Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If i had to choose, i would easily go to Paris because of the excellent French welfare system. When people think of such problems, they think of the city with the warmest weather but i think that's a wrong approach. Aside from Paris, there's barely a city worth living in for someone with those economical means. In fact, i wouldn't head to these cities neither if i was wealthy or without a single bucket as i think of them as something ideal for the upper-middle class
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethereal
I'm gonna have to go with Sydney. For starters, Australia tends to give (poor) people welfare. We even pay people who are looking for work. Does this happen in the France, Japan, the US and the UK? And plus, Sydney has a pleasant climate overall.
France is probably one of the most welfare oriented country, more so than Australia i think. It's easily more economically left wing something i have never heard of regarding Australia, a country whose medias are basically in Murdoch's hands
Living in the Banlieue's in Paris is not my idea of fun, I would much prefer the Australian sunshine.
Not all banlieues are negative places, it kinda depends on the location or on the surroundings i think. It's not like Sidney doesn't have its own sketchy neighbourhoods either but they are probably not as well known to us Europeans, i have read about riots occuring in Western Sydney for example and these riots weren't different from the Tottenham ones in London or the Clichy ones in Paris. The banlieues aren't different from London's housing blocs at the end aside from the fact that London's are closer to the city center maybe. But i don't see Clichy in a different light from Tower Hamlets or Tottenham
And no, i won't read all those articles, sometimes a handful of them suffice instead of linking ten different ones repeating the same thing over and over. I can cherrypick about the same things about Paris by the way
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,187 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19518
Quote:
Originally Posted by improb
Not all banlieues are negative places, it kinda depends on the location or on the surroundings i think. It's not like Sidney doesn't have its own sketchy neighbourhoods either but they are probably not as well known to us Europeans, i have read about riots occuring in Western Sydney for example and these riots weren't different from the Tottenham ones in London or the Clichy ones in Paris. The banlieues aren't different from London's housing blocs at the end aside from the fact that London's are closer to the city center maybe. But i don't see Clichy in a different light from Tower Hamlets or Tottenham
And no, i won't read all those articles, sometimes a handful of them suffice instead of linking ten different ones repeating the same thing over and over. I can cherrypick about the same things about Paris by the way
All cities have their poor areas, but London's are a lot more vibrant furthermore a lot of London's housing blocs have been demolished in recent years and replaced. However I wouldn't want to live in London either if I was extremely poor.
This Guardian Columist sums up my view of the two cities.
All cities have their poor areas, but London's are a lot more vibrant furthermore a lot of London's housing blocs have been demolished in recent years and replaced. However I wouldn't want to live in London either if I was extremely poor.
This Guardian Columist sums up my view of the two cities.
I get your point, i think that to judge we should have both been in these areas of these cities but our opinion may differ both from the columnist and from each other. That said, i get your point that London's housing blocs are generally closer to the city center and therefore more vibrant but i doubt the same applies to a suburban city such as Sydney. Anyway, even despite that, i would still take Paris over London because it's cheaper to live in, cheaper to rent or share, offers a more generous welfare (for once Amaro is right although he greatly exaggerates which doesn't make him as believable) and so. In fact, even if i disagree with the whole concept of housing bloc (they were thought to be areas where the lower classes develop but they were instead segregated and often abandoned to themselves), i am not sure the City of London is doing the right thing gentrifying more and more neighbourhoods and demolishing them because it's making it harder and hard for its poor to keep living in the city and is slowly driving them out due to the neverending housing bubble.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,187 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19518
Quote:
Originally Posted by improb
-
I get your point, i think that to judge we should have both been in these areas of these cities but our opinion may differ both from the columnist and from each other. That said, i get your point that London's housing blocs are generally closer to the city center and therefore more vibrant but i doubt the same applies to a suburban city such as Sydney. Anyway, even despite that, i would still take Paris over London because it's cheaper to live in, cheaper to rent or share, offers a more generous welfare (for once Amaro is right although he greatly exaggerates which doesn't make him as believable) and so. In fact, even if i disagree with the whole concept of housing bloc (they were thought to be areas where the lower classes develop but they were instead segregated and often abandoned to themselves), i am not sure the City of London is doing the right thing gentrifying more and more neighbourhoods and demolishing them because it's making it harder and hard for its poor to keep living in the city and is slowly driving them out due to the neverending housing bubble.
Central Paris is very expensive, if you were poor in Paris your only option would be to sleep rough or apply for state housng which would most likely be in one of the banlieues such as Clichy-sous-Bois.
The difference is I would have no problem walking down Tottenham High Road or go to the poorer areas of London however I simply wouldn't venture to areas such as Clichy-sous-Bois and other such banlieues.
In terms of gentrification, London is ensuring that affordable housing is part of the replacement housing.
Central Paris is very expensive, if you were poor in Paris your only option would be to sleep rough or apply for state housng which would most likely be in one of the banlieues such as Clichy-sous-Bois.
The difference is I would have no problem walking down Tottenham High Road or go to the poorer areas of London however I simply wouldn't venture to areas such as Clichy-sous-Bois and other such banlieues.
In terms of gentrification, London is ensuring that affordable housing is part of the replacement housing.
Saint Denis is a banlieue and i would feel comfortable walking its high street. I would probably feel comfortable walking in most all places in all European cities. I walked down the sketchiest neighbourhood in Turin (the main street isn't different from Tottenham's high road) after dark and it wasn't a problem, i did similar elsewhere and it wasn't a problem and i think that outside of a few spots it would be the same almost anywhere. I think the problem is that there's just no point going to Clichy because there's nothing to do there aside from visiting friends or relatives i guess
France is probably one of the most welfare oriented country, more so than Australia i think. It's easily more economically left wing something i have never heard of regarding Australia, a country whose medias are basically in Murdoch's hands
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,187 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19518
Quote:
Originally Posted by improb
Saint Denis is a banlieue and i would feel comfortable walking its high street. I would probably feel comfortable walking in most all places in all European cities. I walked down the sketchiest neighbourhood in Turin (the main street isn't different from Tottenham's high road) after dark and it wasn't a problem, i did similar elsewhere and it wasn't a problem and i think that outside of a few spots it would be the same almost anywhere. I think the problem is that there's just no point going to Clichy because there's nothing to do there aside from visiting friends or relatives i guess
Best of Luck with that, not sure what Turin has to do with Paris though, still good luck.
I am sure some of the 751 Zones De Sécurité Prioritaires (ZSP) and Sensitive Urban Zones in France can be visited.
Most of those can be visited without any problem.
The problem is that your view is limited to stereotypes. Instead of having an opinion based on reality, your is just based on sensationalist articles.
You should go there instead of swinging facts and words you don't fully understand.
Here a view with google street view of 10 Zones de Sécurité Prioritaires in Paris area.
Note that most of the social housing in Paris area are not decaying housing blocks and are not located in far way suburbs.
But again, stereotypes and reality are two different things. https://www.google.fr/search?q=const...884ChD8BQgGKAE
Last edited by Minato ku; 07-14-2016 at 05:53 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
