Urban

Pour lire l’article en français click ici

The ANRU justifies the demolition of the Goya building by the need to construct a new road connecting the south and north of Bellefontaine, claiming it will improve circulation in the neighborhood. However, existing routes already allow for this connection, with only two additional minutes of travel time.

Behind this argument lies a more troubling reality: for a marginal gain in time, it is proposed to destroy a close-knit community, rich life stories, and unique architectural heritage. The demolition would also have severe environmental consequences, generating tons of waste and requiring significant resources to rebuild.

Sacrificing human lives, collective histories, and ecological sustainability for a road raises deep questions about the priorities and long-term vision of this project.

850m, 12minutes by foot
750m, 10 minutes by foot
1.4km, 4 minutes by car
1.3km, 3 minutes by car
New itinerary that we propose : 800m, 1 minute by car
Today, a simple fence separates the south from the north, and simply removing it could already make access between these two neighborhoods easier.

ANRU Project for 2030




Scheme produced by the Dessein de Ville agency
Source

L'ANRU fails in its approach by neglecting obvious alternatives. Instead of focusing on less destructive solutions, such as optimizing existing infrastructure or improving public spaces, the agency favors a radical and costly approach. These alternatives could have enhanced the neighborhood’s connectivity and flow without resorting to unnecessary demolitions, thus preserving the community, architectural heritage, and the environment.

"The project was developed in consultation with the population through various workshops, shared diagnostics, before being subjected to a regulatory consultation phase in 2018, prior to the signing of the convention with the partners of the New National Urban Renewal Program, which will be implemented until 2030."
Although the ANRU claims that the project was developed in consultation with residents, many testimonies reveal a very different reality. Numerous inhabitants only learned about these transformations once decisions had already been made, rendering their participation purely symbolic. This lack of genuine consultation reflects a top-down approach that disregards local voices and the real needs of the affected communities. This raises serious doubts about the legitimacy and fairness of the planning process undertaken.