As a Parisian, I'm dismayed to see the positive coverage of the city's policies. Costly, never-ending works make walking (I'm primarily a pedestrian) a nerve-wracking adventure, forcing us to navigate narrow corridors while so-called embellishments go on and on. Cyclists and e-scooter riders whizz down the sidewalks and ignore traffic rules. Meanwhile, stores and eateries are shuttering everywhere. Take a walk down the Avenue Général Leclerc (the General drove down it to liberate Paris in August 1944) and the famous Boulevard Saint-Michel, and lose count of the number of places that have shut down since I came to live in the area in 2005. Excuses are made for this: the growth of suburban shopping malls, COVID, among others.
But the City makes only the feeblest efforts to fine scofflaws and revive business, preferring instead to boast of "vegetalization" (now dying in the successive heatwaves) and the reductions in car traffic, while failing to address the knock-on effects of emptier roads.
Since we're speaking anecdotally I'll provide a counter perspective as a Parisian of 10 years who has loved these policies - I don't see that same experience. I have only seen the city bloom and become more accessible compared to when I first moved here - more green space, more pedestrian paths, more third spaces to meet AND more commerce. I also personally just circulate on foot much easier than I did before without fighting cars parked on the sidewalk or driving too fast down the street - this is also my main method of transport within the city AND my sport since I'm a runner.
Also anecdotally, there are always new stores, coffee shops, art galleries opening where I live near Place de la République, notably since the streets have become more restricted to car traffice. There are very few store fronts that do close that don't have something new within a month. Looking at the data, vacancy rates of store fronts went DOWN from 13% to 5-8% on streets like Rue de Rivioli after they were pedestrianized (actually more like Market Street actually, with buses and taxis allowed). I'd assume more that if you have problems like that in the Latin Quarter it's more a price problem - with more areas of Paris have been opened up with the change of policies more areas have become desirable and accessible perhaps diminishing the corner on the market your the Latin Quarter once had.
I really personally can't imagine bringing cars and street parking would bring back so many people to support the business there either - they have always been a small share of Parisians in the first place that the policy changes were natural.
I concede the cyclists do need more enforcement but even so I've never had an incident nor have I witnessed any collisions with pedestrians and cyclists or scooters, not a single one - and again I am right next to the central hub of République with a lot of thru traffic.
The progressive mind is not dissimilar to the socialist mind. That government knows best and can impose policies that are best for citizens. Sounds good, right? But it fails more often than it succeeds.
I am not saying you shouldn’t have civic planning. But trying to impose an anti-car policy to meet your goal of preventing global warming is way more complicated than improving traffic flow. The idea that closing Market Street to autos will somehow save the planet from global warming is on a level of self-conceit that you can impose your will on people. That is not how humans behave.
Which brings me to the problem with socialism and progressivism. The attempt to manage how humans behave because you know best. This is how socialism ends up killing millions. How it has to be imposed at the end of the gun. It is a kind of hubris and completely forgets that humans are individuals. Behave as individuals.
To an extent isn’t this the “Housing Theory of Everything” strikes again. To me the real key component of what closing off Market Street didn’t work as intended is your point about the lack of mixed use development. If there were actual residents living these areas then a lot of these stores would have remained open and the ones that didn’t survive would attract new businesses better suited to serve local residents.
I’m reading this thinking San Francisco Centre should absolutely become multi family housing. I know, I know very difficult to do and very costly. But you know with the exception of maybe Manhattan South if 125th street there may not be a place in America where super expensive construction costs are still worth it given the extreme high demand for housing and land costs.
Also, this is the part I’m not sure of. Shouldn’t SB79 be very conducive to apartment conversions in this stretch precisely because of the variety of bus stops on Market Street. In theory shouldn’t the law pre-empt the usual white haired residents showing up to protest changing “historic” San Francisco Centre and the shadows people will bring that will block tomato gardens?
As a Parisian, I'm dismayed to see the positive coverage of the city's policies. Costly, never-ending works make walking (I'm primarily a pedestrian) a nerve-wracking adventure, forcing us to navigate narrow corridors while so-called embellishments go on and on. Cyclists and e-scooter riders whizz down the sidewalks and ignore traffic rules. Meanwhile, stores and eateries are shuttering everywhere. Take a walk down the Avenue Général Leclerc (the General drove down it to liberate Paris in August 1944) and the famous Boulevard Saint-Michel, and lose count of the number of places that have shut down since I came to live in the area in 2005. Excuses are made for this: the growth of suburban shopping malls, COVID, among others.
But the City makes only the feeblest efforts to fine scofflaws and revive business, preferring instead to boast of "vegetalization" (now dying in the successive heatwaves) and the reductions in car traffic, while failing to address the knock-on effects of emptier roads.
Since we're speaking anecdotally I'll provide a counter perspective as a Parisian of 10 years who has loved these policies - I don't see that same experience. I have only seen the city bloom and become more accessible compared to when I first moved here - more green space, more pedestrian paths, more third spaces to meet AND more commerce. I also personally just circulate on foot much easier than I did before without fighting cars parked on the sidewalk or driving too fast down the street - this is also my main method of transport within the city AND my sport since I'm a runner.
Also anecdotally, there are always new stores, coffee shops, art galleries opening where I live near Place de la République, notably since the streets have become more restricted to car traffice. There are very few store fronts that do close that don't have something new within a month. Looking at the data, vacancy rates of store fronts went DOWN from 13% to 5-8% on streets like Rue de Rivioli after they were pedestrianized (actually more like Market Street actually, with buses and taxis allowed). I'd assume more that if you have problems like that in the Latin Quarter it's more a price problem - with more areas of Paris have been opened up with the change of policies more areas have become desirable and accessible perhaps diminishing the corner on the market your the Latin Quarter once had.
I really personally can't imagine bringing cars and street parking would bring back so many people to support the business there either - they have always been a small share of Parisians in the first place that the policy changes were natural.
I concede the cyclists do need more enforcement but even so I've never had an incident nor have I witnessed any collisions with pedestrians and cyclists or scooters, not a single one - and again I am right next to the central hub of République with a lot of thru traffic.
The progressive mind is not dissimilar to the socialist mind. That government knows best and can impose policies that are best for citizens. Sounds good, right? But it fails more often than it succeeds.
I am not saying you shouldn’t have civic planning. But trying to impose an anti-car policy to meet your goal of preventing global warming is way more complicated than improving traffic flow. The idea that closing Market Street to autos will somehow save the planet from global warming is on a level of self-conceit that you can impose your will on people. That is not how humans behave.
Which brings me to the problem with socialism and progressivism. The attempt to manage how humans behave because you know best. This is how socialism ends up killing millions. How it has to be imposed at the end of the gun. It is a kind of hubris and completely forgets that humans are individuals. Behave as individuals.
To an extent isn’t this the “Housing Theory of Everything” strikes again. To me the real key component of what closing off Market Street didn’t work as intended is your point about the lack of mixed use development. If there were actual residents living these areas then a lot of these stores would have remained open and the ones that didn’t survive would attract new businesses better suited to serve local residents.
I’m reading this thinking San Francisco Centre should absolutely become multi family housing. I know, I know very difficult to do and very costly. But you know with the exception of maybe Manhattan South if 125th street there may not be a place in America where super expensive construction costs are still worth it given the extreme high demand for housing and land costs.
Also, this is the part I’m not sure of. Shouldn’t SB79 be very conducive to apartment conversions in this stretch precisely because of the variety of bus stops on Market Street. In theory shouldn’t the law pre-empt the usual white haired residents showing up to protest changing “historic” San Francisco Centre and the shadows people will bring that will block tomato gardens?