"Who are the new figures in the Paris region's urban development projects? -First of all, there is the question regarding the role of the state. When we look at urban development, we have experienced stages of refusal. For example, about ten years ago, the state became involved, to quite large extent, in the development of Saclay, in the extension of the ORSA, meaning more international interest, in developing what took place in Seine-Aval it became more involved in Roissy. That was a policy initiated in 2006, 2007, and today, we can see that, on the contrary, there is a withdrawal, meaning that the state has reduced its influence, and transferred power, or some power, to the local authorities. This raises a lot of questions about the future of certain partnerships. At the same time, through international policies over the last two years, it has introduced a new form of intervention. We feel as though we are in a time at which the state wants to intervene. It is important that there is national intervention in the development of the capital region in many forms. The second idea that we should consider is how those leading the urban development projects are distributed. I believe there are 65 providers, local public authorities, in Île-de-France. When we compare this with Lyon, for example, there are only three. This distribution means that we have urban developers, and at the same time, we have those huge providers such as the Marnes-la-Vallée public amenities authority. This means that it is difficult to have a notion or an action that is coherent and perhaps that translates into a lack of collective engineering for urban development. This is clearly the result of a political system that is extremely divided and poses many questions about the impact of the Métropole du Grand Paris on this system. Urban planning, for the interventions in the metropolitan area, on a metropolitan level, what about the tools and their future, the 65 providers in this context. A third idea to consider is the question of the private sector. We talk about it a lot, but it is a lot less present. It is a lot less present. It is a little present with certain property providers who want to move up the ladder, who want to guarantee real estate, but we must remember that urban planning projects do not make a profit. It is an extremely risky project because one is subject to both the property cycle and democratic life. In the 1990s, we experienced at least two major property crises, and a certain number of property developers disappeared in the 1990s. So, today's urban planning projects in thinking that they will be finished in 20 years is adding a strong hazard that, the very large, powerful property groups today are ready to take the risk. We cannot finish this overview without talking about the new means of intervention in urban development, such as grant opportunities, which we have had in Paris, in the metropolitan area, in the Seine area, and so on. This raises many questions. It raises many questions about the respective roles of the public authorities who define the political vision for the towns, and of the private developers who intervene. The question is whether which what has worked in around 30 sites in Paris could be a development tool in the medium term in which some public authorities leave behind the all-encompassing ambitions. "What are the issues surrounding large projects in the future?" There are two subjects in relation to this and they are very complicated subjects in terms of the future. Firstly, Île-de-France's ability to host large international events, such as The Olympics and EXPOFRANCE, and therefore, to develop large celebrations in the region and above all, it is about redeveloping. We have a strong tradition of urban planning and development, so attracting people is not the question, the question is what happens afterwards. I believe that one controversial subject, or a subject that is complicated for the future of urban development in the region is, once we have hosted the Olympics and EXPOFRANCE, certainly in Marne-la-Vallée and Val d'Europe, what do we do with these large sites? EXPOFRANCE is 200 hectares. What will happen to that after the event? Very few world exhibitions have succeeded in their conversion. This is true for Olympic sites. We have a controversy that is kept quiet at this stage because it is taken away by the collective enthusiasm surrounding these large-scale events, but in the domain of urban planners and developers, it is a subject that will crop up in the future. "What are the complaints surrounding the large urban planning projects?" I think there is currently a dual phenomenon. We have the challenge of appealing to the collective interest with an urban planning project, so everything that goes further than individual interest. I accept that the collective interest may not take into everyone account and today this is disputed. This explains why we have difficulty with very large structural projects which can cope in the long term and which have a lasting appeal. Consequently the local residents have more power. The second thing is that we have an over-legalization, a significant rise in legal disputes, much higher number than 20 years ago, and so, the possibility of blocking a project is becoming more obvious. When you are almost sure that a project should be blocked essentially, people have more interest in taking action when you say it will take a massive effort. We also have a strengthening of environmental protection organizations, which are very present, and which, according to the organizations, can have diminishing logic, that any project in itself is bad or the logic that the project will have a positive environmental impact. We are always between these two ideas. A town is composed of... around 80% or 85% of private investment. Public investment in towns is in the networks, some public facilities, and the rest is private investment. So, there is a form of return on investment, whether financial or not. We cannot deny it. So, saying that you are developing projects, but in favor of such and such, yes, we try to better respond to the needs, the uses, but behind this, we have people who buy apartments and houses, and who rent offices, and so, we respond in relation to spending. We are not in a system where the town is 100% public. The town is 80%, maybe slightly more, privately owned, so it is necessary to have an attractive market. From now on, telling those who benefit, also raises the question of how we are capable of an inclusive system. It is true. The real issue behind this is not there. It is not do we build 25% of social housing or not. The real question we are looking at over the next ten years is what are we doing about the Roma people and the immigrants? That is easy. We have a system. We have social housing, et cetera. We have a social structure which, generally, allows... in Île-de-France is harder, but in Rennes no one sleeps in the streets. We have a legislative corpus and a form of social consensus to house almost everyone and to offer a minimum quality of life to almost everyone. The question this raises is very complicated. We are witnessing it in Paris. In the future, what will we do when we have 1 500 migrants, or 2 000 or 3 000? What will we do when we have 800 Roma here and who have established their shantytowns and we have some, not in the very centre of Paris, but around the outside, what is the social response to that? How do we structure the social and urban response to that? And so, we debate around this question and the response could not be the standardized response of constructing social housing, it will not work, so we must think of something else. At the moment, that is one thought. I believe that, with the large urbanization projects we have today, we are responding to the needs of French society as it is, but we are not anticipating the probable consequences of immigration, whether from Europe or elsewhere. "What will the Métropole du Grand Paris provide?" The Grand Paris Express will connect the marginalized areas. This enormous project, with 67 new train stations, will unblock the transport system and will allow the inner suburbian areas to develop. It is progress for a region that has not had such a large urban planning project since the creation of the RER and the A86. So, this is extremely important for the future of the area. We can already see the signs, including in speculative patterns. And it translates into a boost in projects. Not all projects will be implemented as initially planned, but that is life for all urban developers. On the question of the Métropole du Grand Paris, there is a strong drive within the Métropole du Grand Paris to give a new lease of life to a number of projects in the metropolitan area. The Métropole du Grand Paris is currently hoping to participate on an urbanization level, but the organization is not finished. The "Inventons la métropole" call for projects shows this drive.
