PARIS, Sept 22 (AFP) - Parisians are spoilt conservatives who prefer to live in a decaying museum than confront the French capital's pressing problems such as depopulation, unemployment and a widening gap between rich and poor, the daily newspaper Le Monde said Wednesday.

The paper was reacting to the results of a survey which show that a clear majority of the city's two million inhabitants oppose high-rise construction, and believe the protection of old buildings and the creation of parks is more important than promoting economic activity.

"At a time when Paris is losing both inhabitants and jobs ... when innovative businesses are leaving for the suburbs, when in short the capital is on the brink of ossification, its residents have revealed themselves to be highly conservative," Le Monde said.

Some 120,000 households replied to questions sent out by city authorities in May to determine public attitudes to architecture, the environment and transport ahead of a new multi-year planning policy to be drawn up next year.

Despite support from Socialist mayor Bertrand Delanoe to end a 30-year ban on buildings higher than 37 metres (120 feet), some 62 percent of residents were opposed to tower-blocks, even in exceptional cases. Only the youngest age bracket -- between 18 and 24 -- was marginally in favour.

More encouragingly for the mayor, an overwhelming majority - 82 percent - want to continue measures to restrict car traffic, including more dedicated bus lanes, cycle paths and an extension of a planned tramway in southern Paris.

Opinions were predictably divided over Delanoe's policy of promoting social housing in affluent areas of the centre and west of the capital. The mayor hopes to reinforce the measure by obliging developers to devote 25 percent of every major project there to low-cost accommodation.

Overall, 71 percent of Parisians agreed, ranging from 80 percent in poor areas of the east to as low as 46 percent in the rich 16th arrondissement, or district, where the policy has already been tried out.

Most of those questioned believed creating more parks was the top planning priority, ahead of child care facilities, homes and sports areas. New business units to promote economic activity were seen as important by only 40 percent.

The vast majority also called for measures to protect old buildings, and for the use of top-quality materials for future construction.

Le Monde said the priorities of the Paris public were badly skewed.

"If it doesn't want to become ... a museum; if it doesn't want to become embalmed Amelie Poulain-style, the capital has to move, get younger and livelier," it said.

"It must shake off its rigid planning rules and a style of architecture that is more and more like a nostalgic pastiche."

The 2001 hit film "Amelie" was accused by some critics of portraying an air-brushed Paris with little bearing on reality.

© AFP

"Overprotection" of cultural heritage can create hostility and do harm to it. That's the sad truth.
Each place in the world has its ups and downs. May be Manhattan and HongKong will face the same problems 60 years later when all the current highrises would be listed as monuments there and everyone would be afraid to change anything...

Here can not be simple solutions

Paris does need to be protected architecturally because it's arhitecturally beautiful - however it could do with shaking off its innate conservatism elsewhere. I really feel that Paris is being left behind in the era of globalisation. I used to love Paris but now I feel less and less drawn to it. It still excells at the things Paris has always excelled at but there is a definite lack of new excitement and energy. Paris has lost its cultural dynamism and creative edge. Skyscrapers are not the answer but some exciting new bars, clubs, restaurants, hotels etc would do a lot to inject some new life and excitement into that city. I am reasonably optimistic that this will eventually happen. 10 years ago London had stagnated yet since then it has managed to completely turn that around. I hope that Paris is able to do the same. However before that happens Parisians really need to look beyond their own traditional culture. Opening a branch of Starbucks should not be cause for a national debate in a cosmopolitan world city. Ultra chic Japanese restaurant Nobu, which succeeded brilliantly in London, New York, and Los Angeles, should not have closed down in Paris because of lack of interest. In short Paris needs to become more open and receptive to the world. I hated Amelie and its depiction of a cosy rosy Paris irritated me. Paris is better than that. The edge has not completely gone - for example Paris does have an amazing hip-hop scene - but Paris is dominated by the bourgeois middle classes whose boring good taste threatens to suffocate the vitality of what was once the world's most glamourous and creatively brilliant city. "Ossification" is a very well chosen word to describe the danger facing Paris. I note the definition from Dictionary.com:

"The process of becoming set in a rigidly conventional pattern, as of behavior, habits, or beliefs. Rigid, unimaginative convention."

Quite so.... :yes:

I mostly agree with Monkey. I personally think that France needs to reform its political life and and to find itself at ease with liberalism. Individual responsibility needs to develop among the French. Paris, as the capital of France is kind of powerless, without any vital energy which cannot let her match cities like NYC and Ldn. The language is an important point too I think. Moreover London and NYC have better qualified and skilled workers on the whole. Over the last few years France, and the parisians have only referred to their past, denying changes for the future. Now look at Paris, that city is looking at its past, not at its future unfortunately. Skyscrapers may not be the solution of course, but a much diversified architecture should really be triggered in Paris. Towers like Agbar or Swiss Re could really have a place in Paris, no problem.
It also seems that the French have a very poor education as concerns architecture and city-planning. A real effort should be made in school to open minds to foreign AND contemporary architecture.
Last but not least, the French should open up to the world, to foreign cultures. To achieve that, the French should only travel abroad more often and should not only boast to live in the most visited country in the world. Paris has a very strong potential energy but the thing that could boost it really lacks these days.

couldn't agree more. Middle class bourgeois are killing the vibrancy. It is not only true for Paris but also for many french provincial cities.

ps @ Monkey : Nobu was far too expensive for the french market. For this price we expect top of the league. Prices should have started lower and then increased steadily.

^ but Nobu is top of the league by any standards.

This report is BS (the report by Le Monde does not at all give the impression conveyed by this feverish AFP wire) and no wonder that some people in London (or Manuel) are all too happy to agree with it; there's a vote in the balance which will take place in Singapore some time next year about the 2012 Olympic Games...so it's open season for cheap pot-shots at Paris. But to no avail.
Anyway, some companies "leaving Paris" doesn't mean anything for they go to...La Defense or the neighboring suburbs of Paris where it's easier to build anew. Paris has of yet only 20 "arrondissements" (boroughs) which where drawn in the 1860's. It should count 30 at least and include "cities" like Neuilly-sur-Seine, Vincennes, St Denis, Malakoff, Boulogne, which are directly linked to and look like Paris (although a little less dense). The separation of the inner loop (le périphérique) is disappearing throug massive works (including great renovation of "les boulevards des Maréchaux" with a new tramway. The current city-hall has been the first to sign important deals with the neighboring boroughs in order to achieve this "greater Paris" (which London has had since 1965).

As for flashy modernity, please just wait for the coming announcement of the winner for the Les Halles renovation. When you'll see what Koolhaas can make of Europe largest underground mall/metropolitan station/cultural center, some people in London will lose the attitude.
As for cultural conservatism, I remember 5 years ago Londoners claiming that Paris was losing its edge in haute couture (well, that's forgotten isn't it, and where's London on this map?) or in the the auctionneering of arts (well, now Christie's is French-owned, has a massive branch in Paris and the market has boomed here) or in movie-making (BS again). When François Pinault's Private Foundation for Contemporary Arts will open on the Ile Seguin (building designed by Tadeo Ando) it'll be Europe's largest private collection with a permanent exhibition...a far cry from Mr Saatchi's treasures gone in flames in an decaying warehouse in London...
;)

^ Actually Saatchi recently opened a permanent collection in County Hall right next to the London Eye. It's stunning. Sorry but I haven't seen a good French film for a while now. Christie's and Sotherby's do most of their business in London and New York. Haute couture is a complete irrelevance - no-one cares. Underground architecture, Koolhaas or not, is rarely exciting. I dare say it will be comparable to the massive transport interchange under construction at King's Cross/St Pancras but I doubt it will match Foster's Canary Wharf Tube. We'll see. ;) And who cares about trams? London has tram projects but we don't boast about them because there are more exciting developments competing for attention. I'm sorry but these projects you list are just not big or exciting enough to make anyone "lose the attitude". However I think Paris WILL win the Olympics - and I think the main competititon is Madrid rather than London. The London Olympic bid doesn't have the political or popular support to succeed. However if Paris was such an irresistable Olympic city then why did it come so far behind Toronto and Beijing in 2008? The fact is Paris's bid has improved. It will not win because it's a better city. However Olympics, Koolhaas Les Halles, etc etc.... this stuff is all well and good but has nothing to do with the fundamental problem. The world is changing fast and Paris/France is being left behind. France has got to find a more positive way to embrace globalisation. Paris is conservative and reactionary. This is not the first article on the subject nor wil it be the last. Similar views are expressed frequently - often by Parisians themselves. I mean this is not some nonsense concocted in the minds of a few hostile forumers. You continue to believe that nothing is amiss if you want but you deceive no-one but yourself. Recognising the problem brings you closer to the solution. Delanoe speaks openly of the problem but apparently you prefer to deny its existence. Unfortunately political leadership is not enough by itself. Paris will need hundreds of entrepreneurs and hundreds of thousands of newly open minded consumers to reinvent itself from complacent cultural stagnation. However right now Paris is dead. WAKE UP PARIS!!

well monkey I have to agree with most of what u said....i guess it's the best analysis of the city possible !

Indeed, who cares about haute couture these days !! I have the feeling that Paris will have some difficulties to move on to a dynamic city of the future...because of the parisians themselves.

The only hope I can see rely on the cities located in the outskirts of paris :mainly st-denis, montreuil, etc...in these place the Nimbys are less extremist than in paris !

This is not the first article on the subject nor wil it be the last. Similar views are expressed frequently - often by Parisians themselves. I mean this is not some nonsense concocted in the minds of a few hostile forumers. You continue to believe that nothing is amiss if you want but you deceive no-one but yourself. Recognising the problem brings you closer to the solution. Delanoe speaks openly of the problem but apparently you prefer to deny its existence. Unfortunately political leadership is not enough by itself. Paris will need hundreds of entrepreneurs and hundreds of thousands of newly open minded consumers to reinvent itself from complacent cultural stagnation. However right now Paris is dead. WAKE UP PARIS!!


I deny ludicrous charges brought by arrogant Londoners (and the many French who are foolish enough to listen to them) but I don't say that everything is right.Otherwise there would be no need to act, or live, or breathe would they? But there are two ways of facing problems.
1) By letting yourself cornered into self-hate by the chorus of Brit-slander: "you're dead!" says the "friend", now what is there to be done after that, eh?

2) By doing your own analysis of your own strenghts and weaknesses and going ahead whatever the rivals will shout on the other side of the French Channel. This allows you to get some facts correctly.

A preliminary thing. The fact that Paris is an easy target for criticism in the press or London, proves one thing: that we in France openly debate our problems, with no fear of exposing them to the entire world, allowing some to mock us. And that's the surest way of not being blinded by complacency.
Sure many Parisians are afraid of scrapers (but not a majority of the young ones) but it's precisely trough major discussions that get this fact exposed that Delanoé is bringing Paris closer to accepting new ones.

Now for the cultural correction:
Today's exhibition by Saatchi is nothing compared with what Pinault has planned for 2007. Saatchi's is more in league with what already exists in Paris in a much more original form: la Maison Rouge by Antoine de Gaudemard in La Bastille which houses temporary exhibitions by major private (and really sophisticated) collectors.
Paris is culturally far far superior to London (just do the math about cultural venues for the trully advanced forms of contemporary art) for the simple reason that the cultural capital of the Anglosphere is...New York! London is the periphery (it gets "les miettes du festin"). Paris is the capital city of the Francosphere and also has a good reach on the entire Latin sphere, or the Mediterranée but it is also a very humble host to the entire world republic of letters. Here a quote from a recent piece otherwise quite critical of French ways by Perry Anderson in the London Review of Books:
"French reception of world literature is in a league of its own. In this area French culture has shown itself exceptionally open to the outside world, with a record of interest in foreign output no other metropolitan society can match. A glance at any of the better small bookshops in Paris is enough to register the difference. Translations of fiction or poetry from Asian, Middle Eastern, African, Latin American and East European cultures abound, to a degree unimaginable in London or New York, Rome or Berlin. The difference has structural consequences. The great majority of writers in a language outside the Atlantic core who have gained an international reputation have done so by introductory passage through the medium of French, not English: from Borges, Mishima and Gombrowicz, to Carpentier, Mahfouz, Krleza or Cortazar, up to Gao Xinjiang, the recent Chinese Nobel Prize-winner."

Claiming that you "haven't seen a good French movie in years" simply proves that you are not in sync with world-cinephilia. French movies get the lionshare of the small number of foreign movies which get a US distribution. They are always the centerpiece of major film festivals and again this comes from a very very rich ground of major French movie makers, young or old (Rohmer, Resnais, Godard, Chabrol, Téchiné, Bruno Dumont, Tavernier, Breillat, Ozon, Cantet, Assayas, Noémie Lvovsky, Rappeneau, Chereau, Bonnello, Jaoui, Eugene Green, Gaspard Noé, Otar Iosselani, Arnaud Desplechins, Claire Denis, Bertrand Blier, or Jeunet or Leconte and major world artists who chose French and Paris as a medium for film, like the Portuguese masters Oliveira and the late Jao Cesar Monteiro, or Chilean genius Raoul Ruiz, or the young Australian Samantha Lang ) but also from a profound multi-faceted policy of openness to the world and engagement in it. It is a fact that Paris is the world capital of cinephilia, where more art films are screened and funded that anywhere else (again quoting that piece at the London Book Review: "French hospitality to the furthest corners of the earth has been incomparable in the cinema, too. On any day, about five times as many foreign films, past or present, are screened in Paris as in any other city on earth. Much of what is now termed 'world cinema' - Iranian, Taiwanese, Senegalese - owes its visibility to French consecration and funding. Had directors like Kiarostami, Hou Xiao Xien or Sembene depended on reception in the Anglo-American world, few outside their native lands would ever have glimpsed them". ) I could quote a long list of maverick producers in Paris who go around the world to support local talents (not only in poor countries by the way but also Gitai in Israel (and much of Israeli cinema by the way) Wong Kar Wai in Hong Kong, Hong Sans Soo in Korea and... David Lynch in the US) finance them, and bring their films to Cannes for the entire world to see and crown.

Now you mention auctioneering and that's an interesting one. Paris had been wiped off the map since 1945. And London had (and still has) a solid second place to New York. So what has hapened is Paris is gaining back a place it had lost for nearly haldf a century. The arrival of the two anglo houses in Paris (breaking a monopoly of Drouot) has shaken things up wonderfully. Paris has now become the hub for Latin American arts or Primitive Arts (the opening of Le Musée du Quai Branly in 2006 will only increase that) Moreover something is happening this fall that has not been seen either in London or anywhere else in the past 50 years: a major American collection will be sold out not in New York but Paris (that of Jean Levy, the American widow of Julien Levy the great New-York-based art dealers of the surrealists). And by the way the Paris Biennale des Antiquaires has never lost its position as the world's greatest event in its league: but British criticism was very strong the past years. It's been fully ridiculed by this year's exceptionnal success and the fact that new major New-York, Berlin or Russian dealers have opened major venues in Paris the past 3 years.

As for haute couture, I was just mentioning the fact that many Londoners love to pretend that this crown has been lost to other cities (like Milan...which doesn't do any haute-couture, or New York, which flocks to Paris...) So it's a fine trick to pretend it doesn't matter after all when the amount of money spent in this branch and spent in Paris seems to prove that it matters to some people after all.

Also
- les Halles is underground (and much much larger that the London things you mentions: in fact it is the real central "gate" of Paris) but Koolhaas' design (or Nouvel for that matter) make it something much more that underground.
-no matter how many skyscrapers you manage to build before Paris get some new ones (despite today's bad mood, already two major scrapers are being built in La Défense: T1 and Granite) London's ugly planing will never match the splendor of La Défense, this one big orderly cluster at the end of "la voie triomphale")
-the Tram on le boulevard des maréchaux is much more than a Tram. It is a way of revealing to the world -and Parisians- the unknow architectural riches of these venues where the entire range of 20th century architecture (the 10's and 20's, Le Corbusier and the 5O's, post-modern and international business etc) are displayed and where there's ample room for major creation. This will allow to remake the outer 'gates of Paris" and Delanoé has never hidden the fact that he wants new stuff there. It is an investment in urban planning (a great architectural loop, surrounding today's official Paris and linking it to the future borroughs) where anything added in the coming years will just add to the original greatness of the thing, just like any addition to La Défense makes it even greater. In contrast with London, where sprinking around (even great) scrapers doesn't change the fact that it's all grey (if not always ugly) badly planned, forgettable.

By letting yourself cornered into self-hate by the chorus of Brit-slander: "you're dead!" says the "friend", now what is there to be done after that, eh?I don't ask you to hate yourselves. The situation is redeemable. All you need to do is inject some new blood into your city. Every consumer can contribute.Sure many Parisians are afraid of scrapers (but not a majority of the young ones) but it's precisely trough major discussions that get this fact exposed that Delanoé is bringing Paris closer to accepting new ones.In my opinion skyscrapers are not the solution because lack of skyscrapers is not the problem.Now for the cultural correction: Today's exhibition by Saatchi is nothing compared with what Pinault has planned for 2007. Saatchi's is more in league with what already exists in Paris in a much more original form: la Maison Rouge by Antoine de Gaudemard in La Bastille which houses temporary exhibitions by major private (and really sophisticated) collectors."Cultural correction"? You didn't even know that Saatchi had a permanent collection. Now you claim that the one in Paris to be superior without having seen its London counterpart! :|Paris is culturally far far superior to London (just do the math about cultural venues for the trully advanced forms of contemporary art) for the simple reason that the cultural capital of the Anglosphere is...New York! London is the periphery (it gets "les miettes du festin"). Paris is the capital city of the Francosphere and also has a good reach on the entire Latin sphere, or the Mediterranée but it is also a very humble host to the entire world republic of letters. Here a quote from a recent piece otherwise quite critical of French ways by Perry Anderson in the London Review of Books:
"French reception of world literature is in a league of its own. In this area French culture has shown itself exceptionally open to the outside world, with a record of interest in foreign output no other metropolitan society can match. A glance at any of the better small bookshops in Paris is enough to register the difference. Translations of fiction or poetry from Asian, Middle Eastern, African, Latin American and East European cultures abound, to a degree unimaginable in London or New York, Rome or Berlin. The difference has structural consequences. The great majority of writers in a language outside the Atlantic core who have gained an international reputation have done so by introductory passage through the medium of French, not English: from Borges, Mishima and Gombrowicz, to Carpentier, Mahfouz, Krleza or Cortazar, up to Gao Xinjiang, the recent Chinese Nobel Prize-winner."New York is no more the cultural capital of the "Anglosphere" than London. London has a clear lead in performing arts, classical music, and dance music. London is by far the literary capital. Perhaps French intellectuals are open to the output of other cultures but in London the other cultures come to us. They write in English because it's the world language. Look at all the African, Middle Eastern, and Asian literary talent based in London. Ben Okri, Jung Chang, and Salman Rushdie made their names in London.Claiming that you "haven't seen a good French movie in years" simply proves that you are not in sync with world-cinephilia. French movies get the lionshare of the small number of foreign movies which get a US distribution. They are always the centerpiece of major film festivals and again this comes from a very very rich ground of major French movie makers, young or old (Rohmer, Resnais, Godard, Chabrol, Téchiné, Bruno Dumont, Tavernier, Breillat, Ozon, Cantet, Assayas, Noémie Lvovsky, Rappeneau, Chereau, Bonnello, Jaoui, Eugene Green, Gaspard Noé, Otar Iosselani, Arnaud Desplechins, Claire Denis, Bertrand Blier, or Genet or Leconte and major world artists who chose French and Paris as a medium for film, like the Portuguese masters Oliveira and the late Jao Cesar Monteiro, or Chilean genius Raoul Ruiz, or the young Australian Samantha Lang ) but also from a profound multi-faceted policy of openness to the world and engagement in it. It is a fact that Paris is the world capital of cinephilia, where more art films are screened and funded that anywhere else (again quoting that piece at the London Book Review: "French hospitality to the furthest corners of the earth has been incomparable in the cinema, too. On any day, about five times as many foreign films, past or present, are screened in Paris as in any other city on earth. Much of what is now termed 'world cinema' - Iranian, Taiwanese, Senegalese - owes its visibility to French consecration and funding. Had directors like Kiarostami, Hou Xiao Xien or Sembene depended on reception in the Anglo-American world, few outside their native lands would ever have glimpsed them". )It sounds like this article is in praise of Paris compared to the English-speaking world. :| It's one of many but for international film London's National Film Theatre is hard to beat. Check out their website:
http://www.bfi.org.uk/showing/nft/index.htmlNow you mention auctioneering and that's an interesting one. Paris had been wiped off the map since 1945. And London had (and still has) a solid second place to New York. So what has hapened is Paris is gaining back a place it had lost for nearly haldf a century. The arrival of the two anglo houses in Paris (breaking a monopoly of Drouot) has shaken things up wonderfully. Paris has now become the hub for Latin American arts or Primitive Arts (the opening of Le Musée du Quai Branly in 2006 will only increase that) Moreover something is happening this fall that has not been seen either in London or anywhere else in the past 50 years: a major American collection will be sold out not in New York but Paris (that of Jean Levy, the American widow of Julien Levy the great New-York-based art dealers of the surrealists). And by the way the Paris Biennale des Antiquaires has never lost its position as the world's greatest event in its league: but British criticism was very strong the past years. It's been fully ridiculed by this year's exceptionnal success and the fact that new major New-York, Berlin or Russian dealers have opened major venues in Paris the past 3 years.London, not New York, is the primary art market in the world. If Paris is making progress then great but London is far ahead and the world leader.As for haute couture, I was just mentioning the fact that many Londoners love to pretend that this crown has been lost to other cities (like Milan...which doesn't do any haute-couture, or New York, which flocks to Paris...) So it's a fine trick to pretend it doesn't matter after all when the amount of money spent in this branch and spent in Paris seems to prove that it matters to some people after all.It matters to a small clique of fashion elite. No-one else notices. It's an irrelevance. Haute couture is so out of tune.Also - les Halles is underground (and much much larger that the London things you mentions: in fact it is the real central "gate" of Paris) but Koolhaas' design (or Nouvel for that matter) make it something much more that underground. -no matter how many skyscrapers you manage to build before Paris get some new ones (despite today's bad mood, already two major scrapers are being built in La Défense: T1 and Granite) London's ugly planing will never match the splendor of La Défense, this one big orderly cluster at the end of "la voie triomphale")Les Halles is horrible. La Defense is almost as bad. Sorry but in terms of planning La Defense is a disaster. Vast open concrete spaces, decaying moderist art, "dead zones" and holes surrounding buildings. What is that building with big green dots on the southern side of the main square? Cummon it's bloody awful!! Canary Wharf is corprate bland but it's far superior in terms of planning and public space. There are no windswept plazas of crumbling concrete defaced by litter and weeds. Canary Wharf is smart. La Defense is depressing.the Tram on le boulevard des maréchaux is much more than a Tram. It is a way of revealing to the world -and Parisians- the unknow architectural riches of these venues where the entire range of 20th century architecture (the 10's and 20's, Le Corbusier and the 5O's, post-modern and international business etc) are displayed and where there's ample room for major creation. This will allow to remake the outer 'gates of Paris" and Delanoé has never hidden the fact that he wants new stuff there. It is an investment in urban planning (a great architectural loop, surrounding Paris) where anything added in the coming years will just add to the original greatness of the thing, just like any addition to La Défense makes it even greater. In contrast with London, where sprinking (even great) scrapers around doesn't change the fact that it's all ugly, badly planned, forgettable.:blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:

*Take haute cuisine.

London boast some fantastic french eateries. Love it or Hate it, Tom Aitkens, Pied a terre and Gagnaire Sketch are showing the most adventurous and twisted french cuisine that i ever experienced in my all gastronomic life ! They are in London, how sad is that ? We, here in France, have the best potential but it is exported ! the same can be written for the best agricultural products like poulet de bresse and so on. (i'm ending writing on poulet de bresse...;))

PS@Monkey: Nobu is overpriced by any standards. It is excellent but £500 for 2 is what u pay for the top of the top. Not the best value for money IMO.

@Ben
la Maison Rouge ? are u kidding ? how can you compare that to the Saatchi ! It's a matter of taste off course, but still, Saatchi collection is far far more praised. It's tiny and not cutting edge at all IMO.

As far as the olympics are concerned, everybody knows that Paris will get them, Londoners dont seem to care much and dont show real enthousiasm. Even Coe asked for support.

I have to agree on the french film scene. It is excellent. And I also find that the parisian offer is much better than the london one.

"Cultural correction"? You didn't even know that Saatchi had a permanent collection. Now you claim that the one in Paris to be superior without having seen its London counterpart!

I mentioned only the ridiculous warehouse incident in my first post. Not mentioning his exhibition hall in the first post is no proof of not knowing of its existence (in fact I also did not mention the Prince of Wales in my first post, but I know he exists, somehow). I nfact I've been there quite recently. That's what allowed me to notice that it is just as large (not larger, nor smaller) than la Maison Rouge and much much less interesting (just things he bought following general fashion, not the life-long quests by often anonymous collectors as they are shown in Paris). And I also saw that it'll be much smaller than what Pinault is building.

As for the rest of your comments. I originally assumed that you had a passable grasp of current cultural trends: that's why I bothered to answer in some detail. But your rebuttal is so "paresseuse" (lazy) that I have to conclude that the entire thing was just for the show: just another boring little British soldier trying to fire potshots at Paris. Well you did not manage to get us out of the way in 1945 under rather harsher circumstances, and you won't manage this time either.
So long.

Bothered! LONG LIVE LONDON!!!

Bothered! LONG LIVE LONDON!!!

Sure.

So that's what it's all about. Londoners anxious about themselves. So long live London, and give Paris a break.

Sure.

So that's what it's all about. Londoners anxious about themselves. So long live London, and give Paris a break.

Sure they are anxious. The city is ever changing and challenges al talents.

*Take haute cuisine. London boast some fantastic french eateries. Love it or Hate it, Tom Aitkens, Pied a terre and Gagnaire Sketch are showing the most adventurous and twisted french cuisine that i ever experienced in my all gastronomic life ! They are in London, how sad is that ? We, here in France, have the best potential but it is exported ! the same can be written for the best agricultural products like poulet de bresse and so on. (i'm ending writing on poulet de bresse...;))I don't think it's surprising that talented French chefs should venture abroad - especially to London. Indeed French chefs have a long tradition in London. Escoffier himself co-founded the Savoy Hotel. London offers good opportunities for aspirant French chefs and is close to home.Monkey: Nobu is overpriced by any standards. It is excellent but £500 for 2 is what u pay for the top of the top. Not the best value for money IMO.Don't exaggerate! :) We paid £90 per head at Nobu for all trimmings. I agree that that's outrageously expensive but no more so than top French restaurants.* have to agree on the french film scene. It is excellent. And I also find that the parisian offer is much better than the london one.You think so? Honestly I wasn't able to take advantage of Parisian cinema as my French simply isn't up to it. However London is hardly short of venues for international or arthouse cinema. Apart from the amazing NFT (rated by Al Pacino as the best cinema in the world....) you have The Electric Cinema, The ICA, the Barbican Centre, The Renoir, Curzon Soho, Curzon Mayfair, Prince Charles, Rio Cinema, Cine-Lumiere, Phoenix, Tricycle, Other Cinema, Ritzy, Everyman, Olympia, Clapham Picturehouse, The Gate, Croydon Clocktower, Fairfield Halls, Riverside etc etc.... London certainly doesn't suffer from any shortage of independent and arthouse offerings.

As for the rest of your comments. I originally assumed that you had a passable grasp of current cultural trends: that's why I bothered to answer in some detail. But your rebuttal is so "paresseuse" (lazy) that I have to conclude that the entire thing was just for the showIt's true that I can't be bothered with you. Trying to put down London's literary scene is absurd. If you want to publish to the world then you write in English and London has the most exciting and international literary scene in the world. You criticise my grasp of "current" cultural trends and then you name drop people like Mishima! Mishima, an over-rated attention seeking dandy in my opinion, committed suicide back in 1970. What on earth is "current" about that? And what on earth does he have to do with Paris?I have to conclude that the entire thing was just for the show: just another boring little British soldier trying to fire potshots at Paris.And I have to conclude that you're a pompous pseudo intellectual - big on pretension but small on brains. :|

Anyway back to the main point. Paris's problem has nothing to do with the art market or haute couture or literary circles. It is much more a sense in which the city has stopped reinventing itself. It no longer feels fresh and new because returning visitors find that very little has changed since their last visit. This comes at a time of unprecendented urban development around the world. We can see on these forums the dynamism of cities in Asia and the Middle East. The map of urban sophistication and glamour is being redrawn and the great western cities need to keep pace. For me the most tangible sign of Paris failing to do so is the paucity of modern design and new openings. Paris's restaurants, bars, shops and hotels seem timewarped. However that may be temporary. It's too early to write off Paris and conclude that it's in inexorable decline. However it is at the crossroads. Will Paris rise from the ashes like London or Barcelona or sink towards provincial irrelevance like Vienna, Florence, Venice and Rome??

^^^^Very good question...honnestly I got the feeling it will change, but it might be in 10 years from now....when paris will reach deep down level and will realize that cities like Madrid overpassed it regarding modern stuff !

at the same time Paris has this certain feeling of glamour anf sophistication that makes it be attractive even if it's not the big hub of everthing modern and edgy !

What I mean is that future chinese (and asian) tourists will always see paris as a centrepoint in europe because of History, french influence, and thanks to all the monuments and amosphere that are so different than the ones which are in ASia.

Now they surely will find London or barcelona more dynamic...but honnestly not all the tourists or foreign people who wanna settle down in a city are looking after great nightlife or trendy bars !

What I mean overall is that Paris may become a "laid-back metropolis" but will always be a focal point for people because of a certain quality of life...

Now no one in paris wants to live in a city where all the jobs are gone, where, everything looks old and outdated compared to the big city next door...so sooner or later I think Paris will strike back and just as London will rise from the "almost" ashes...

^^^^Very good question...honnestly I got the feeling it will change, but it might be in 10 years from now....when paris will reach deep down level and will realize that cities like Madrid overpassed it regarding modern stuff !

at the same time Paris has this certain feeling of glamour anf sophistication that makes it be attractive even if it's not the big hub of everthing modern and edgy !

What I mean is that future chinese (and asian) tourists will always see paris as a centrepoint in europe because of History, french influence, and thanks to all the monuments and amosphere that are so different than the ones which are in ASia.

Now they surely will find London or barcelona more dynamic...but honnestly not all the tourists or foreign people who wanna settle down in a city are looking after great nightlife or trendy bars !

What I mean overall is that Paris may become a "laid-back metropolis" but will always be a focal point for people because of a certain quality of life...

Now no one in paris wants to live in a city where all the jobs are gone, where, everything looks old and outdated compared to the big city next door...so sooner or later I think Paris will strike back and just as London will rise from the "almost" ashes...I agree with you Kony. I don't think Parisians will let Paris slide forever. But one question - why do you think Chinese and Asian tourists will "always see Paris as the centre of Europe"? France has historical influence in Asia but so does Britain. In SE Asia you could score them roughly equal - France in former IndoChina and Britain in Singapore, Malaysia, and Burma. However I think Britain has probably been more influential than France in China.

well I exactly said "a centerpoint in Europe" which doesn't mean the center of Europe...but I wasn't trying to make a comparison with London for instance when I was saying so.

I just wanted to point out that most asian tourists (which is the future big market of tourism) look at europe as an historical continent...so when they come they expect to find old stuff...now if they find modern and edgy stuff too, it's cool, but at first I think they will always love to see Paris as and "old" and historical city...

The modern and dynamic side of Paris has to be worked out more for the european market...if we talk about tourism.

Now if we talk about future world cultural heritage, Paris really needs to reinvent itself because it's too much a city of the past actually...and in 50 years from now, it's important to see how much a city has lived throw the new millenium and what is the new heritage.

But actually Paris has a lot of Modern sides, it's definately not Rome (which I love) which seems very much a city of the past...

It's just that since the 90's Paris hasn't created any movement, architectural statement, or fashion style which is important and world-reknowned...so it's really time to move on...

Paris is a city for the old when London is a city for the old AND the young in a way. Visitors from out of Europe like to see Paris as the standard European flavoured city : the monuments, the easy way of life, the butchers, the bakers, the grocerers...the village in a way, and a village with no surprise. London is far more diversified in what visitors expect from her it seems, and the happening scene and vibrancy of London is a main spot. If things don't change Paris might become the biggest provincial "town" in Europe I'm afraid.

Paris is a city for the old when London is a city for the old AND the young in a way. Visitors from out of Europe like to see Paris as the standard European flavoured city : the monuments, the easy way of life, the butchers, the bakers, the grocerers...the village in a way, and a village with no surprise. London is far more diversified in what visitors expect from her it seems, and the happening scene and vibrancy of London is a main spot. If things don't change Paris might become the biggest provincial "town" in Europe I'm afraid.


Very good point. London is striking, creating surprises. And Paris seems to be much more expected.


@Monkey
£90? you either have a small appetite or drink only tap water ;)

^ We had vegetable and seafood tempura, a selection of sushi and sashimi that we chose from the menu, and drank sake in the bamboo set. I can't remember if we had dessert or not. It was a while ago now. But trust me I don't have a smalll appetite. Some people don't believe how much I pack in when they see how thin I am. :yes:

I just wanted to point out that most asian tourists (which is the future big market of tourism) look at europe as an historical continent...so when they come they expect to find old stuff...now if they find modern and edgy stuff too, it's cool, but at first I think they will always love to see Paris as and "old" and historical city...And as a shopping city. Japanese girls love their Louis Vuitton... ;)

I think most older tourists come to London to see the traditional London sights and attractions. Young Europeans come to London looking for the nightclubs and the edgy stuff. BTW is there a difficulty in getting permission from the city authorities to open large new bars and restaurants in Paris? I know that the Marais (my first choice district if I were a budding bar owner/restauranteur....) is a heritage area and the buildings' exterior's will be protected. But what about the interiors? Is it possible to effectively rebuild new spaces behind the original facades?

Most people in here forget a very important fact in their pictures of London and Paris.

Indeed, There is no Greater Paris as there is a Greater London.

Paris has massively increased its size outside its own borders. As a result, the majority of people who participate to the economical life of Paris lives outside of Paris, and as such, doesn't elect the mayor.

Why 82% of Parisisans don't want cars anymore in Paris ? Well simply because they live in Paris and can take advantage of the great subway network ! 75% of cars circulating in Paris come from the suburbs. And I'm pretty sure that people living in the neighbouring cities of Paris support a lot less the mayor in his effort to get rid of the cars.

On the other side, the mayor of London is actually the mayor of the largest part of the Metropolitan area. As a result, he doesn't administrate only the people living inside the circle line of the tube, but also what are still suburbs in Paris.


What we need in Paris is simply to make a more harmonious development of the city, and that city isn't only inside the Periphérique, it's largely beyond it. If we really want this, we need to create a Greater Paris as there is a Greater London.

Instead of administrating only the 75 department, the mayor of Paris should administrate (and be elected by) people living in the 92, 93 and 94 departments.

The current mayor of Paris is only elected by the people living in the center, but he has influence on the whole metropolis. This is unfair, it's just like if only the elite was allowed to vote.

Quite a funny talk here. Albeit Benmabillion's this line here

"Well you did not manage to get us out of the way in 1945 under rather harsher circumstances, and you won't manage this time either."

What on earth is that meant to mean!!

@Metropolitan
Why do you think changing the official borders would help? I'm not sure it would make much difference.

Enlarging Paris city limits would not help the city to thrive economically or culturally in my opinion. At best Paris could have more room to grow...horizontally ;)

Enlarging Paris city limits would not help the city to thrive economically or culturally in my opinion. At best Paris could have more room to grow...horizontally ;)If what you want is highrise buildings, then it is wishful thinking to imagine them between Notre Dame and the Louvre. This will never happen (and fortunately I'll add).

I think that the West suburbs (Val de Seine) from Issy to St Denis is a good place to expand the economical activity of the city and that is not harmful to Paris. The thing which isn't said in the story is that even if the number of bureaux is saturating in Paris, it is fastly increasing just on its west side. Paris can't be summarized as the 75. I've read somewhere that even if there are 2 million people sleeping in Paris, there are 6 million people inside the city border during daytime.

If we want a better management of the development of the West side (which is needed because the center is saturated), if we want La Défense to be expanded for instance, then a Greater municipality would help. The problem isn't about the name of that "municipality", I don't really care, I simply think it would be better if it was managed as a whole.

Did you know that the population density on the right bank of Paris is superior to the one of Manhattan for the same area ? Despite that, no high rise have appeared. What is needed isn't density, we have this. We need space to build highrises, and those space will be found in the west.

Did you know that the population density on the right bank of Paris is superior to the one of Manhattan for the same area ? Despite that, no high rise have appeared. What is needed isn't density, we have this. We need space to build highrises, and those space will be found in the west.

Yes he knows, and we will all know.

Anyway, some companies "leaving Paris" doesn't mean anything for they go to...La Defense or the neighboring suburbs of Paris where it's easier to build anew. Paris has of yet only 20 "arrondissements" (boroughs) which where drawn in the 1860's. It should count 30 at least and include "cities" like Neuilly-sur-Seine, Vincennes, St Denis, Malakoff, Boulogne,
;)

Totally agree! As per my previous post "you cant consider only the City of Paris, which is only a relatively small political entity! But socially,culturally and economically, Paris is made up as well of its suburbs."

Speaking about French films I think France is still producing some great films, but maybe those are not shown in the UK (well most foreign films are not, but American... obviously)


What we need in Paris is simply to make a more harmonious development of the city, and that city isn't only inside the Periphérique, it's largely beyond it. If we really want this, we need to create a Greater Paris as there is a Greater London.;)

If I am not wrong, until the '60s those departments were part of the city of Paris, making up the Seine Dpt....??


Will Paris rise from the ashes like London or Barcelona or sink towards provincial irrelevance like Vienna, Florence, Venice and Rome??

I dont get this: how can you compare cities as Florence and Venice with London and Paris?? First, they dont have any political power as they are not Capital cities, but above all their size is far too small to be compared with cities as London and Paris..... dont you agree??
Regarding Rome, I dont think has sunk in a "provincial irrelevance"; it might have not the same world status as London or Paris, but it's always a thriving city, culturally and socially, especially in the last few years.

^ I don't think size is the issue. Yes Paris is much bigger than Florence, Venice, or Rome. However size does not equal dynamic. Barcelona is no bigger than Rome but much more dynamic. It's more dynamic than Paris too despite Paris being much larger. Venice and Florence may not be capitals but the other city I mentioned, Rome, is a capital, and is pretty irrelevant and provincial when it comes to business and contemporary culture. Rome still has claims to importance as the centre of Catholicism, as capital of Italy, and as a tourist destination but how valuable are they? You seem to accept that Venice is irrelevant even though it's an important tourist magnet. Being the centre of Catholicism and capital of Italy are historical legacies - fortunate perhaps but not the product of any dynamic activity emanating from the city. Being a capital does not equate to importance at all - look at Ottowa, Canberra, Brasilia, Ankara etc.

^ I don't think size is the issue. Yes Paris is much bigger than Florence, Venice, or Rome. However size does not equal dynamic. .

Well in this case size can be "the issue", as you cant expect a city of around 300.000 inhab. is as dynamic as a city of 10 mil of inhab! Obviously there will be more "going on" in the latest one...? Btw, Rome might not be as "young" as London or Barcelona, but as I said things have changed, and are still changing: by the end of this year Rome will have a New National Gallery (Macro by Odile Decq, ....), by next year another National Gallery (MAXXI by Zaha Hadid - 26000 m2 of surface), a big "Cultural Centre" for young people (by converting the General Market), a new Congress Palace, new Trade Fair, new Museums, new Theatres .... so I really dont think Rome is sinking towards provincial irrelevance....?

Regarding Paris, there are as well a lots of "dynamic" projects, some of them which will be opened by the end of this year: La Maison de la Culture, a "Cinematheque", the "International Visual Theathre", the Museum of "Arts Premiers", la Gaite New Cultural Centre,... and many more! And obviously the convertion of the "Les Halles Forum".

^ I despair at how many of those projects are museums, theatres, and cultural centres. These are just bourgeois facilities. Paris and Rome are already rich in these. When Paris was at the height of it's cultural brilliance, in the early 20th century, was that creativity led by mueums or cultural centres? Of course not!! Rome has produced little of cultural value in the last 200 years. I can think of Federico Fellini but that's about it. Don't get me wrong - I absolutely love Rome - but in 2004 it's looking rather provincial.

Rome has produced little of cultural value in the last 200 years. I can think of Federico Fellini but that's about it. Don't get me wrong - I absolutely love Rome - but in 2004 it's looking rather provincial.

Federico Fellini only? What about De Sica, Pasolini, Rossellini, Visconti, Sergio Leone, Antonioni, Bertolucci, Pieraccioli,.... then again I keep forgetting then in Britain European films are not as "popular" as american ones...?

2004 looked quite provincial in your opinion? So what about the MTV Music Awards, the European Union Constitutional Treaty, Glocal Forum, RomaEuropa Festival, the JazzFestival, New Operafestival .... which took place in Rome last year? .... and all the international artists (Sting, Coldplay, Alanis Morisette, Peter Gabriel, Simon and Garfunkel, Dido, Macy Gray, .....) have decided to performe in Rome last year?

Then again, maybe in Britain you dont get so many "european news".

Obviously Rome has not the same "international status" as London, but you cant say Rome was "quite provincial" in 2004.

^ Yes I think I can justifiably say that Rome is provincial in 2004. Which of those acts you list (Sting, Coldplay, Alanis Morisette, Peter Gabriel, Simon and Garfunkel, Dido, Macy Gray etc) are from Rome? None of them. Rome is merely a stop on a tour. How much of MTV's content is Roman? And the directors you list, "De Sica, Pasolini, Rossellini, Visconti, Sergio Leone, Antonioni, Bertolucci, Pieraccioli", are indeed unknown to me. I looked some of them up on Wikipedia and their most famous films are essentially Hollywood productions. And yes American films are more popular in Britain just as they are in every European country. However there are plenty of European films shown in Britain. In London there are quite a few cinemas dedicated to showing nothing else. That doesn't change the fact that Italy's contemporary film industry is virtually non-existant. Also the signing of the EU Constitutional Treaty does not reflect Rome's contemporary importance at all. It does perhaps reflect Rome's symbolic importance - a kind of importance I never questioned that Rome possessed in the first place - but then Maastricht was the venue for another critical EU Treaty. Does that make Maastricht an important European city? I think not! Rome expresses it's provincialism in its opposition to the development of a Chinatown or the fact that chains and supermarkets are deliberately excluded from the city centre in order to preserve the alimentari and the traditional character of Rome. If people call Paris "ossified" then my God what is Rome? The world is racing forward at breakneck speed but Rome is moving so slowly - partly because of small minded fear of globalisation - but also because it's not really the centre of anything dynamic anyway.

And the directors you list, "De Sica, Pasolini, Rossellini, Visconti, Sergio Leone, Antonioni, Bertolucci, Pieraccioli", are indeed unknown to me.
This tells a lot of your "british" knowledge.... I am sure the most of European, and not, forumers are able to recognise these italian film directors!


and supermarkets are deliberately excluded from the city centre in order to preserve the alimentari and the traditional character of Rome. If people call Paris "ossified" then my God what is Rome?

Thanks god those supermarkets are deliberately excluded from the city centres of Rome and Paris (where you have the same kind of "exclusion"!)

i too regret that Rome has kinda given up its dynamism away to Milano...i love both but i think Roma should really jump on the modernity wagon as London perfectly did and as Paris managed more or less to do in the past 20 years (despite having really "old-shool" politicians !!)

Rome in the first place has only 2 metro lines if i remember well what i read somewhere...because they can't build too many because of the rich underground of ancient rome

This tells a lot of your "british" knowledge.... I am sure the most of European, and not, forumers are able to recognise these italian film directors!Actually I'm quite a film buff. I do recognise some of the films they directed but they are essentially Hollywood productions starring actors like Clint Eastwood and Marlon Brando - what's culturally Italian or Roman about them?Thanks god those supermarkets are deliberately excluded from the city centres of Rome and Paris (where you have the same kind of "exclusion"!)No Paris is much freer than Rome on this score. There are small supermarkets sprinkled all over Paris and plenty of mainstream chain shopping too - just go to Champs Elysees, Rue de Rennes, Grands Magasins, Les Halles etc etc.

. I looked some of them up on Wikipedia and their most famous films are essentially Hollywood productions..

Dont agree, except for Bertolucci

However there are plenty of European films shown in Britain.

Dont agree, never see so many European films in Britain, and for sure not as much as they are shown in France, Italy and Spain (the countries which I know better).

. In London there are quite a few cinemas dedicated to showing nothing else.

Really, which are those cinemas dedicated nothing else then European films?

That doesn't change the fact that Italy's contemporary film industry is virtually non-existant.

What do you know about Italian contemporary film production? Not much, dont you?

Rome expresses it's provincialism in its opposition to the development of a Chinatown

Actually there is already a Chinatown in central rome (Esquilino area), and it's developping more and more. Then if you are talking about the nearby shops owner who are getting "worried" about this fast spreading, sorry but I dont call it "provincialism".... who would nt be worried to find suddenly its shop in the middle of a Chinatown?

. I looked some of them up on Wikipedia and their most famous films are essentially Hollywood productions..
Actually I'm quite a film buff. I do recognise some of the films they directed but they are essentially Hollywood productions starring actors like Clint Eastwood and Marlon Brando - what's culturally Italian or Roman about them?

Dont agree, except for Bertolucci; moreover what has to do if some of those films were made thanks to some Hollywood producers? Pasolini, De Sica, Rossellini and Pieraccioli are, btw, very "roman" film directors. And, out of the total films production of those films directors, very few had as actors C.Eastwood and M.Brando.

However there are plenty of European films shown in Britain.

Dont agree, never see so many European films in Britain, and for sure not as much as they are shown in France, Italy and Spain (the countries which I know better).

. In London there are quite a few cinemas dedicated to showing nothing else.

Really, which are those cinemas showing nothing else then European films?

That doesn't change the fact that Italy's contemporary film industry is virtually non-existant.

What do you know about Italian contemporary film production? Not much, dont you? Cinecitta, even though has lost much of its importance, it's still a major Film production centre in Europe, choosen to play not only italian films, but international ones, such as: The Passion by Mel Gibson; Under the Tuscan Sun (A. Wells); GANGS OF NEW YORK (Scorsese), part of Ocean’s twelve, ... and many more!

Rome expresses it's provincialism in its opposition to the development of a Chinatown

Actually there is already a Chinatown in central rome (Esquilino area), and it's developping more and more. Then if you are talking about the nearby shops owner who are getting "worried" about this fast spreading, sorry but I dont call it "provincialism".... who would nt be worried to find suddenly its shop in the middle of a Chinatown?

or the fact that chains and supermarkets are deliberately excluded from the city centre in order to preserve the alimentari and the traditional character of Rome.


[QUOTE=Monkey]There are small supermarkets sprinkled all over Paris and plenty of mainstream chain shopping too - .

Earlier you were talking about supermarkets, now "small" supermarkets, as in central paris there are not supermarkets, but mini-markets! And now what mainstream chain shops have to do ??


Btw, this conversation is going to be endless, I just wanted to say that Paris is not sinking toward "provincialism" and Rome is not, according to my opinion, a provincial city, giving you some "valid" points (IMO), which you dont agree ( even though Rome is a city which hosts every year international events). Fine, it seems we have 2 very diffent point of view what a "provincial city" is.

Actually there is already a Chinatown in central rome (Esquilino area), and it's developping more and more. Then if you are talking about the nearby shops owner who are getting "worried" about this fast spreading, sorry but I dont call it "provincialism".... who would nt be worried to find suddenly its shop in the middle of a Chinatown?

Ah, the rest of the world wouldn't be worried. This is 2004, not 1804. People of different ethnic backgrounds are not evil child eating demons.

I believe these articles demonstrate quite clearly a very serious problem in Rome.
http://www.cestim.it/articoli%20news%20e%20visti%20dagli%20altri/visti%20dagli%20altri%201marzo04.htm
http://www.pasco-group.com/lgweb/chinatown.pdf

wake up Rome. How wants a whole city to be nothing but Italian.

Dont agree, never see so many European films in Britain, and for sure not as much as they are shown in France, Italy and Spain (the countries which I know better).Really, which are those cinemas dedicated nothing else then European films?
Cinemas in London that show either exclusively European or, at the very least, predominantly international (ie non-English language), art-house and repertary films include the Renoir, Lux, Ciné Lumiere, Institut Francais, Goethe Institut, ICA, Prince Charles, Curzon Soho, Curzon Mayfair, Clapham Picture House, Ritzy, Electric, Hampstead Everyman, Greenwich Picturehouse, Himalaya Palace, National Film Theatre, Phoenix, Rio, Riverside Studios, Screen on Baker Street, Screen on the Green, Screen on the Hill, Tricycle, Other, Horse Hospital, Fairfield Halls, Clockhouse, Watermans Arts Centre, Stratford Picture House, The Genesis, Barbican, Gate, Chelsea etc etc.

Dont agree, except for Bertolucci; moreover what has to do if some of those films were made thanks to some Hollywood producers? Pasolini, De Sica, Rossellini and Pieraccioli are, btw, very "roman" film directors. And, out of the total films production of those films directors, very few had as actors C.Eastwood and M.Brando.Not just Bertolucci. You also mentioned Sergio Leone whose films include spagetti westerns such as A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - all starring Clint Eastwood and set in the American West. He was assistant director on Hollywood films such as Quo Vadis and Ben Hur. Once Upon a Time in the West and Once Upon a Time in America are also Hollywood films.

I have looked up Pasolini, De Sica, Rossellini and Pieraccioli on Wikipedia and I don't know a single film by any of them. Certainly I don't know old Italian cinema well but I suspect few outside of Italy, including many regular film buffs, know their work. They are certainly not big names internationally.

Earlier you were talking about supermarkets, now "small" supermarkets, as in central paris there are not supermarkets, but mini-markets! And now what mainstream chain shops have to do??Are you trying to redefine the meaning of the word "supermarket"? There are loads of small supermarkets in Paris but I never saw a single one in Rome. What's to dispute? And I mentioned mainstream chain shops because they too are very hard to find in Rome - I'm guessing that's because they are restricted in order to favour small independent clothes shops.

the Hampstead Everyman now shows mostly bigger-budget or at least wider circulation English language movies. The Screen on the Hill in Belsize Park and The Screen on Baker Street still show mostly foreign language films though. I dont think Rome is provincial or Ossified at all. Ive gone back to it two years in a row now and though I admit Italian music is beyond a joke and the built fabric is mostly either old or low-quality, Rome nonetheless came across to me as a city more than willing to change. There were a bunch of new projects going on, most notable the new contemporary art gallery by zaha, and alot of nightlife. The Notte Bianca was so cool as well, the whole city was just thumping with life and there were people from all over the world coming especialy for it. anyway, just my opinion.
zaha's gallery
http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/images/Feature0060_04x.jpg
http://infar.architektur.uni-weimar.de/infar/deu/lehre/archiv/vorlesungsreihe/ss03/computeranimation/images/hadid_rom1.jpg

the new city of music by Piano
http://www.nycerome.com/pictures-of-rome/auditorium.jpg
http://www.floornature.com/worldaround/img_magazine/wr110_5_home.jpg

Meier gift to Rome's 50 new churches project
http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/images/Feature0123_02x.jpg
http://www.view.captureweb.co.uk/images/trueimages/RM/P-/JC/-0/01/6-/RMP-JC-0016-A-2.jpg

the great sports hall by Nervi
http://moment.mit.edu/imageLibrary/images/large_images/Fig45.JPG

and this is what the whole of Rome is like on the Notte Bianca
http://www.mclink.it/personal/MC3957/images/NotteBianca03/NotteBianca27set03-11.jpg

Paris does need to be protected architecturally because it's arhitecturally beautiful - however it could do with shaking off its innate conservatism elsewhere. I really feel that Paris is being left behind in the era of globalisation. I used to love Paris but now I feel less and less drawn to it. It still excells at the things Paris has always excelled at but there is a definite lack of new excitement and energy. Paris has lost its cultural dynamism and creative edge. Skyscrapers are not the answer but some exciting new bars, clubs, restaurants, hotels etc would do a lot to inject some new life and excitement into that city. I am reasonably optimistic that this will eventually happen. 10 years ago London had stagnated yet since then it has managed to completely turn that around. I hope that Paris is able to do the same. However before that happens Parisians really need to look beyond their own traditional culture. Opening a branch of Starbucks should not be cause for a national debate in a cosmopolitan world city. Ultra chic Japanese restaurant Nobu, which succeeded brilliantly in London, New York, and Los Angeles, should not have closed down in Paris because of lack of interest. In short Paris needs to become more open and receptive to the world. I hated Amelie and its depiction of a cosy rosy Paris irritated me. Paris is better than that. The edge has not completely gone - for example Paris does have an amazing hip-hop scene - but Paris is dominated by the bourgeois middle classes whose boring good taste threatens to suffocate the vitality of what was once the world's most glamourous and creatively brilliant city. "Ossification" is a very well chosen word to describe the danger facing Paris. I note the definition from Dictionary.com:

"The process of becoming set in a rigidly conventional pattern, as of behavior, habits, or beliefs. Rigid, unimaginative convention."

Quite so.... :yes:
Amelie was such a great movie! What are you talking about?
I LOVED it!

You can't change people's attitudes just because you'd feel it would help their city. Whether you are an advocate of liberalism or conservitism, neither are perfect. Why does paris have to re-invent itself when it is probably a great city anyway? Monkey, you dismiss vienna and rome as irrelevant? You obviously don't appreciate things that are historical and would like every city in the world to become futuristic. This just isn't practical in many cities. These cities are still modern but it is not as 'in your face' as many other cities. This is why we have a world full of variety and every city should not aspire to be the same thing.

You can't change people's attitudes just because you'd feel it would help their city. Whether you are an advocate of liberalism or conservitism, neither are perfect. Why does paris have to re-invent itself when it is probably a great city anyway? Monkey, you dismiss vienna and rome as irrelevant? You obviously don't appreciate things that are historical and would like every city in the world to become futuristic. This just isn't practical in many cities. These cities are still modern but it is not as 'in your face' as many other cities. This is why we have a world full of variety and every city should not aspire to be the same thing.
Exactly. Diversity is good!

You can't change people's attitudes just because you'd feel it would help their city. Whether you are an advocate of liberalism or conservitism, neither are perfect. Why does paris have to re-invent itself when it is probably a great city anyway? Monkey, you dismiss vienna and rome as irrelevant? You obviously don't appreciate things that are historical and would like every city in the world to become futuristic. This just isn't practical in many cities. These cities are still modern but it is not as 'in your face' as many other cities. This is why we have a world full of variety and every city should not aspire to be the same thing.Actually I love history and how many times do I have to say "I love Rome"? Rome is one of my favourite cities to visit in the world. I rate Rome's stupendous churches far higher than almost all skyscrapers. However it hasn't been an important centre of creativity for two centuries now. Rome's cultural glories are legacy of a time when it was such a centre. Now I'm not suggesting that Paris needs to reinvent itself from scratch. A mere gloss of new style would be sufficient. However I think it's stagnating and, as a modern city, underperforming its potential - especially relative to cities like Barcelona, London, or New York.

Ive long said this, that Paris is rapidly turning itself into a museum.

you'ra partly right pricemazda but u can be sure that if we get the olympics things will definately change...Paris was very innovative in the 90's...so it's gotta strike back !

wow, i am very surprised you Kony would admit to that. Very surprised.


PS. Paris ain't gonna win.

ha ha , actually i don't really agree the decisions being made today by the politic leader in paris...so i think too much environmental issues will break the economic dynamism of the city...

but it does not mean that when i have to argue Paris Vs london threads i would not admit the greatness of paris you see !

PS :paris will win, and you're the first one i will celebrate that victory with :)

Well when London wins and I have a drink of English white wine, I will think of you.

i too regret that Rome has kinda given up its dynamism away to Milano...i love both but i think Roma should really jump on the modernity wagon as London perfectly did and as Paris managed more or less to do in the past 20 years (despite having really "old-shool" politicians !!)

Rome in the first place has only 2 metro lines if i remember well what i read somewhere...because they can't build too many because of the rich underground of ancient rome

But Rome's classic style is appealing to many. That is what brings in tourist. Milan is amore modern city probably (Have been to Milan but not to Rome) but Rome has to keep it's classical and traditional identity.

Also as for the metro Athens faced the same problems with the old artifacts but what happened in Greece was they took out the artifacts and put them on display INSIDE the station. It is amazing, and I think Rome should do the same.

But Rome's classic style is appealing to many. That is what brings in tourist. Milan is amore modern city probably (Have been to Milan but not to Rome) but Rome has to keep it's classical and traditional identity.

Also as for the metro Athens faced the same problems with the old artifacts but what happened in Greece was they took out the artifacts and put them on display INSIDE the station. It is amazing, and I think Rome should do the same.

But Rome is as well "rich" of modern structures (maybe not as much as other cities, but as you said, it's better to keep its classical and historical identity, specially downtonw!

Moreover, as you mentioned, Rome has in fact a huge problem with its underground and therefore its metro network is very limited (hopefully a forth line of metro is on its way!). Nevertheless Rome has a quite extensive tramway and urban railways network, which "try" to compensate its deficit of metro lines.

This map shows only the metro and urban services in Rome (the grey lines with the "black" terminus are the FM - Ferrovie metropolitane, the Urban Railways) but doesn't show the tramway network, which run mostly in central rome and should be as long as 60 km.

http://www.metroroma.it/NR/rdonlyres/6F445F59-D5A0-4701-87FF-F7EB743308F4/0/mappa_pic.gif

Sorry i haven't been following the conversation but i sincerely believe Paris is not commanding the world stage as it should and as it can and as it has.

I cannot wait for the daywhen it emerges preeminent or close to it, right now the World Cities (and paris is undeniably one of them in a real sense) are being perceived as Tokyo, London, New York.

I have all the faith in the world that Paris will get the reputation it deserves, but i feel its not doing anything 'new' on the world stage. I dont think it should do wkyscrapers, in fact i would love for it to prove there is more to a city profile, but it is not the Capital it was in previous centuries when it was cutting edge.

gocaps75 - what you say about the underground in Athens:

that is a beautiful idea - a fantastic example of how to explore and showcase the heritage of a place.

brilliant.