daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Architecture > European Classic Architecture and Landscapes

European Classic Architecture and Landscapes All related to historical buildings and landscapes of the old world.



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old May 19th, 2010, 10:41 PM   #101
brisavoine
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: desconocida
Posts: 18,053
Likes (Received): 2346

Quote:
Originally Posted by AMS guy View Post
I pointed them already in my previous posts.
None of the place you pointed out are located within the 34 km² at the heart of Paris that I have indicated. They all lie beyond, in the suburban municipalities that were annexed in 1860.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMS guy View Post
Front de Seine
That's 4.65 km southwest of the center of Paris, in the former municipality of Grenelle.

[img]http://i49.************/s6rqdc.jpg[/img]

For comparison, at that distance from the city center, in Amsterdam you'd be in Slotervaart. In London you'd be in Battersea. In NYC you'd be in Hoboken (New Jersey). Not really what I would call central areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMS guy View Post
Place d'Italie area
That's 3.65 km south of the center of Paris, in the annexed part of the municipality of Ivry.

[img]http://i48.************/2hn99nl.jpg[/img]

For comparison, at that distance from the city center, in Amsterdam you'd be in Rivierenbuurt. In London you'd be in Stockwell. In NYC you'd be in Greenpoint (Brooklyn). Not really what I would call central areas either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMS guy View Post
Montparnasse
Montparnasse is more central (although it was not within the City of Paris but within the municipality of Vaugirard), but the conservative majority in Paris is totally opposed to building anything new there (Jean Nouvel was almost called a mad man recently when he proposed to build some towers next to the Montparnasse Tower), so whether we build new buildings on Île de la Cité are at Montparnasse, it's the same thing, you'd have a vast majority of people opposed to it.

Île de la Cité is symbolic, and that's precisely why we should deal with it first. If we manage to destroy the Hôtel Dieu and rebuild the Île de la Cité, then the dams of conservativeness will collapse. I have never believed that you will change the Parisian view of the city by building some discrete towers in remote areas such as the Porte de la Chapelle, as the wary city hall has proposed. We have to have a cathartic debate around the Île de la Cité which will reconcile Parisians with modernity. We can't afford to turn the capital of the 5th largest world economy into a giant Venice.
brisavoine no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 19th, 2010, 10:59 PM   #102
brisavoine
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: desconocida
Posts: 18,053
Likes (Received): 2346

Quote:
Originally Posted by AMS guy View Post
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.
Buildings in the central area of Paris are vastly inadequate, both for private dwellings and offices (floors are too small, hard to transform due to conservation rules, etc.). That's why so many companies leave Central Paris and move to more peripheral areas, which creates nightmarish transport conditions.

Here is a graph I already posted in the French forum. It shows the percentage of Paris metropolitan area jobs located within the City of Paris proper. Back in 1968, nearly 46% of all jobs in the Paris metropolitan area were located within the City of Paris. Now the share of the City of Paris has dwindled to 30% because the buildings are not suited to the needs of companies anymore so they move away. Problem is, more than 80% of the Métro network is concentrated within the City of Paris proper, so you can imagine what a nightmarish transport situation this flight of companies towards the more peripheral areas has meant.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AMS guy View Post
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.
How far are these new developments from the city center of Amsterdam? In Paris these new developments are on average about 6-7 km from the city center (as the crow flies). This is FAR, especially given that the Paris public transport grid is built to bring people towards the center, not to transport people on the periphery of the metropolis.
brisavoine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 01:39 AM   #103
J-Ph
Registered User
 
J-Ph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 254
Likes (Received): 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by AMS guy View Post
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.
Why start with Ile de la Cité ?
Because the site is a unique landscape, and the very heart of the city, and is now mostly dull, ugly and dead.

I'm trying to be fair : as much as I hate what Haussmann did to the core of the old city, I admit the example of the “boulevards”, with their neoclassical stone buildings (which Haussmann didn’t invent, but which he basically generalized to the whole city), is now a positive feature of Paris, as well as a universal example of urban planning.
But what was made in these large blocks of administrative buildings, especially on the Ile de la Cité is much more debatable. Imo, that kind of urban planning, which consists in simply putting down big buildings on the ground, with no sympathy or interest for the urban context, actually prefigures disasters that were to come in the XXth century and heralds the worst urban developments of the 20th century. The Paris Hôtel Dieu is a precursor of the commie-blocks, but with stones and a few decorations on it and that difference doesn’t make it better in my opinion.

But here we’re discussing what should be done on the Ile de la Cite, not Paris before Haussmann or medieval Paris. Maybe another thread should be made.
J-Ph no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 02:22 AM   #104
J-Ph
Registered User
 
J-Ph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 254
Likes (Received): 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by brisavoine View Post
/.../
Maybe there were still some wooden houses on the Île de la Cité by Haussmann's time. The very few pictures of the Île de la Cité before Haussmann's demolitions that I have seen don't show any half-timbered houses, but that doesn't mean there weren't any (there are only very few pictures available on the internet).

What's certain is that by Haussmann's time most wooden houses had been demolished and replaced by taller and plainer apartment buildings, but maybe there were still some old Medieval wooden houses here and there.
/.../
There were still many wooden houses on the Cité by Haussmann’s time, if not a majority of them, but the wood was mostly covered with plaster or other things at that time. Until the end of the 17th century, or even later, most ordinary houses were timber frame houses (with a stone ground floor). After the Middle Age (or even during the Middle Age ?) wood tended to be covered with plaster.
Air was intended to be covered at that time, timber frame is not as beautiful or decorative as it may have been on older houses (or in cities which kept much longer a tradition of showing the wood structure).
If you read older Paris guidebooks, you’ll read that the “oldest” house in Paris is a 14th century located rue Volta :



You won’t read that anymore in guide books, because it was latter discovered that the house was actually build during the mid 17th century. I don’t thing it’s a “pastiche” it’s only the way they build ordinary houses in Paris at that time.
J-Ph no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 02:56 AM   #105
ludometz
Registered User
 
ludometz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 29
Likes (Received): 1

I think inner paris is very nice how it looks now, theire are plenty of place in the last arrondissement that can be replace by modern buildings without affecting the soul of the city. the center has perfect proportions, the building aren't so high with wide streets so it let the sun get everywhere and it's not as dark as other cities with huge tours, in addition to that the monuments really stand out (take the eiffel tower or the arc de triomphe in down town shangaï it will surely loose its georgous impact) and it keeps the downtown from beeing overcrowded.
the uniformity of the buildings is a part of the great visual effect the city have, I'm not again modern buildings, but I'd rather see them gathered in a place while the historic part remain the same.
La defense looks nice how it is, why don't we improve it and add more modern building in it's surround.
Paris is the most visited city in the world, it bring many richess to the city, destroying his heart would only make it poorer and look similar to every city in the world.
Paris is unique, keep it
ludometz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 03:24 AM   #106
J-Ph
Registered User
 
J-Ph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 254
Likes (Received): 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by brisavoine View Post
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

Yes it’s one of the nicest. There was a turret on the opposite corner, which doesn’t exist anymore, but there still is the base of it (I can't see it on your pictures).
There are other middle age, early 16th century houses (it’s always hard to tell), scattered in central Paris. They generally don’t look very impressive, and were heavily transformed over the centuries, but are easy to spot because of their gables (houses which lost their gable may be sometimes as old, but it's more difficult to differentiate between them and 17th houses).

On the right bank :

111 rue Saint Denis :


(I’m sorry I couldn’t find better pictures)

There are other similar houses at the street corner rue des Lombards – rue Quincampoix and rue Courtalon (I tried to find them on google street view, but you can’t really see them).
There are a few other hidden, but better preserved or restored wood structures that can’t be seen from the streets, for example rue Sainte Croix de la Bretonnerie :


(I couldn't find any better picture on the web).

Rue du Pont Louis Philippe :




I think both buildings are early 16th century, and are partly wood, partly stone buildings.

On the left bank :
Near Notre Dame, rue Galande was cut by rue Dante but still keeps a few very old houses :


the one on the left still has its carved wooden projecting gable (don’t know if it’s the original one).

That one (street corner rue de Buci – rue de Seine) has always puzzled me.



It certainly looks like a late middle age – early 16th century house. But it’s rather tall, when you consider it’s rather far away from the city centre of the time (it’s outside the wall of Philippe Auguste, but near the abbey of Saint Germain des Prés.

I’ve never read anything about that house, which still is a mystery to me.

Quote:
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!
You're right : Haussmann is often bashed, but it’s often forgotten that many destructions were voluntarily realised much more recently.
J-Ph no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 03:27 AM   #107
J-Ph
Registered User
 
J-Ph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 254
Likes (Received): 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by ludometz View Post
I think inner paris is very nice how it looks now, theire are plenty of place in the last arrondissement that can be replace by modern buildings without affecting the soul of the city. the center has perfect proportions, the building aren't so high with wide streets so it let the sun get everywhere and it's not as dark as other cities with huge tours, in addition to that the monuments really stand out (take the eiffel tower or the arc de triomphe in down town shangaï it will surely loose its georgous impact) and it keeps the downtown from beeing overcrowded.
the uniformity of the buildings is a part of the great visual effect the city have, I'm not again modern buildings, but I'd rather see them gathered in a place while the historic part remain the same.
La defense looks nice how it is, why don't we improve it and add more modern building in it's surround.
Paris is the most visited city in the world, it bring many richess to the city, destroying his heart would only make it poorer and look similar to every city in the world.
Paris is unique, keep it
Rebuilding the Ile de la Cité (of course, if it's well done) couldn't affect the "soul" of the city, but could on the contrary reinforce it.
J-Ph no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 03:40 AM   #108
brisavoine
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: desconocida
Posts: 18,053
Likes (Received): 2346

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Ph View Post
After the Middle Age (or even during the Middle Age ?) wood tended to be covered with plaster.
The disappearance of half-timbered houses in Paris is due to two royal edicts.

The royal edict of 1604, under the reign of Henri IV, a king who was quite interested in urbanism and largely rebuilt Paris (that's when the population of the city increased from 210,000 to 420,000 in 40 years), banned the construction of half-timbered house, this in order to prevent fire, and also ordered that the existing half-timbered houses be demolished and rebuilt (but I don't know to what extent the edict was obeyed). This edict also banned upper-floors projecting out over the street and the use of corbels.

The 2nd royal edict, that of 1667, was drafted at the initiative of Louis XIV one year after the Great Fire of London of 1666 which had greatly impressed the king and the French public. The king asked his ministers to devise stringent rules to prevent fires. As a result, the edict of 1667 ordered that all the timber frames of the half-timbered houses that had survived the edict of 1604 be covered with plaster of Paris (a material resisting fire and which was readily available due to the large deposit of gypsum under Montmartre hill). It also ordered that all the wooden beams inside the buildings be encased with plaster. For example the Dome of the Invalides, which was built 12 years after this edict, had all its wooden beams inside the dome entirely encased with plaster. The hardwood floors in the Invalides were also covered with plaster. Paris became the European capital of gypsum plaster back in those days, which is why this material is still called plaster of Paris in English today.

When I first moved to Paris, I lived in rue Dauphine (a street created in the 17th century), and my building was typically pre-Haussmannian, very plain and simple, covered with plaster. I thought it was a cheap 19th century building, till the day I had a water leak, and the guy from the insurance company came and told me in fact my building was probably from before the French Revolution, built with timber framing (same as the picture shown by J-Ph above) and covered with plaster. These buildings typically tend to bend and sag over time because the wood warps as it ages, as you can see in the picture below.

[img]http://i50.************/29moa6b.jpg[/img]
brisavoine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 05:38 AM   #109
tpe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago & NYC
Posts: 3,562
Likes (Received): 3069

Quote:
Originally Posted by J-Ph View Post
On the left bank :
Near Notre Dame, rue Galande was cut by rue Dante but still keeps a few very old houses :
For students of medieval Paris, this area is of course very significant, as it is the cradle of the Univeristy of Paris. The boundaries of the enclosure that was the church and priory of St. Julien le Pauvre (Rue Galande, Rue du Fouarre, Rue de la Bucherie, and Rue St. Julien le Pauvre) is precisely where the University was founded. More to the point, it is at Rue du Fouarre where the first open-air classes were held.



Sadly, very little that is medieval remains. What is left of Rue du Fouarre is a connector between Rue Lagrange and Rue Dante. And St. Julien le Pauvre itself fell into decay after it was closed during the Revolution. Slated for demolition in the time of Haussmann, it was saved as a Melkite church.

image hosted on flickr






Nota bene: Rue Dante is so-named because of the legend that that great Italian attended the Univerisity of Paris... Or so this is what I was told...
tpe no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 03:12 PM   #110
AMS guy
hipp-E
 
AMS guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 10,243

Quote:
Originally Posted by brisavoine
For comparison, at that distance from the city center, in Amsterdam you'd be in Slotervaart.
And it's in Slotervaart where many new developments take place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brisavoine
For comparison, at that distance from the city center, in Amsterdam you'd be in Rivierenbuurt.
Rivierenbuurt is going to stay completely untouched, because it consists urban plan made by Berlage in the beginning of the XXth century. New developments are situated south west from Rivierenbuurt (Zuidas), and east (Amstel Station Area).
So actually if we compare this situation to Paris, new developments in your city should be concentrated more or less in Grenelle and Ivry.


Quote:
Originally Posted by brisavoine View Post
How far are these new developments from the city center of Amsterdam? In Paris these new developments are on average about 6-7 km from the city center (as the crow flies).
The nearest new developments are approximately in the 4-5 km distance from the city center, excluding docklands that are close to the central railway station.

You showed this area (old town).




But the actual frozen area is about 4 times bigger.
This is vision Amsterdam 2040. Many of the investments indicated here are already going on.
Of course there are single modern buildings being added sometimes in the 19th century districts, but situation that they replace old architecture is very exceptional.

[IMG]http://i36.************/34oq1wy.png[/IMG]
AMS guy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 07:52 PM   #111
cameronpaul
Paris-the city beautiful
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 923
Likes (Received): 466

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReiAyanami View Post
Paris as it is today can put to shame any city in the world. Arguing about Haussmann's planned transformation in the 1860s is pointless because the answer is right here, answered. For what I can tell, the discussion is about whether or not a medieval Paris would have been better today than the Haussmann's Paris. For many reasons and with some exceptions I believe no, it wouldn't have been.

I think Haussmann was a huge benefactor. Because in essence helped Paris move into the modern world with the best possible and less painful way. Most other if not all big cities in Europe were not so lucky and suffered the loss of their heritage with nothing comparable to replace it. Think about that first.
Could not agree more with the above statement. Paris has an atmosphere and quality about it unique among large cities. To blame Haussmann for the loss of mediaeval Paris is absurd, where is mediaeval London these days? or Vienna or Istanbul (Constantinople) - was Haussmann responsible for these cities as well? I wonder just how many visitors to wonderful Florence realise just how many 19thc. buildings there are in the city centre, so well intergrated that it goes un-noticed.
Modern buildings rarely intergrate in older cities, just look at the shit they have at Montparnasse compared with what was there before. Paris should guard it's heritage at all costs, it's not just there for the tourists but I bet they don't mind the money that they bring to the city even if they can be a real bore at times- anyway Paris is large enough to find plenty of quieter spaces and the tourist masses all go to the same "must see" places which only account for a fraction of what the city has to offer.
cameronpaul no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 09:03 PM   #112
brisavoine
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: desconocida
Posts: 18,053
Likes (Received): 2346

Quote:
Originally Posted by AMS guy View Post
So actually if we compare this situation to Paris, new developments in your city should be concentrated more or less in Grenelle and Ivry.
Well, neither the Grenelle area nor the annexed part of Ivry concentrate the new developments. There are close to no new developments in these areas, due to the conservationist attitude of the city. The developments happen further afield, in Issy and in the non-annexed part of Ivry (i.e. the suburban municipality of Ivry), as well as in the other suburban municipalities surrounding the City of Paris (St Denis, Aubervilliers, Montreuil, Montrouge, etc.).

Inside the City of Paris, new large-scale developments are allowed only in the most remote fringes along the Périphérique (Batignoles, Porte de la Chapelle, Masséna-Rive Gauche).
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMS guy View Post
You showed this area (old town).

But the actual frozen area of Amsterdam is about 4 times bigger.
In Paris the actual frozen area is also larger than the 34 km² of the old town that I have shown on the satellite view. The frozen area covers at least 50 km², and probably even more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMS guy View Post
This is vision Amsterdam 2040. Many of the investments indicated here are already going on.
To better understand the exceptionally large extent of the frozen area in Paris, I have used your map of Amsterdam 2040. I have superimposed satellite views of Paris and Amsterdam, then I have drawn the lines of the Paris frozen area on your Amsterdam 2040 map, at the same scale.

The area delineated in red at the center is the area of Paris that is almost completely frozen. Not only towers/skyscrapers are totally forbidden in this huge area, but large-scale developments are also forbidden. At the most, you'll be able to build a new building here and there, but that's about it. Just look at the size of this enormous frozen area compared to Amsterdam!

Then next to it, the area delineated in green is the area with less Haussmannian buildings (although there are still quite a few in that area) where large-scale developments are therefore ok, although if its too big (like an office complex extending over several blocks), you may find some neighborhood associations fiercely opposing it on the grounds that "l'esprit faubourien doit être préservé" ("the inner suburban spirit must be preserved", "inner suburban" being a not so good translation, given that the faubourgs are more "inner", more city-like than the inner suburbs). Skyscrapers are not forbidden per se in that area delineated in green, but they are taboo. It would be unthinkable to propose some skyscrapers here. A very bold Paris mayor will perhaps someday dare to propose some skyscrapers in that area delineated in green, but that won't be Mr. Delanoë I'm afraid.

Finally the area outside the green line is where it is ok to do pretty much whatever developpers wish to do. For the Parisians the real city ends at the green line (for some more extremists Parisians, and I have met several, the real city even ends at the red line!). After the green line, it's the jungle, the banlieue, so you could flatten the whole area, the Parisians couldn't care less.

The Paris mayor Delanoë and his team have timidly proposed to build some skyscrapers just outside the green line, along the Périphérique, and this is considered "très courageux". Propose some skyscrapers 100 meters more to the center, just inside the green line, and you'd be considered a crazy ultra-capitalist who wants to destroy French lifestyle, bla bla bla.

Can a city survive in the long term with such a huge frozen area? I don't think so. Besides, it's a dead end. Buildings are not meant to last for ever. If not in 100 years, then in 1,000 or 2,000 years the pre-WW1 buildings will have crumbled anyway, so this conservationist mindset is essentially sterile and without a future.

[img]http://i50.************/25i6owi.jpg[/img]
brisavoine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 09:13 PM   #113
brisavoine
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: desconocida
Posts: 18,053
Likes (Received): 2346

Since we're discussing Paris and Amsterdam, I thought this would be appropriate as a background music.

brisavoine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 09:59 PM   #114
AMS guy
hipp-E
 
AMS guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 10,243



As far as I'm concerned we can finish this offtopic
I'm only curious what you consider Paris - is it the area within Péripherique or a wider one?
If we consider Paris the area within Péripherique then I think that this comparison makes Paris look bigger, than it actually is.

[IMG]http://i50.************/25i6owi.jpg[/IMG]


Péripherique = 35,04 km
Amsterdam Ring = 32,00 km


So this should be more or less the area of Paris on Amsterdam scale.
[IMG]http://i40.************/ekge39.png[/IMG]

AMS guy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 20th, 2010, 10:59 PM   #115
brisavoine
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: desconocida
Posts: 18,053
Likes (Received): 2346

Quote:
Originally Posted by AMS guy View Post
It's not the song by Brel though. Did you listen to it? I prefer that one. I've never really liked the song by Brel, it's too sad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMS guy View Post
As far as I'm concerned we can finish this offtopic
It's a VERY interesting topic. I don't know where we could open a dedicated thread to discuss it. It was the most lively topic in the Francophone forum (demolition of Haussmannian buildings and proposals for a regeneration of Central Paris), but this very lively debate was killed off by the dictatorial attitude of the moderators there. Several prominent French forumers have left the Francophone forum because of that. So we could open a thread in the international forum somewhere as a replacement, and I would post there my detailed proposals for the Île de la Cité that I never got to post in the Francophone forum now that I'm boycotting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMS guy View Post
I'm only curious what you consider Paris - is it the area within Péripherique or a wider one?
If we consider Paris the area within Péripherique then I think that this comparison makes Paris look bigger, than it actually is.
No, I used satellites views of Paris and Amsterdam at the exact same scale, so Paris doesn't look bigger than it actually is. The red and green lines encompass:
- the City of Paris in its entirety (incl. Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes), except the small fringe between the Boulevards des Maréchaux and the Périphérique
- Vincennes and Saint-Mandé
- the northern part of Boulogne-Billancourt
- Neuilly-sur-Seine and the south-eastern part of Levallois-Perret.

These are the areas that the red and green lines enclose:
[img]http://i48.************/1jay47.jpg[/img]

I have centered the satellite views like this: Place du Châtelet is superimposed exactly on Dam Square. Note that the bird's eye view of Amsterdam is distorted, which is why the geometric forms look distorted compared to the satellite view of Paris, but I have taken this distortion into account. You can measure any point on the red and green lines, they are located at the exact same distance from Place du Châtelet and Dam Square.

[img]http://i50.************/25i6owi.jpg[/img]
brisavoine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2010, 02:01 AM   #116
Reverie
Registered User
 
Reverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 204
Likes (Received): 25

Here some messages from the Ministry of Truth (Minitrue).

Message 1

There are days when I would have prefered Paris to be bombed honestly...

Here some photo of this ugly and unbearable hospital, the Hôtel-Dieu, “a precursor of the commie-blocks




And of this terrible and dumpy Préfecture de Police.



Both of them are “universally considered to be the ugliest and coldest Haussmannian buildings in Paris.” “There would be few people who would regret these two buildings, particularly the extremely ugly Hôtel Dieu”.


Message 2

Currently, Paris has a very common and modest architecture. Like Topeka, Kansas :



Know, you understand why we call Topeka “The Paris of Kansas” (and why we call Paris the “Topeka of Europe”). The cities should think about a twinning programme.

We have to destroy the old town, at least partially, to have a city which marks its difference. For example we could replace the ugly Préfecture de Police de Paris building by the modern and typically French Préfecture de Paris :



That’s REAL Paris


Message 3

Now, “why start with Ile de la Cité ? Because the site is a unique landscape, and the very heart of the city, and is now mostly dull, ugly and dead.



Having a such dead land in heart of the city is a shame.” “Before Ile de la Cité was the living heart of the city, not a dead administrative area where almost only tourists set a foot.” And destroy this ugly area wouldn't be criminal at all. Besides, Paris is the only big city to have administrative, touristy and dead areas.

If you ask a parisian when was the last time he has been in Ile de la Cite. I wouldn't be suprised to hear "never" for most of the case.

And please believe that there is no overemphasis in this sentence.


Message 4

About the Haussmann renovations, “Paris was rendered practical by Haussmann, trafficable, but Paris is not beautiful because of Haussmann” and his ugly streets and areas :




Message 5

Why modern buildings would be ugly ?

Cause the modern history shows us that, since the half 20th century, we know how to build beautiful buildings. In those areas, you will find the real Paris.



That’s our difference, that’s our pride, that’s our brand : the grand French modern architecture. Kneel down please.


Message 6


Back in 1968, nearly 46% of all jobs in the Paris metropolitan area were located within the City of Paris. Now the share of the City of Paris has dwindled to 30%”. And it’s “because the buildings are not suited to the needs of companies anymore so they move away.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the intra-muros population decreased by 15% and the extra-muros population increased by 27% since 1968. Nothing to do either with the fact that locations in central, old and ugly Paris are much more expensive than in the beautiful, dynamic and modern suburbs.


PS : Google Street View has nothing to do with the images posted on this thread. Neither the Flickr users stephanemartin, alainmichot93, Istvan, Sdl for the Hotel-Dieu pictures, edge of the continent and Forest Pine for Préfecture de Police or Thbz for the Préfecture de Paris.
__________________
Reverie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2010, 02:37 AM   #117
heywindup
BÄNNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: █♣█
Posts: 732
Likes (Received): 6


I love your sarcasm.
heywindup no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2010, 02:38 AM   #118
brisavoine
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: desconocida
Posts: 18,053
Likes (Received): 2346

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverie View Post
Here some messages from the Ministry of Truth (Minitrue). [...]
Out-of-context quotes and cherry-picked pictures (like showing pictures of the western part of the Île de la Cité, which is not what people have talked about here) is not the best way to engage in a debate. Good faith is the first requirement in any debate. But you seem more interested in having fun with a childish fit of temper than engaging in an adult debate here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverie View Post
This has nothing to do with the fact that the intra-muros population decreased by 15% and the extra-muros population increased by 27% since 1968.
The populations of Central Tokyo and Mahattan have also decreased, yet they haven't experienced the job decline that Central Paris has experienced, quite the opposite. Besides, you can hardly argue that the jobs in Paris are located closer to where people live because the jobs which have left Central Paris have tended to relocate to the Western inner suburbs, whereas the people who have left Central Paris have tended to relocate more to the eastern suburbs (the Hauts-de-Seine department even experienced a decrease of population between 1968 and the late 1980s).

The result is the current catastrophic situation of transports in Greater Paris.
brisavoine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2010, 03:42 AM   #119
Reverie
Registered User
 
Reverie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 204
Likes (Received): 25

Quote:
Originally Posted by heywindup View Post

I love your sarcasm.
Not as good as your quote of Prince Charles...
Reverie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 21st, 2010, 02:34 PM   #120
*****
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,769
Likes (Received): 382

This is crazy, Haussmann's transformation is the best thing that could happen Paris.Paris without it would not be what today is, the icon of perfect city.
Without it Parios would be an ordinary medieval town, by anything much different from the others.
***** no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
classic architecture, paris

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu