Medieval Paris Before Baron Haussmann's Transformation

[socrates#1fan]

Originally Posted by brisavoine

No?

The Eiffel tower features ornamentation, as does the second structure you posted, the third, is fugly as hell.

[socrates#1fan]

Originally Posted by Minato ku

Do you think that Paris is a big city because it is beautiful or because it is a big economic powerhouse ?
Reducing Paris as its beauty is lack of knowledge of the city.

Before being beautiful, Paris is a big city with the need of a big metropolis.

[
Do you honestly believe I think the city popped up because of its beauty? What I am saying is that the reason Paris is so famous is because of its beauty and architecture, without all of its ornate architecture it would end up like most European cities, beautiful, but not quite Parisian.

Some of busiest part of the city are also some of ugliest.
What attract inhabitants is having proper shops...
All the things that the Ile de la Cite don't have and cannot have because of Haussmann work.

I don't think that good modern buildings would be uglier than the Hotel Dieu, maybe for the people who cannot understand that Paris is closer to New York than Venise or Carcassonne.
Ancien is not equal to beautiful.
Modern is not equal to ugly.

Yes but you can easily destroy the feel of historic Paris with modern structures. They would likely not sum up to the beauty of the structures we speak of. I cannot think of a single modern structure that is as beautiful as that government structure.

But not everything can be reused, we need to remplace some buildings.
Secondly we don't want a city, film set. Paris is not a theme park.

PS : It is inhabitants or local, not native. The majority of Parisian aren"t born in Paris.

Paris is not a theme park, do you think that by preserving the feel of Paris you will be a themepark? Is this part of a desire to divorce the world's image of Paris?
Whatever, the local population.

[brisavoine]

Originally Posted by z0nnebril

http://maps.google.nl/?ie=UTF8&ll=48...3.48,,0,-14.27

On Google Maps I found this --> Between the buildings and above the tiny building, you can see that there still is
a wooden construction. You just can't see it at all those other buildings in Paris, but most of them still has it

I have indicated the location of your wooden construction on the very detailled Turgot map of 1739 (look for the red circle). The building
there stood just behind the Petit Châtelet. The Petit Châtelet was a fortress rebuilt in the 1370s which commanded the entrance
of the Petit Pont. It was demolished in 1782. On the Turgot map the Medieval Hôtel Dieu built by King Saint Louis in the
13th century is still visible on both sides of the Seine River between the Petit Châtelet and Notre Dame. The aisle of the Hôtel Dieu
on the north side of the Seine (i.e. to the left of the river in that map) burnt in 1772.



Here you can see the Petit Châtelet before it was demolished in 1782:


In this older map by Matthäus Merian from 1615, I have again indicated with a red circle the location of the block of
buildings where your wooden construction is located (note that the Petit Pont still had houses on top of it at the time;
these houses burned in 1718, I showed a painting of that fire two pages back in post #56, and they were not rebuilt).

[brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Clay Hefner

I wonder why they had to tear down so many of the wooden buildings, some of those were HUGE.

Maybe the 19th century author of the 1550 view exaggerated the proportions a bit. Judging from the 1854 painting, it seems those Medieval houses were not as tall, although I would say they were definitely taller than in the German cities, with at least 4-5 floors each.

Why did they tear them down? After the end of the French Wars of Religion, the population of Paris increased incredibly rapidly. Between 1592 and 1634, the population of the city increased from 210,000 to 420,000. At the time the city was a large scale construction site.

I guess they needed more space, and back then they had no respect for the past unlike us today. European cities that have kept their Medieval heritage most are those which stagnated after the Middle Ages. Paris was always a thriving city, so like London it continuously rebuilt itself, erasing its past as it went. That's why I find it completely absurd to freeze Paris in its 1914 state now. It's contrary to the whole history of the city.

[heywindup]

Judging from those pictures, I think Paris is better off with Haussmann's renovations. Just be happy that it happened mid-19th century instead of after WWII where it could have been Le Corbusier making the decisions.

This could have been Paris if Le Corbusier had his way:

[brisavoine]

A rare survivor of the Middle Ages. The average tourist will never find these. It takes time wandering off the beaten tracks, away from the Haussmannian avenues, to discover these rare relics. Because I'm nice, I'll tell you the street: it's in Rue du Grenier sur l'Eau.



image hosted on flickr


PS: This very old Medieval street only partly survived the craze of the Paris city planers. Its northern side (to the right of the pictures, not visible in the pictures) was demolished in 1959 to enlarge the street (the street was twice narrower before 1959). Apparently this street had the reputation of being insalubrious, which is why they enlarged it in 1959. The building to the right of the street was as Medieval as the one you can see in the pictures above, but they demolished it nonetheless. Only 51 years ago!

[z0nnebril]

Nice find!

[Minato ku]

Originally Posted by socrates#1fan

Paris is not a theme park, do you think that by preserving the feel of Paris you will be a themepark? Is this part of a desire to divorce the world's image of Paris?

Do you really know the feel of Paris ? Because reducing the "feel of Paris" to its ancien building is a serious misunderstanding of the city.
As a parisian when I go in the Ile de la Cité (this don't happen often), I don't feel I am in Paris, I feel more in a "tourist land".

The "world's image of Paris" is often so far from the reality, so following this image would transform Paris into a theme park.

Originally Posted by brisavoine

Paris was always a thriving city, so like London it continuously rebuilt itself, erasing its past as it went. That's why I find it completely absurd to freeze Paris in its 1914 state now. It's contrary to the whole history of the city.

Exactly.

[AMS guy]

There are enough areas in Paris suitable for redevelopment, so I really don't understand why the Haussmann architecture in the very center has to be demolished. Why don't you start "improving Paris" with tearing down the ugly commie blocks near Place d'Italie first? It's an eyesore much worse than Hôtel-Dieu. Look at Amsterdam for example, here nobody even thinks about demolishing old patrician houses, even though they all look the same.

[z0nnebril]

Originally Posted by AMS guy

Look at Amsterdam for example, here nobody even thinks about demolishing old patrician houses, even though they all look the same.

Do they look all the same? I don't think so

But I can see youre point Paris is a beautifull city, it's only a pity that all the medieval buildings are gone...But come on people! You are pretending that Paris is ugly and that nothing it beautifull about it!

But I have to admitt...Their still building appartments blocks in the city center with the original Haussmann architecture, that's a bit fake to see...

[AMS guy]

Originally Posted by z0nnebril

Do they look all the same? I don't think so

It was meant ironically I often hear from tourists visiting Amsterdam for the first time that all the main canals look very similar, which is also true. But the case of Amsterdam is a bit like Paris that is often said to be mono architectural, too much Haussmann, whatever. To me it's not dull, it's a perfect harmony. And harmony should not be interrupted by experiments of a doubtful value.

Originally Posted by z0nnebril

But I can see youre point Paris is a beautifull city, it's only a pity that all the medieval buildings are gone...But come on people! You are pretending that Paris is ugly and that nothing it beautifull about it!

I think the guys here are not trying to prove that Paris is ugly. They try to convince us outsiders that it's a vibrant city, a living organism that shouldn't be put into a picture frame. But we know it already, and we know that they are right. But still, you have to be very careful with the city of this importance to the world heritage. Cities like Paris are not only in concern of their own inhabitants. Sorry guys, but Paris is not only yours

[brisavoine]

Originally Posted by AMS guy

Look at Amsterdam for example, here nobody even thinks about demolishing old patrician houses, even though they all look the same.

As usual (and there were exactly the same arguments in the French forum), people don't seem to have a sense of proportion here. The Haussmannian heart of Paris is enormous compared to other European cities. It covers at the very least 50 km². In comparison, the historic heart of Amsterdam with patrician houses is very small, it covers only about 6 km², so it's not really a problem to freeze that area, you can build modern architecture outside the old historic core Amsterdan, it's not going to be very far from the city center, whereas if you freeze all the Haussmannian areas, you freeze at the very least 50 km² at the heart of Paris (and probably even more), which is enormous and rejects the modern city far away. In the long term, there is no city that can survive by freezing 50 km² or more at its center.

Here are satellite views of Paris and Amsterdam for an idea of scale (note that both views are at exactly the same scale). In the Paris view I have indicated the borders of the City of Paris before 1860. Within that area, about 90% of buildings are Haussmannian or pre-Haussmannian. Note that there are also lots of Haussmannian buildings outside that area, but drawing a border of the Haussmannian areas is tricky, so I simply used the pre-1860 border of the city of Paris. In the view of Amsterdam I have indicated the old historic core of the city.



It's ok to freeze 6 km², it's doesn't kill the city, but it's crazy to freeze 34 km², 50 km², or more. There is no city in the whole world that is freezing such a gigantic area at its heart.

[z0nnebril]

Originally Posted by brisavoine

It's ok to freeze 6 km², it's doesn't kill the city, but it's crazy to freeze 34 km², 50 km², or more. There is no city in the whole world that is freezing such a gigantic area at its heart.

I totally agree with you! In Amsterdam their are some post-war architecture buildings build, most of the people hate them...But in Amsterdam all modern buildings look miss placed, simply because their most of the time to high and to big. The whole city center is build full with those patrician houses, so a big building next to it looks a bit wrong

In Paris most of the buildings are quite big and semi-high, so modern buildings would'nt look miss placed there...It would be nice to see some more modern architecture in the Paris city center. That's why I like the glass piramid of the Louvre, although I don't like the shape...it's a nice piece of modern architecture!

[AMS guy]

Originally Posted by brisavoine

It's ok to freeze 6 km², it's doesn't kill the city, but it's crazy to freeze 34 km², 50 km², or more. There is no city in the whole world that is freezing such a gigantic area at its heart.

I'm not suggesting to freeze Paris entirely, but there are other areas than Ile de la Cite that can use redevelopment perfectly. It's not necessary to demolish 19th century buildings in the very heart of "medieval" city to prevent Paris from dying. I'd prefer Post-World War II architecture to be redeveloped first. Think of rebuilding Front de Seine or adding spectacular modern architecture in the area around Tour Montparnasse. I simply don't see the reason why changing the face of Paris has to start with Ile de la Cite. One thing is for sure, height limits should be abandoned.

[brisavoine]

Originally Posted by AMS guy

there are other areas than Ile de la Cite that can use redevelopment perfectly

Which ones? The Marais? The Louvre? St Germain des Prés? The Latin Quarter? The Opéra? The Champs Elysées?

Originally Posted by AMS guy

It's not necessary to demolish 19th century buildings in the very hear of "medieval" city to prevent Paris from dying. I'd prefer Post-World War II architecture to be redeveloped first.

In the area of 34 km² that I have indicated, 90% of buildings are pre-WW1.

Originally Posted by AMS guy

Think of rebuilding Front de Seine or adding spectacular modern architecture in the area around Tour Montparnasse.

People who want to freeze Paris are opposed to building modern architecture around the Tour Montparnasse. It's a complete taboo. The City Hall does not and will not dare to propose modern architecture there. In fact many people would like to demolish the Montparnasse Tower.

[z0nnebril]

Originally Posted by brisavoine

Which ones? The Marais? The Louvre? St
People who want to freeze Paris are opposed to building modern architecture around the Tour Montparnasse. It's a complete taboo. The City Hall does not and will not dare to propose modern architecture there. In fact many people would like to demolish the Montparnasse Tower.

The Montparnasse Tower is a piece of ugly modern architecture!
If it stood in La Defance, ok...But now it's the only highrise in the city center, which looks weird...

[Minato ku]

That's why it is the prefect place to build skyscrapers in Central Paris.
The Montparnasse tower would be less sole surrounded by other high-rises.

[heywindup]

Originally Posted by brisavoine

http://i49.tinypic.com/rwuedj.jpg

Could you please do a similar map for London?

[AMS guy]

Originally Posted by brisavoine

Which ones? The Marais? The Louvre? St Germain des Prés? The Latin Quarter? The Opéra? The Champs Elysées?

I pointed them already in my previous posts.

Here you have plenty of possibilities to experiment with modern architecture and spectacular redevelopments. Nobody will cry when this gets demolished.
Front de Seine, walking distance from the Eiffel Tower.




Place d'Italie area
image hosted on flickr






pics below by Darhet

XVième arrondissement






Montparnasse


Other areas outside of the very center.





There are also plenty of buildings that have not much value from architectural point of view and could be replaced by modern architecture.

This is Cambronne area where I lived.




And this is far worse than Hotel Dieu on Ile de la Cite as we speak of what could/should be redeveloped.

Originally Posted by brisavoine

People who want to freeze Paris are opposed to building modern architecture around the Tour Montparnasse. It's a complete taboo. The City Hall does not and will not dare to propose modern architecture there. In fact many people would like to demolish the Montparnasse Tower.

I think that the same people would also oppose any changes to Ile de la Cite, but it's another story.

[AMS guy]

Originally Posted by brisavoine

As usual (and there were exactly the same arguments in the French forum), people don't seem to have a sense of proportion here. The Haussmannian heart of Paris is enormous compared to other European cities. It covers at the very least 50 km². In comparison, the historic heart of Amsterdam with patrician houses is very small, it covers only about 6 km², so it's not really a problem to freeze that area, you can build modern architecture outside the old historic core Amsterdan, it's not going to be very far from the city center, whereas if you freeze all the Haussmannian areas, you freeze at the very least 50 km² at the heart of Paris (and probably even more), which is enormous and rejects the modern city far away. In the long term, there is no city that can survive by freezing 50 km² or more at its center.

I don't see the point of why the city would not survive without modern architecture in the center, even if the central district covers the area of 34 km2. Would companies, shops, restaurants, cafes, cinemas, theaters, night clubs, inhabitants, students, tourists all leave due to lack of modern investments? It's not the newest architecture that defines the quality of life.

The comparison to Amsterdam is very interesting, but it will make sense only if you compare the possibly frozen area to the city proper of each of the cities separatedly. And then you will see that 19 century districts in Amsterdam that surround the preserved old town, cover area that is much bigger than 6 km2. In Amsterdam there are hardly any new developments in the old town as well as in the 19 century districts. Newest developments are limited to the post industrial areas, suburbs, docklands, they rise along the Amsterdam Ring highway, which is by the way as long as Boulevard Péripherique and in the districts that were planned after the World War II.