“Let’s build massively where there is public transport” – L’Express

L’Express: How do you judge the way in which the housing issue is addressed in France?

David Miet: This is the main concern of households, and yet it is never at the heart of policies. Because the subject is complex, full of regulations, very largely the result of State and local authority planning. As last winter approached, there was concern about energy shortages, everyone saw that prices were rising because demand risked meeting insufficient supply. On the subjects of food and medicines too, the concept of shortage is clear, obvious, accepted in public debate. But we refuse to use it to talk about housing. Spatial planning professionals and political leaders are in denial of reality which increasingly resembles a refusal of obstacles. We see employees sleeping in cars, students in campsites, and many other examples illustrated by journalists. But we do not have a global vision of the housing deficit affecting the metropolises of Paris, Bordeaux or Lyon. However, prices are a serious indicator of a lack of supply, it is not just a matter of speculation. And this can only develop when there is a lack of supply.

How did we get here ?

We blame the increase in standards, interest rates, construction costs, particularly linked to the application of new energy regulations, but we never point the finger at the PLUs [NDLR : Plans locaux d’urbanisme], in the hands of mayors, who artificially create the shortage from which certain territories suffer. Wanting to file a building permit is hell. There are fewer possibilities to build in 2023 than there were 10 years ago. Urban planning documents block all the places where people want to live. But the citizens who elect mayors are current residents, not those looking to settle down. Businesses need their employees to have decent housing nearby, but they also don’t have the right to vote in municipal elections. We vote where we sleep, not where we work.

Is this reluctance to new housing specific to France?

In England or North America, we talk about the “Nimby” syndrome, for Not in my backyard. [NDLR : “pas chez moi”] when we talk about those who attack the construction of housing close to their homes. In France, this syndrome has increased incredibly in recent years. Permits are increasingly under attack, local residents and associations are putting pressure on local elected officials who are modifying PLUs and increasingly prohibiting building. But in other countries, such as the United States, citizens and associations are managing to rebalance this debate on a local and national scale. A pro-construction Yimby movement emerges there [Y pour yes] driven by those who understood that the lack of supply raises prices, and the first victories with several cities and states which decided to unlock the urban planning rules which prevented building. The mayor of New York was elected on the slogan of “the city of yes”, with a major construction program, and the American administration is launching policies to support new housing.

What do you recommend to resolve the crisis?

As in all societies in the world, from Asia to South America, we are witnessing today in France and Europe a phenomenon of metropolization and coastalization. In 80% of the French territory, there is no shortage of housing. These are territories where the existing stock and current production are largely sufficient to respond to the evolution of employment and activities, which is overall very moderate. We refuse to see that a large part of social, economic and cultural activity is located and continues to be created in the country’s large dynamic cities and their outskirts, and part of the French coast. This is where there are jobs, and where jobs continue to be created. Households make a rational choice between ensuring economic security for their family, having access to culture and services, and finding a place to live.

We have deluded ourselves with the idea of ​​a post-Covid urban exodus which could have rebalanced the occupation of the territory but in reality, people are not completely free to live where they wish. Yes, ideally we should revitalize medium-sized towns. It was possible when large structuring employers like EDF, Renault, SNCF or Michelin offered lifelong positions. In the world to come, whether by will or by job insecurity, a young person plans to change jobs ten times in his career: he cannot live in a city where there are few opportunities, he will prefer to go in a large dynamic metropolis. It will no longer be large employers who will guarantee the economic security of households, but certain large cities. This is today what we observe when those who want to leave Paris opt for Lyon, Marseille, Nantes or Bordeaux.

Are you in favor of Zero Net Artificialization (ZAN)?

The ZAN is ambitious for the protection of agricultural land but it has no counterpart. At the same time, the densification of built spaces should be authorized. We are entering an era of sobriety and the word has taken on a moral value. In the world of urban planning, instead of seeing shortages and social difficulties, we see sobriety. Elected officials’ justifications for banning building are almost always ecological, while the result is that people will live further away and take their car instead of getting on a tram. It is simplistic to say that “less is more”. We need to build a lot where there is public transport and less where there is not.

How do real estate development players react?

The only ones who are vigorously resisting are the social housing players: during their last congress in Nantes, they reaffirmed that it was necessary to produce more than 500,000 housing units per year, while the 4 Ademe scenarios count on production between 110,000 and 350,000 by 2050. Some private developers are beginning to mourn the large volumes of new construction, and admit that it will be necessary to build less in the future. This amounts to agreeing not to meet needs. They choose to favor higher margin products, coliving residences, for seniors or students. Those who will toast are the French who want housing. The winners ? These are the current owners. We protect shortages and scarcity.

With what consequences for our society, our economy?

It is a disaster from the point of view of intergenerational equality and another burden for the French economy. If work no longer allows for proper housing, it is very serious. Young people will no longer want to invest in a profession that does not allow them to buy a house. INED researchers also made the link with demography: among the material constraints put forward by the French to avoid having children, there is housing. It is essential to plan professionally, to imagine a life at home. It’s almost as if we had decided not to give future generations a future.

What do you think of the action of the Minister of Housing? Is his desire to decentralize more a good idea?

Patrice Vergriete, thanks to his experience as mayor of Dunkirk, makes the link between industry, employment and housing, something the previous minister did not do directly. The subject of housing goes hand in hand with the economic ambition of the territories. But we cannot on the one hand centralize the policy of non-artificialization of land – the ZAN policy is developed by the State on a national scale, before being implemented locally – and on the other hand decentralize what should be the counterpart of this policy, namely massively opening the rights to build in densification.

If the State is the spearhead of the ZAN, it must also be responsible for the effort to build housing in areas that lack it. One of the paths that few people think about is that of the house: rather than dogmatically excluding it from the extension of the PTZ in 2024, and from the measure of reduction of the tax on capital gains from transfers of land, the State and communities should do everything to support these local VSEs and SMEs which have been building the majority of affordable housing in France for decades. Such a policy would be perfectly compatible with the ZAN, but also with the desire and aspirations of the French.