of social housing housing households with slightly wealthier profiles.
On the other hand, in the remaining three-quarters of the targeted neighborhoods, where interventions were less intense, the impact of the PNRU was almost zero and was unable to prevent a slight increase in the share of the poorest households.