For a long time, a question hovered over the transformation of Paris by Anne Hidalgo. We wondered if there really was a plan. If behind all this, from a strange concept (“the quarter-hour city”) to methodical reassurance (“peaceful zones”), there was an urban planning doctrine that we were too stupid to understand. By choosing, on the occasion of the presidential election, to expose herself on stage as she had never done, Anne Hidalgo inflicted unexpected damage on herself: she completely lost the benefit of the doubt which she still enjoyed.
Because she talked a lot on this occasion (as is appropriate), we noticed that there was more confusion than plan, more approximation than doctrine, more incompetence than vision, finally more boastfulness than empathy. Alas!
Return of the crank: the ground today slips away under his feet. There is no longer a municipal council without controversy; the government removes the budget scale from capitalized rents; smoky concepts make people laugh; embarrassments are considered endemic and no longer transitory; the media turns violently; the mayor can no longer go out without facing challenges; his real estate projects arouse growing disgust; his Parisian electorate gave him his political leave during the presidential election. The rest to match.
This whets the appetites for the succession in 2026. It would then be time to tell applicants something that seems to contradict the severity of this statement: Ms. Hidalgo is not the only one responsible for this circus.
An administration gone out of control
Thus, the very radical policy of modifying “mobility” in Paris, which is for many in the paralysis of the city, responded not to a fad, but to a very strong social demand. The “anti-car” policy did not start with her, and it must be said: it will continue after her, because it is the era that wants that. That the greatest confusion presided over the implementation of this policy does not prevent it from responding to the political command of its electorate. As for its real estate policy, it is dictated by the necessary increase in the stock of social housing: this corresponds both to a regulatory requirement and to a political requirement felt, here again, by its electorate. The ugliness of the buildings often disfiguring entire neighborhoods and in particular the working-class neighborhoods where modest and working-class buildings persisted is the result of a loss of municipal competence for which it is not the only fault.
Similarly, in this urban policy, Anne Hidalgo has long benefited from the objective support of the State. The rejection by the Lallement and then Nuñez prefects of the new traffic plans is a fairly recent phenomenon. We once accommodated ourselves to other delusions. The humanitarian tragedies that strike the northeast of the capital are not the sole responsibility of the city. The considerable expenditure of the city to carry out its policy has moreover only been made possible by the agreement of the State for the establishment of the budgetary cavalry of capitalized rents. And then, there are heritage places in the capital whose classification could call for urgent intervention on the part of the State: because even if they are not in danger of ruin, these places are in a pitiful state (place de la Concorde, Place des Vosges).
Finally, there is a blind spot in the action of the mayor, it is his administration. You will not make me believe that Mrs. Hidalgo herself, at nightfall, digs holes, cuts healthy plants, degrades the gardens, breaks street lamps, etc. Everything that the Parisians deplore seems to no longer even come from a political spring, but from the immense carelessness of an administration that has become out of control. The mayor can only blame herself on this subject; but what are the many administrators of the City of Paris for? When mismanagement and anarchy reign, the responsibility can only be collective.
A mayor who tomorrow would take over from Mrs. Hidalgo would be caught up in these contradictions, which time has sedimented. It is fair game to overwhelm Ms. Hidalgo, because the capital is suffering like never before. But it will not be enough to replace it so that, magically, everything returns to normal. It will take a plan, a vision, a doctrine. And this time, for real.