The Grand Paris Planners was created at the initiative of the network of the Institute of Urbanism in Paris (Urba +) to express the singular point of view of a profession, urban planning, on a political subject The Greater Paris. Upon the announcement Ministry of Culture on the launch of the consultation on the Greater Paris (s) of the Paris region, we expressed our puzzlement about the legitimacy of the coupling formed by the state and architects to consider " Prospective diagnosis of the metropolis in 2030 ". Some planners, such as Jean-Marc Offner or Marc Wiel, had strongly opposed this approach, and for good reason: the Greater Paris is not about architectural model is a question of "territorial management" and structuring local operators for the definition and implementation of urban development policies consistent. The lack of intermunicipal Ile-de-France largely explains the absence of such operators of urban development in the Paris metropolitan area, to exercise a regulatory role in the markets for land and housing.
We have since published the analysis on the famous Marc Wiel consultation . Although helped by many urban planners 'involved' in 10 teams, consulting has delivered some interesting results and constructive, in fact quite close to those of SDRIF, but (logically) silent on the issue of governance. And However, if ccording the urbanist Marc Wiel, "it becomes necessary to develop tax systems of mobility and locations that play a regulatory role in order to fight against excessive corporate concentration and segregation social housing. " But "the failure of the institutional system to pool financial resources to harmonize development policies and displacement" feeds the land of segregation mechanisms. Hence, he said, the urgent need to reform the governance of metropolitan Paris.
The sequence re-centralization that followed resulted in the consultation now gives us reason: the exposure of the City of Architecture and Heritage has provided a great diversion, a beautiful operation com 'to amuse the suckers, while pharmacies in the Hotel Matignon Roquelaure and was preparing some mischief ...
Whether on stage or disagree with the Minister for Development of the Capital Region, the handful of star architects has no qualifications and no legitimacy to conduct specific "reflections on political change." Decentralization, albeit largely unsuited to the context Ile, went through there. And ultimately , media coverage of these architects speaking for 10 million metropolitan and instead of hundreds of planners engaged today in local communities of Ile-de France, is a scathing repudiation of our profession but also for local democracy.
examination of the bill on the Greater Paris, which has just been adopted in committee in the National Assembly, also demonstrates that the problem of financing the bypass tube has completely overshadowed the consistency of territorial planning. Society of Greater Paris and its public institutions of State are certainly an anachronism and a drift techno-Jacobin, but status quo institutional the 300 municipalities and county does not argue logic really for the emergence of local organizing authorities of planning.
Here where planners can therefore bring their added value is in a position on the political agenda of territorial restructuring. In this area of institutional changes, they can assert their beliefs and skills to a real help in policy making, serving local elected: political organization of local labor, management of urban mobility, reinstatement of infrastructure in the metropolitan public debate and in local planning exercises, optimal deployment of intermunicipal and strengthening its prerogatives in the area of land law, response land, housing and déplacements locaux, promotion d'un Schéma de Cohérence Territoriale pour le coeur de la métropole,... autant de débats qui ne trouvent pour l'instant leur place ni sur les grandes ondes médiatiques, ni sur les agendas politiques du Gouvernement (pas de chapitre parisien dans le projet de réforme territoriale) et de la Région (pas de plan B pour remplacer le SDRIF).
Dans ces conditions, Paris Métropole peut-il encore se permettre de raisonner à "gouvernance constante"? Assurément non, car le bouclage de la carte de l'intercommunalité à horizon 2014 est une des mesures phares du projet de loi de réforme des collectivités locales et concerne the entire national territory. Paris Métropole will it take a position on the conditions for completion and optimization of the map of intermunicipal Ile-de-France and offer himself a global pattern of organization for the heart of the city or wait that furnish the Regional Prefect of the order?