Paris can teach London how to swap skyscrapers for homes

[Encolpius]

Originally Posted by Beedok

I like symphonies. I also like public works. Boring endless uniformity however, be it Haussmannien or modern suburbia,gets bland and repetitive. Especially when it comes at the cost of history.
Also, most of those production were probably even bigger statements to aggrandize the ego than anything Trump can manage. Napoleon III certainly was pumping up his ego with the projects. Eiffel wasn't exactly modest naming the tower after himself. Public works have been the historic means to puff up the ego of the rich and powerful.

Eiffel didn't name the tower after himself (it's a popular appellation), nor did he build it to aggrandize his own ego. There may not be much difference between the personalities of Napoleon III and Donald Trump, but there's a vast difference in their works: Napoleon III and Haussmann's projects in Paris -- parks like the Buttes Chaumont or the Bois de Boulogne, boulevards to improve hygiene and circulation, railway stations, churches, operas, the central market of Les Halles, the completion of the Louvre, the restoration of Notre Dame -- were projects intended for the use and benefit of large sectors of society. And I don't stress this point in order to defend those autocrats; one could say the same about Mussolini's projects in Rome and throughout Italy, but they weren't built because Mussolini was a kind and generous guy. Public works are not the historic equivalent of private development, just like the pyramids of Egypt are not the historic equivalents of the pyramid of the Luxor Las Vegas.

Originally Posted by Beedok

Just like American urban renewal projects in the 50s that are so lamented on here.

Again, you conflate things too cleverly. Haussmann's boulevards made Paris into a glittering City of Light, the Cross Bronx Expressway made the Bronx a pit.

Originally Posted by lio45

^ Currently still standing in that neighborhood (among others)

Among my favorites: the Hôtel de Sens.

[mousquet]

"Haussmannian buildings" is a generic and often inaccurate term. Haussmannian planning is more meaningful. Tons of buildings in the Haussmannian fabric were actually built for the 3rd Republic following Napoléon III's rule and the 2nd Industrial Revolution. Lots of buildings of that era are splendid...

Haussmann was a senior official, no politician, and a brilliant urban planner IMO. I wouldn't hold him responsible for Napoléon III's régime, even though he was influential and successful under the 2nd Empire. What would you have done in his post? If you think you would've been as ballsy, good for you. He tore down many more slums than precious hôtels particuliers in Paris. I think most neighborhoods he redeveloped, such as that of the Opéra Garnier were miserable, run-down and murderous areas prior to his work.

He served in Bordeaux before being appointed préfet de la Seine, and his redevelopment of Paris was straight inspired by what was achieved in Bordeaux for the 18th century. Old downtown Bordeaux may be my favorite in the entire country. It's a gem of high quality limestone consistency, pretty much like stereotyped Paris, but older, feeling more genuine and only 3 or 4 stories tall in average. Here's an example of a mixed-use contemporary redevelopment in Bordeaux's old downtown where it's hard to deal with modern/contemporary architecture, owing to its historic traits.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...2&postcount=37

That won't revolutionize design, nothing groundbreaking, but it's still contemporary and stylish enough, entirely cladded in limestone to stay in tune with the rest of the downtown fabric. I think stuff like this could be good for Paris. In fact, I think highrises designed like this style would be interesting for Central Paris and a few western suburbs, but probably not over la Défense that's exclusively modern. Limestone would likely be boring in la Défense.

[johnnypd]

Originally Posted by matthew6

Out of curiousity, are there any intact pre- Haussmann neighborhoods in existence?

The Haussmann (and other) boulevards often drive through existing older neighbourhoods - head off the main drag and the streets are tighter, buildings often older and so on. Even where side streets were redeveloped with late 19th century buildings, they usually kept to the existing pre-Haussmann pattern or were built very, very tight. The wide, expansive main boulevards are only a small part of central Paris and these days used as major traffic arteries. Paris would be worse off without them.

A few moments from Grand Boulevards metro you find streets like this.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...688c9460?hl=en
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...688c9460?hl=en

right next to the bourse
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...!6m1!1e1?hl=en
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@48.86...!6m1!1e1?hl=en


This street is not untypical for central Paris, showing plenty of modern buildings
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@48.84...!6m1!1e1?hl=en

Modernity opposite le bon marche (which was once an emblem of modernity itself)
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...!6m1!1e1?hl=en

In the very finest districts where set-piece urban planning and consistent architecture is the best in the world new schemes should be strictly limited. In a way it is good that there is a vocal reaction to the demolition of what was a fairly ordinary building as it shows how high the bar is set. Not just in protecting what is already there, but in ensuring that the few new builds that get approved are of a very high quality.

I'd hate to see anything new here
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@48.84...!6m1!1e1?hl=en

or here
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@48.86...!6m1!1e1?hl=en

[Minato Ku]

In Place Vendôme, facades were build before the buildings, so obviously the square will not change aesthetically because Place Vendôme is the facades.
There are modern building in Place but behind the facade.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

You are clearly underestimating the size of Paris and the number of people who need to by carried.
Don't forget that in most office, workers come from all over the metropolitan area.
The metropolitan area Paris acts as a single employment market, it is not multipolar region like the Rhein Ruhr or the Randstad where there are several cities close to each other.

All heavy and efficient transport lines converge toward the center, people who have to go from one suburbs to an other suburbs need to pass though the centre in public transport.
The suburbs have small roads and most of the large roads (except for few congested beltways) in suburbs moves toward the center.
Making it impossible to build an efficient tram network or BRT to ease the access to suburban employment center for most suburban commuters.
This is why 80% of the suburb to suburb journeys are made by car but the Paris freeway network is already saturated and can not absorb the influx that will cause a Central Paris no longer fulfilling its role.

Imagine if Manhattan was no longer issing its role, that would be the hell for New York metropolitan area and all the infrastructure should be rebuilt or rethink. Hundreds of billions dollars of investment would needed. Paris is exactly the same case.

The current infrastructure could cope with more people commuting to Central Paris but not much with more people who only pass through it to go from one peripheral area to another peripheral area.

Paris is not like Venice, as you said Old Venise is a small area and it is pretty removed of the rest of the city.
Central Paris is linked to all the metropolitan area and all the heavy transportation infrastructure are centered on it.
The core of Paris is much bigger than Old Venice.





The City of Paris has less inhabitants and less employment than in the 70's, if I don't think we can reach the population peak (1921), I think that the City of Paris must reach and exceed its peak of employment (mid 70's).
For this, Paris need more modern space office in its core and the renovation of old office buildings to put modern office is not sufficient.

The only place where I would build large office skyscrapers in Central Paris would be around the big railway terminals (Montparnasse, Saint-Lazare, Gare de Lyon/Austerlitz).

Isn't this what the Grand Express Metro was supposed to solve? All European cities (to say nothing of the US) need better suburb-to-suburb, node-to-node transport. Only Tokyo seems to truly get it.

As others have echoed, putting more people into Central Paris is already going to require more infrastructure and also does nothing to really address the serious issue of social segregation across the wider Ile-De-France. The fix is not to make inner Paris poorer but to make places like Alunay-Sous-Bois and Servan richer and more integrated. Putting office districts in the 93/94 where people of lesser means don't have to travel all the way into town would do far more than trying to destroy one of the world's great gems (which, BTW, the tourism from which probably employs a good chunk of Paris' working class. Imagine the banlieue w/o those jobs) for more social engineering.

[Minato Ku]

Grand Paris Express is just a small part of what is needed to deal with a center that will not play its role anymore.
Who will pay?

I am not trying to make central Paris poorer, I am trying to prevent the transformation of central Paris in a disneyland. Paris is a real working city and the center must represent it.
I don't want to put more inhabitants in Central Paris, I want to put more jobs, mostly office jobs.
Paris is a living business city, not a theme park.

More you will isolate the center from the rest of the city by transforming it into in a museum, more the city will be segregated. The only thing that create a link between people from all the four corners of the metropolitan area is central Paris.

Unlike what you are claiming, putting office district in suburbs increase the commute of most people.
Today many people have to go form one side to one other side of the metropolitan area because their company has moved their office in suburbs.

[mousquet]

^ Uh, Minato, I'm quite sure we good people would absolutely love to pay for a massive expansion of the mass transit network all over the suburbs. It's like paying for education or healthcare; no problem, it's just ok. It might even be feasible at faster rate if the French public expense was finally strictly rationalized, but we keep acting as if tax money was growing on trees or constantly falling down to us from the sky by a wonderful miracle of some kind.

Just like our brave presidents themselves who set the example, still thinking they're Louis XIV as soon as they're elected, them nuts. I heard even the queen of the UK and the king of Spain were embarrassed whenever they came here and Mitterrand and Chirac were to nicely receive them. They were like - woah! The poor French taxpayers are seriously screwed here! Ahhh, but that's the French-style official ceremonial and protocol, ladies and gents! That's a whole tradition! And above all a pompous and wasteful mindset... There is the ancient-style court proudly composed of an army of advisors, ministers and senior officials of any possible kind, quite including the useless kinds, otherwise I wouldn't be complaining here. Not to mention mistresses, servants, some of the finest cooks in the country and so on. And all that crushing bureaucracy that comes along. If a Swede or a Danish citizen witnessed this, they would die from a heart attack at once before requiring France's withdrawal from the European Union.

I'm kind of kidding, but you see? Sure we could afford to expand the transit network in a lovely way.

[Qubert]

Originally Posted by Minato Ku

Grand Paris Express is just a small part of what is needed to deal with a center that will not play its role anymore.
Who will pay?

Well, for one thing, France as a whole would probably have a lot more funds for things like this if it made the structural reforms to liberalize it's economy. But that's neither here nor there.

I am not trying to make central Paris poorer, I am trying to prevent the transformation of central Paris in a disneyland.

To be honest, I'm not really sure what "Disneyland" really means in this context. People throw that term around as though wealthy, historic, well-preserved districts are somehow a negitive thing.

Paris is a real working city and the center must represent it.
I don't want to put more inhabitants in Central Paris, I want to put more jobs, mostly office jobs.
Paris is a living business city, not a theme park.

I agree with that. All those of us on this side of the argument ask that decisions to grow Paris are done with a view towards the beauty, historicity, and originality the Hausemann Paris represents. Why not build skyscrapers in the Hausemann style as an idea?

More you will isolate the center from the rest of the city by transforming it into in a museum, more the city will be segregated. The only thing that create a link between people from all the four corners of the metropolitan area is central Paris.

As you pointed out earlier, transport from all corners of Ile-De-France into Central Paris is pretty superb. The overwhelming majority of transit infastructure in the region is built around getting people into Inner Paris from the periphery as well as within Inner Paris. While no transit authority is perfect, I don't think Paris is a slouch in terms of public transport.

Unlike what you are claiming, putting office district in suburbs increase the commute of most people.
Today many people have to go form one side to one other side of the metropolitan area because their company has moved their office in suburbs.

I do generally agree with you. I fully believe in Central Buisness Districts as a principal. I think in Paris' case, maybe the approach would be a La Defense 2.0 in St-Denis and a couple other nodes around Central Paris. There's also room for growth in places like Bercy, Issy, Aubervilles, and other former industrial areas.

[Crawford]

A preserved center doesn't mean "Disneyland". Paris' physical core is largely the same from previous decades, yet the center has definitely evolved, and remains very dynamic. There is zero chance of Paris turning into Venice (and I don't find Venice to be "Disneyland" ether; the city is surprisingly vibrant with locals once the daytrippers leave every evening).

One can preserve a physical legacy while evolving, and one can build a ton while regressing. Physical changes and neighborhood changes aren't necessarily linked.

And there are tons of opportunities for transit oriented development still close to the center. There are huge rail yards within Paris proper. The neighborhoods behind Gare du Nord are poor and could use revitalization, the railyard is gigantic, and the RER stop is probably one of the busiest in Paris (maybe second to Chatelet?).

[Minato Ku]

There are several variation of preservation.
I agree with the fact that most ancient buildings should be preserved and I don't want to transform the centre of Paris into something like Pudong but I am against the idea that nothing can be built in Central Paris and I am against the idea that any building built before the first World War should be untouchable.

My position is moderate.
Yes to preservation but no to fossilization.
Yes to modern construction in central Paris but no to the demolition of neighborhoods or streets.

Less central Paris will be functional and less the inhabitants of the metropolitan area will go there, therefore less the local people will be in contact with the history and heritage of the city.

[10023]

Minatu and others, I think there's a nuance that is being missed here.

I've made the distinction between "replacement" and "renovation" and I think that's important. You can gut the interior of buildings, replace them with modern floorplates, build elevators, add modern HVAC systems and state of the art telecoms, etc. That's different, and in a city like Paris better, than actually tearing down structures and building anew.

As Encolpius has stated very well, the thing that's special about Paris is the built form as a whole, not individual notable structures. Keep replacing buildings here and there, and eventually you might as well have flattened the entire neighborhood.

Central Paris isn't in any danger of lacking functionality and more than enough people go there.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by 10023

Minatu and others, I think there's a nuance that is being missed here.

I've made the distinction between "replacement" and "renovation" and I think that's important. You can gut the interior of buildings, replace them with modern floorplates, build elevators, add modern HVAC systems and state of the art telecoms, etc. That's different, and in a city like Paris better, than actually tearing down structures and building anew.

As Encolpius has stated very well, the thing that's special about Paris is the built form as a whole, not individual notable structures. Keep replacing buildings here and there, and eventually you might as well have flattened the entire neighborhood.

Central Paris isn't in any danger of lacking functionality and more than enough people go there.

Paris has been a prime European destination and a cultural hub for centuries. The buildings came and went, but the city and everything that has made it what it is has survived. All buildings are lost eventually, you just have to make sure what replaces them is nice.

[Minato Ku]

Originally Posted by 10023

Minatu and others, I think there's a nuance that is being missed here.

I've made the distinction between "replacement" and "renovation" and I think that's important. You can gut the interior of buildings, replace them with modern floorplates, build elevators, add modern HVAC systems and state of the art telecoms, etc. That's different, and in a city like Paris better, than actually tearing down structures and building anew.

But the renovation is not possible for all the buildings, there are some which will be demolished or then will no longer be able to be fully utilized.
We also need to add new surface because at equal number of person we need more space today than in the past.
If we can't add space, the number of people will decrease.

I want central Paris to be still dominated by local in future (by locals, I means people living or working in metropolitan area), not by tourists..
I already think that the ratio tourists to locals is too big in some areas.

Originally Posted by 10023

.As Encolpius has stated very well, the thing that's special about Paris is the built form as a whole, not individual notable structures. Keep replacing buildings here and there, and eventually you might as well have flattened the entire neighborhood.

No don't worry about it
Except for few streets and some squares (Avenue de l'Opera, Rue Royale, western Rue de Rivoli, Place Vendome, Place des Vosges, Place de l'Opera, Place de la Concorde...), the construction of new structure will not flattened entire neighborhood.
It is not hundreds or maybe even thousands of modern buildings that will change its overall fabric of Central Paris as long the majority of the building remain ancient.

Central Paris less homogeneous than usually believed.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Paris has been a prime European destination and a cultural hub for centuries. The buildings came and went, but the city and everything that has made it what it is has survived. All buildings are lost eventually, you just have to make sure what replaces them is nice.

Why would "all buildings be lost" eventually? These buildings will last forever if they're properly maintained. Paris isn't even particularly old compared to other major cities in Europe and Middle East.

And Paris' fantastic core building stock is directly linked to its 18th/19th century status as the world's wealth, political and cultural hub. The core has comparatively little from earlier or later periods.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Why would "all buildings be lost" eventually? These buildings will last forever if they're properly maintained. Paris isn't even particularly old compared to other major cities in Europe and Middle East.

Well at the very least the land will probably eventually be crumpled into mountains in a couple million years when Africa hits Europe, but more realistically with wars and fires and sinkholes and everything else that happens in the world I'd be amazed if more than half of today's Paris was standing in a thousand years.

Originally Posted by Crawford

And Paris' fantastic core building stock is directly linked to its 18th/19th century status as the world's wealth, political and cultural hub. The core has comparatively little from earlier or later periods.

And yet it was a major cultural, political, and trade hub for centuries before that and had loads of rich heritage buildings that were lost to time. Paris survived various revolutions, fires, dictators realigning streets for better artillery, invasions, etc. which did far more damage than a few modern developers could. We should make sure they make good buildings, but new buildings are just a part of the process that is Paris.

[The North One]

Paris survived the past 2 world wars, it could survive another few. Who knows.

If they can accommodate/renovate buildings that are falling apart almost into the ground then there's no reason the city can't do it with these buildings, unless it's literally structurally unsound.

So the argument to tear down old buildings to make way for glass walled contemporary ones that won't likely last as long makes absolutely no sense to me.

[hammersklavier]

Paris did not just survive the World Wars, it was practically untouched by them (especially the Second, which saw the complete flattening of pretty much every city east of the French border).

In the long run, a city without an economic reason for existence will fail. The vast majority of cities humans ever established are ruins today.

[The North One]

That's extremely dramatic to imply that the city will fail if it doesn't convert the majority of it's buildings into a contemporary design.

If anything it will hurt the city.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by The North One

That's extremely dramatic to imply that the city will fail if it doesn't convert the majority of it's buildings into a contemporary design.

If anything it will hurt the city.

What on earth are you talking about? Only the most ego-tripping architects (like Le Corbusier, famously) have ever wanted to turn the whole city into modern architecture...