Paris Before Baron Haussmann's Transformation

[Cleveland Brown]

Originally Posted by CGII

Haussman's planning was revolutionary; Paris before Haussman was a disconnected amalgamation of squalid, disease-ridden slums. The impact of Haussman on Paris stretches far beyond ornamented batiments.

Which leads me to wonder if the above pictures are typical of Pre-Haussman Paris, or are those buildings some of the best examples of Pre-Haussman architecture that were deemed worthy of preservation?

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Actually, I hate the wave of changes that came with Haussman because thats when everyone decided that building a bunch of BS ornamentation on buildings was a good idea. As the pictures above clearly show, the previous buildings styles were clearly much more functional, almost structurally expressive.

Ornament serves the functional need of providing human-scaled details on buildings that don't otherwise have them. The old Paris buildings posted by OP don't have additional ornament because the bracing itself serves the same purpose already.

Human-scaled detail is the same reason why the average person would call those houses "charming" but would never apply that same word to Hancock Tower (which for the record, I like). You say they're the same except for scale, but scale is THE key issue.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ There isn't a shred of proof that there is any more of an intrinsic need for humans to have "human scaled detail" than there is an intrinsic need to have soul crushing monolithic geometric massing. Its entirely an aesthetic choice that is largely determined by trends in society. For example, if there was such a need for human scaled detail, then why did Modernism account for nearly 100% of all new construction in the US for almost 30 years? Its because it was something new and different after centuries of dingy old ornate, soot collecting, stone buildings. In the 80's and 90's traditional styles kinda came back into style (even though they still contain no human scaled details but rather overblown geometries that suggest the human scaled details of the past) because it was something new and different after 30 years of giant blocks, spheres, and triangles made of glass...

There is no inherent need for any aesthetic choice, it will always be entirely subjective.

Another good example of why "human scaled detail" is not the determining factor is that many Modern buildings have a very human scale, yet they are still despised by the same people who hate the giant bland boxes that were constructed at the same time. It has nothing to do with the detailing and everything to do with what feelings people associate with a given time and style.

Even Brutalism can be "human scaled", but I guarantee you that if someone doesn't like one brutalist building, they probably won't like even the cutest, most ornate Brutalist townhome simply because the style is currently outdated and most buildings from that era are in a state of disrepair right now. See these townhomes I just posted in the Brutalism thread as an example of human scale in Brut:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...,153.7,,0,3.88

[CGII]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Brown

Which leads me to wonder if the above pictures are typical of Pre-Haussman Paris, or are those buildings some of the best examples of Pre-Haussman architecture that were deemed worthy of preservation?

Well, the only pictures that are really genuinely accurate are those of the timber framed houses; any brick or masonry batiments are post-Haussman. Before Haussman the city was basically all timber framed houses like in the first post. The only real remnants of pre-Haussman Paris are the chaotic and narrow streets of some neighborhoods, not the architecture. I really wish this could've opened a discussion about the merits of the planning of Haussman, which is so important, rather than the architecture, which is such a predictable conversation.

[LMich]

Well, this is the Buildings & Architecture forum as much as I'd have liked to talk about the comprehensive planning aspect of it, too. Perhaps, it'd have gotten a more thorough going-over in City Discussions.

[TANGELD_SLC]

I'm pretty sure I prefer Paris post-Haussmann

[Cleveland Brown]

Originally Posted by CGII

Well, the only pictures that are really genuinely accurate are those of the timber framed houses; any brick or masonry batiments are post-Haussman. Before Haussman the city was basically all timber framed houses like in the first post. The only real remnants of pre-Haussman Paris are the chaotic and narrow streets of some neighborhoods, not the architecture. I really wish this could've opened a discussion about the merits of the planning of Haussman, which is so important, rather than the architecture, which is such a predictable conversation.

Interesting. So Paris was more akin to London before the Great Fire, no? I can't think of a single major city where the majority of buildings were "timber-style" that has survived. Perhaps Baron Haussman realized that Paris's traditional architecture was doomed by an eventual disaster and instead of building new buildings on top of a fragmented and inefficient street network he designed one that was better for commerce and health.

[Minato Ku]

Originally Posted by CGII

I really wish this could've opened a discussion about the merits of the planning of Haussman, which is so important, rather than the architecture, which is such a predictable conversation.

Anyway Haussmann did some big error, he killed Ile de la Cite.
Transforming the vibrant center of the city in a boring admistrative place.
Now the admistrations left the island that already only attract tourists.
A good destruction of the ugly big buildings build by Haussmann would a good idea.
To retransform Ile de la Cite in an attractive district with little pedestrian streets, shops, restaurants...

[Cirrus]

There isn't a shred of proof that there is any more of an intrinsic need for humans to have "human scaled detail" than there is an intrinsic need to have soul crushing monolithic geometric massing

Actually it's urban design 101. Any planning school in the country can tell you about it. If people don't have things to look at spaces feel empty. If spaces feel empty they don't feel safe. If places don't feel safe, people don't feel comfortable in them. Making people feel comfortable in urban spaces is one of the most important programmatic elements of design.

There are mountains of literature on the subject. Start with Jane Jacobs.

Of course, architecture schools don't teach that because it interferes with the building as a giant artistic sculpture dogma.

[pesto]

What a great thread! First, the pictures are great and there should be more. Second IMO as well, Paris is a gorgeous city, second only to Venice among medium to large cities, and the merits and demerits of Hausmann are a fascinating subject.

Much pre-Hausmann central Paris was beautiful but most was decayed and impossibly sub-standard by health and “public safety” standards, whether you mean fire, sanitation or policing. It was the good luck of the French that the current styles were one of the great periods of architecture (IMO).

But the best part of the thread is how one message full of absurdities can sidetrack the discussion and get so many ideas going. Sarcasm, wit, cries for reason, technical discussions. My 2 francs worth.

Hancock: I agree; very derivative of French medieval design. Just slap on St. Denis carrying his head and you’re there. I have long argued that JH be categorized as “French Medieval Slum Revival” but does anyone ever answer my letters?

Slightest shred of evidence: two people pointing at a car and saying it is red is all the evidence that a court or a scientific discussion would require to conclude it is red. Six billion people telling you they don’t like to get punched in the mouth or overwhelmed by closed in walls 1000 ft. high is likewise evidence. So I’m not sure what kind of evidence you are looking for.

Modernism: too far off subject to discuss, so I won't.

[WilliamTheArtist]

When I stayed in Paris last, I stayed in Montmartre near the hill. I loved that area, and enjoyed walking up the hill through the winding alleyways. I believe there is even a little vineyard in the area. And of course I always enjoy exploring the cemetary in Montmartre and seeing the crypts that look like miniature cathedrals replete with spires, flying buttresses and stained glass windows.

and to the side discussion...

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Actually it's urban design 101. Any planning school in the country can tell you about it. If people don't have things to look at spaces feel empty. If spaces feel empty they don't feel safe. If places don't feel safe, people don't feel comfortable in them. Making people feel comfortable in urban spaces is one of the most important programmatic elements of design.

There are mountains of literature on the subject. Start with Jane Jacobs.

Of course, architecture schools don't teach that because it interferes with the building as a giant artistic sculpture dogma.

I would add that "added interest" is simply attractive to people. Whether conscious or not, (yes there are exceptions as always) people prefer to walk down certain streets over others for known reasons. There is an intersection in downtown Tulsa where you see an example of this all the time.

One direction there is block after block of modern buildings 1950s and on, (each building may look flashy in pics and renders perhaps, or from a distance) but then the other direction is several blocks of 1910s-30s Art Deco, gothic, ornate stone and brick, etc. buildings, with neat looking awnings, porticos, balconies, columns, carved friezes, ornate doorways, etc. .. Guess which route 99% of people prefer? And just to make the point further, the nature of our downtown is such that the main destination areas people would like to go to on foot, it would be shorter to go down the "bland" street, but they STILL choose to go down the interesting one that takes them several blocks out of the way. I see it all the time,,, they look down that one bland street and then go... "Nope, we are going this way." lol And btw, which street would you want to have a shop or restaurant on?


I love contemporary architecture, and I love looking at the flashy renderings and the buildings in the skyline, BUT, I wish more of them would pay attention to making the street level interesting. That doesnt mean you need to change the over all look of the building, just have the first level not be boring. And no, not all streets, and thus with not all buildings, will it matter, for some areas are truly car oriented and dont have to concern themselves with pedestrians. And there are other exceptions, but I see too many streets that people would otherwise go down, ruined with too many structures that pay "no attention to detail" so to speak.

[Bedhead]

Haussmann hired a photographer, Charles Marville, to document Paris before and during the remodelling. I'm not sure whether it was out of respect for the old districts, or to get a dramatic 'before and after' affect.

Marville certainly shows the slums that CGII was talking about - his isn't a sentimental view of old Paris. The almost complete absence of people makes the images even more haunting.

As you can see, a lot of the half-timbered buildings had either been replaced by stone ones, or covered in plaster (of Paris). I think the main reasons must have been protection from fire, and that stone must have been a higher status material than timber.

Although medieval streets then were mostly pretty grim, they scrub up well, and are very pleasant to walk down today - mainly for the reason William the Artist gives - they have a lot of interest in a small space, with alleyways that twist and turn and have lots of small, unique buildings.

Haussmann-style wide, airy boulevards, which were much more pleasant to walk along in the 19th century, are now often dominated by cars (which isn't to say I don't think they are still fantastic - they are amazing urban set pieces that put unplanned London to shame). It all shows that different periods can favour different approaches. In Brussels, for example, I prefer the medieval streets round the Grand Place to the straight roads round the Royal Palace.


http://www.kochgallery.com/exhibitio...is2005/25.html
Charles Marville, Robert Koch Gallery
http://www.kochgallery.com/exhibitio...is2005/07.htmlCharles Marville, Robert Koch Gallery




http://www.kochgallery.com/images/ex...5/CMA05_07.jpg Charles Marville, Robert Koch Gallery

http://www.kochgallery.com/images/ex...5/CMA05_01.jpg Charles Marville, Robert Koch Gallery


http://www.kochgallery.com/images/ex...5/CMA05_05.jpgCharles Marville, Robert Koch Gallery
http://www.kochgallery.com/images/ex...5/CMA05_10.jpg Charles Marville, Robert Koch Gallery



http://www.kochgallery.com/exhibitio...is2005/08.html
http://www.kochgallery.com/exhibitio...is2005/10.html
Charles Marville, Robert Koch Gallery

[slide_rule]

^good point. haussmann's plans wouldn't be appreciated today. yet most everyone appreciates haussmann's transformation of paris.

in a dense environment, building out of masonry makes more sense than building out of wood, as it's more permanent and not prone to catching on fire.

haussmann did the bidding of the elite classes, and used urban renewal (which was needed to improve living conditions) as an excuse to push out the poorer inhabitants (which wasn't needed).

[pesto]

Actually getting rid of the poor was needed. The main boulevards would be a lot less gorgeous if all the store fronts were closed and had graffiti on them; the corners had dealers hanging around and in place of Galleries Lafayette or a premium hotel you had medijuana joints and rescue missions.

You can find plenty of slums in Paris, but not in midtown.

[Hed Kandi]

Thanks for posting the pics!

[ethereal_reality]

^^^The above photographs by Charles Marville are great.




Below is a 1859 stereoview of Boulevard St. Denis.
On the left is the monumental Porte Saint-Denis.

Not pre-Haussmann...but close.




found on ebay

[scalziand]

The book Rubble: Unearthing the History of Demolition has a chapter devoted to Haussmann's rearrangment of Paris.

[ChiSoxRox]

A map of Paris from 1800:


(Historic Cities)

The modern street grid:


(PlanetWare)

Sorry about the super-sized maps for detail.