UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN

The New Netherlands

THE FIVE FACES OF PARIS:

A dossier about the Light City throughout time

Student Number: S2805391 - Henrique de Oliveira Lisboa

Professor: Marijke Martin
2015

SUMMARY
1.

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 2

2.

THE DEATH OF THE MEDIEVAL ERA AND THE BIRTH OF THE CITY OF LIGHT............................................. 4

3.

WINDS OF MODERNITY ............................................................................................................................13

4.

THE NO PLAN AFTER THE WAR ................................................................................................................19

5.

PUBLIC HOUSING in the suburb ...............................................................................................................23

6.

REINVENTING AND REDESCOVERING PARIS ............................................................................................29

7.

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................31

8.

REFERENCE LIST ........................................................................................................................................34

LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure 1: Rue de la Colombe before Haussmann. Source: Unknown ................................................................ 4
Figure 2: Paris in 1843 by Xavier Gerald. Source: Brown University ................................................................. 7
Figure 3: Paris in 1843 by Xavier Girard. Source: Brown University .................................................................. 8
Figure 4: Paris in 1853 by F. Delamare. Source: Brown University .................................................................... 8
Figure 5: Paris in 1867 by Ledot Freres. Source: Geographicus ......................................................................... 8
Figure 6: Rue Rivoli in 1843 by Xavier Gerald. Source: Brown University ......................................................... 9
Figure 7: The new east-west axis by Ledot Freres. Source: Geographicus ........................................................ 9
Figure 8: le de la Cit in 1855 by Herv Lewandowski. Source: RMN-Grand Palais ......................................10
Figure 9: le de la Cit after Haussmann by: Unknown. Source: Traveltour ....................................................10
Figure 10: New Rue Rivoli in 1855 bordering the Louvr by Adolphe Braun. Source: Metropolitan Museum
of Art ................................................................................................................................................................11
Figure 11: Paris in 1967 by Ledot Freres. Source: Geographicus .....................................................................12
Figure 12: WWI destrucion in northern France by Odette Carrez. Source: REUTERS .....................................13
Figure 13: Ponctual amage by zepellin air-raid in Paris ...................................................................................13
Figure 14: Cit Industrielle by Tony Garnier. Source: Lapisblog ......................................................................14
Figure 15: Contemporary city plan by Le Corbusier. Source: StudyBlue .........................................................15
Figure 16: Plan Voisin model by Le Corbusier. Source: Fondation Le Corbusier .............................................16
Figure 17: Street level of the Plan Voisin by Le Corbusier. Source: Fondation Le Corbusier ..........................17
Figure 18: Plan Voisin by Le Corbusier. Source: Media Architecture ..............................................................18
Figure 19: New possibilities from the ashes in Rotterdam by unknown .........................................................20
Figure 20: Ponctual damage in Paris by Willy John Abbot. Source: The Nations at War ................................21
Figure 21: Designs for Les Halles context by Various. Source: McCall.............................................................22
Figure 22: Aerial view of Sarcelles by J. Biougeaud. Source: The Grands Ensembles .....................................23
Figure 23: Sarcelles plan around 1964 by Henri-Labourdette and Boileau. Source: Municipal Archives of
Sarcelles. ..........................................................................................................................................................24

Figure 25: Intermediary development of the grand ensemble. Source: Municipal Archives of Sarcelles. .....25
Figure 24: Initial development of the area. Source: Municipal Archives of Sarcelles. ....................................25
Figure 26: Community areas in Sarcelles by J. Biougeaud. Source: The Grands Ensembles ...........................26
Figure 27: Protest against SCIC in the '60s by Jacques Windenberger. Source: Sarcelles Maison du
Patrimoine........................................................................................................................................................27
Figure 28: Grand Ensemble de Sarcelles by unknown. Source: Le Grand ensemble: entre prennit et
demolition ........................................................................................................................................................28
Figure 29: Arche de La Dfense by unknown. Source: Paris property group ..................................................29
Figure 30: Louvre Pyramid by unknown. Source: Imgarcade ..........................................................................30
Figure 31: Parc Citron by Unknown. Source: Snipview ..................................................................................31
Figure on the cover by unknown. Source: Kayture

1. INTRODUCTION
This dossier will provide an in depth analysis of the city of Paris throughout time, covering five
major perspectives and historic contexts. This choice was supported by the large influence the city
displayed in the urban planning field and will enable to understand some phases that together
built this metropolis which is a worldwide symbol of architecture and beauty.
First of all, the Chapter 2 provides an overview of one of the most important phases of Paris: The
Haussmanns era. This period, which began in the second half of the 19th century, was definitely a
turning point for the current approach for urban planning and sanitation issues in Paris, which later
became a global reference in this subject. For this research, a comparison between pre and after
Haussmanns Paris was traced, focused in the Grand-Croise intervention. These analysis was based
especially on maps crafted during this era, since they display the city layout shortly before the
intervention and the plans for the area.
In regard to the literature source, The city as a work of art by Olsen (1986) and Planning Europes
Capital Cities by Hall (2010) provided the historic background concerning the living conditions of
the city and its social features as well.
The Chapter 3 is set around fifty years after the interventions made by Haussmann, after another
twisting period: The First World War. This in between wars era was marked by two important
features. On one hand, the war in land never reached Paris. The German forces, although came
close to it, never managed to cross the French line and invade Paris. This situation, together with
the extremely low number of zepellins and air raids and the low potency of their bombs
contributed for Paris to leave the war virtually physically unharmed. On the other hand, the first
total war established several injuries to the society, through the lack of manpower and industrial
power and the economic crisis due to the expenditure with the war.
In this context, Le Corbusier and the modernism arise. After decades of the beauty of the art
nouveau, a new architecture and urban planning was being shaped. The modern times have
arrived, bringing concepts of a rational city, which was explored in Le Corbusiers Plan Voisin for
Paris. This innovative project introduced new ideas for mass housing which had great impact and
influence in the urbanism. The research about this topic was made through the analysis of models,
photographs and maps concerning the plan. The literature on its turn was based in the book Le
Corbusier 1910-65 by Birkhuser-Verlag fr architektur (1999) and the thesis Promoting an urban
vision: Le Corbusier and the Plan Voisin by Shaw (1991).
The fourth chapter analysis the French capital in a post war context, after the biggest conflict
mankind has experienced. Paris, despite the German occupation, did not suffer as much damage
with the war as London, Rotterdam and Berlin, which were constantly under bombardment.
Fortunately, during the advance of allies forces, the city of light was saved of destruction by the
2

German general Dietrich von Choltitz, who countered Hitlers orders to burn and destroy Paris
before retreating. However, the postwar period in Paris was marked by many interventions and one
of the most remarkable of this period was the destruction of the Le Halles traditional market in the
core of Paris and its change to the suburban region of Rugis. This intervention faced heavy public
protests and displayed a major role in the following discussions about the preservation of historical
buildings in Paris.
Schemes of proposed interventions served as base for this research. Furthermore, Les Halles: A
series of unfortunate events by Rachael McCall (2011) guided the research about this era, which is
hard to assert about the urban planning ideology behind it.
This dossier continues the Parisian case in chapter five addressing the disclosure and answers to
the challenges that the postwar policy created: the suburban growth and a housing shortage. Now,
the stagnation is replaced and the where mass housing takes its turn. France, like other Europeans
countries, was experiencing a baby boom situation right after the war and a high flow of
immigration. The housing shortage was an old problem, growing slowly and creating roots in the
capital.
As an answer to the current needs of Paris, in the middle of the 50s the Plan Courant was
launched, giving a new hope for the inhabitants living in outskirts slums. This program of massive
housing construction redeveloped the existing built-up area and instituted the new grands

ensembles.
Among these new edifications, one of them outstands: The grand ensemble of Sarcelles. Although
it was not the first large construction of these type, it was turned into a symbol, representing the

grands ensembles.
This project has two main interesting features: The first of them is the foundation over modernist
pillars. The rationalization off the process with industrialized construction was adopted. The
influence of the Plan Voisin can be traced, as the overall plan also fits in the modernist conception
of urban planning, architecture and construction logistic. The other major point is that this project
began with many similarities with the welfare state and the dutch VINEX policy; with a centralized
planning under governmental will, with general solutions that did not seek for the individual, but
for the society. However, through time the unique social networks created shifted the programe
towards a decentralization process and popular empowerment.
This chapter was supported by a background based in The biography of a city by Colin Jones and
The expertise of participation: mass housing and urban planning in postwar France by Kenny
Coppers (2010), which also provided maps and figures to illustrate the project and provides a
better comprehension.

The last face of Paris is located in chapter 6, contextualized in the 80s where the European cities
experience a rediscover of themselves. The role of the inner city, historicist discussions, the
industrial movement towards the suburb, and how to plan the city for the future are trending
topics. The criticism about the manner how the city was planned so far and the denial of
modernism and central planning performs a great change in the urban planning concepts.
Paris also shared this experience of questioning itself. The urban fabric and the urban landscape,
which in was basically the same for a century, now starts to receive another looks, and to develop
new relations with itself. A new wave of public urban projects emerged, and if this era had a birth it
was with the Grands Projects idealized under the government of Mitterrand. Among them, the
Louvre Pyramid deserves a special place.

2. THE DEATH OF THE MEDIEVAL ERA AND THE BIRTH OF THE CITY OF
LIGHT
In the XIX century, many cities in Europe were a reflex of the quick development and urbanization
caused by the Industrial Revolution and of the medieval urban fabric, which was almost the same
in the inner cities, who were crowded and confined to its walls. The Netherlands was experiencing
extreme poverty among its population; according to
Wagennar (2011) between 60 and 70% of the urban
population was classified as poor by a report
published in 1855.
Rooms without ventilation or contact with sunlight,
the back to back layout of houses, overcrowding
and poor hygienic systems was a common scenery
for Dutch cities, but in Europe as well. In the turn of
the century, in a national level, many measures were
taken in the Netherlands in order to improve urban
conditions, among them the Dutch Housing Act
from 1901, which compelled local authorities to
apply measures that were only optional before and
stated that final aid for housing proposes should be
granted by the state, was a great change. However,
none of the urban renewals so far were close to
Figure 1: Rue de la Colombe before Haussmann.
Source: Unknown

what was to come: The Paris of Haussmann.

4

Paris in the middle of the 1800s was still essentially a medieval city, with outdated sewage system,
with no architectonic pattern and order, with narrow streets, filled with piled up overcrowded and
insalubrious houses as argues Olsen (1986). Despite the discussions about hygienic measures that
started with Voltaire in 1749 by his manifest Des Embellissements de Paris, little has been done in
the following one hundred years. By that time London was by far a model of urban development
and beauty, but what prevented Paris of match with its rival? In fact the hygienic problem was
well known, and besides Voltaire, other thinkers and planners proposed interventions. Hall (1997)
states that the royal architect Charles de Wailly submitted in late 1700s a proposal to improve the
streets network through new connections, including the link between the Louvr and the Rue St.
Antoine (which would be eventually performed by Haussmann). Furthermore, Pierre Patte at the
same time as Voltaire, defended that tree-planted avenues was a major element in the
development of a town.
Despite the ideas and concepts searching for a healthier Paris, France was experienced a chaotic
political with the revolution and the constant switching between Republic and Empire. However,
ironically with the end of the Second Republic and the beginning of the Second French Empire this
situation was about to change: Napoleon III performed a coup in 1851 establishing his empire in
the following year and in 1853 appointed Georges-Eugne Haussmann as the Prfet de la Seine.
Haussmann initiated probably the most notorious urban renewal of the century, in a scale never
seen before. However there are some considerations about the motivations behind the
intervention.
In one hand, Olsen (1986) states that through time it was widely accepted the urban renewal as a
military design to prevent rebellions. Paris was indeed a stage to many armed conflicts before
Haussmann, as the Storming of the Bastille, and France was a political instable nation, changing its
form of government several times in the previously years. However, he counter-argues that similar
strategies as used by Haussmann were implemented before in nations with no risk of revolution, as
in London after the great fire of 1666 and in Washington. In addition many concepts of as the
boulevards were being discussed for a long time.
Furthermore there is also the hygienic and embellishment approach: the installation of sewage
systems, of new line of trees, the establishment of new laws and urbanistic parameters in nothing
aggregated to the military use of these interventions. However, the solutions could indeed improve
the military defense and use of the city. Larger boulevards could fit lines of canons and horses,
house more soldiers and its linearity enabled troops to move faster. Nonetheless, this feature must
be seen as one of the many repercussions of the plan, and not as its cause.
Haussmann work began with the production of maps and data, and despite the magnitude of his
interventions, they were developed much more as punctual solutions rather following a specific
master plan. The first measure to be conducted was related with Paris urban fabric, which was also
5

one of its biggest problems. The map bellow from 1843 displays a complex network of streets, with
narrow blocks and almost no large streets connecting directly different areas from the city. One
interesting fact here is that the north part of which would become the Grand Boulevards was
already built by that time. The boulevards des Capucines, Poissonnire, Beaumarchais, among
others, composed a semicircular ring around the core of the city.
The interventions implemented following a paradigm. First of all, to enable new air to circulate
through the neighborhoods, the streets needed to be enlarged. It is interesting to notice in the
map the difference of the width of the streets between the map from 1843 and 1853, which shows
that this solution was adopted not only in the boulevards, but in the common streets as well.
Furthermore, vast greenery should cover these new boulevards, which in their turn, were
constructed to connect key areas in the city, decongesting the traffic; his solutions for the new
urban fabric involved both orthogonal and radial solutions.
It is interesting to observe that, the new architectonic standardization was enough to the new
constructions be address as Napoleon III style, such was the difference between the pre and post
Haussmann buildings. It can also be considered a sub style of the Second Empire architecture. It
can be defined by its high facades, the remarkable mansard roofs, square plants and a profusion
eclectic decoration.
The first great intervention made by Haussmann was the Grand Croise, which started already in
his first year in office (1853). This reform created a connection east-west and north-south, in a
shape of a cross. The east-west axis connected the Louvre to the east part of the city through the
link of the Rue Rivoli and Rue St. Antoine. This is a clear example of the implementation of ancient
ideas, since this intervention is the same as the proposed by de Wailly, which was mentioned
before.

Figure 2: Paris in 1843 by Xavier Gerald. Source: Brown University

The north-south axis on its turn created the Boulevard de Sebastopol by extending the also
recently built (1951) rue de Strasbourg, which would cross the le de la Cit and turn into the new
Boulevard St. Michel. The strategy adopted by Haussmann deserves a highlight: instead of
enlarging the existing St. Martin or St. Denis streets, he squeezed a new boulevard between them.
Hall (1997) defends that the two main reasons behind this decision were: It allowed a straight
continuation of the Boulevard de Strasbourg and it was better economic. Since in the middle of the
blocks the buildings were worst, the cost to dislodge would be cheaper. Furthermore, this allowed
new buildings in both sides, while expanding the existing street could maintain the old and
precarious buildings of one side, decreasing the value of the new ones across the street. Bellow
there is a progression of the North part of the North-south axis of the Grand Croise.

Figure 3: Paris in 1843 by

Xavier Girard. Source:
Brown University

Figure 4: Paris in 1853 by F.

Delamare. Source: Brown
University

Figure 5: Paris in 1867 by

Ledot Freres. Source:
Geographicus

Figure 6: Rue Rivoli in 1843 by Xavier Gerald. Source: Brown University

Figure 7: The new east-west axis by Ledot Freres. Source: Geographicus

Many other important interventions happened in this period, as the reform of the le de la Cit,
which suffered a drastic cleaning in its renewal, where almost all existing buildings were
destroyed and replaced to highlight the Notre Dame de Paris. The creation of the Boulevard St.
Germain in the south area of Paris was a major project as well since it closed the circle of the
Grands Boulevards, creating an important route for urban mobility. The Boulevard Malesherbes is
an example of the preoccupation with peripheral areas by Haussmann, since it was created to
encourage the development of 20th arrondissement, which was almost empty by that time.
The destruction caused by the demolition of the buildings could be easily compared with postwar
sceneries, with entire blocks being torn apart. However, as Olsen (1986) states, not always the new
area were immediately built again; many were the cases of redeveloped areas that remained empty
for a long time, as the boulevard de Strasbourg, that even eighteen months after its inauguration
was still unbuilt.
9

Figure 8: le de la Cit in 1855 by Herv Lewandowski. Source: RMN-Grand

Palais

There is no doubt about the scale of

the projects, however, where did the
money for these interventions come
from and how was the process of
removing

the

residents

of

their

houses? The enormous expenditure

with all the projects was the major
factor that led to the dismission of
Haussmann in 1970 (. Hall (1997)
states that from 1851 until 1869 Paris
invested around 22 billion francs in the
Figure 9: le de la Cit after Haussmann by: Unknown.
Source: Traveltour

urban redevelopment, which is fortyfive times higher than the citys total costs in 1851.

Jones (2005) argues that Haussmann logic was to create a cycle of investment based in buying
properties for a low price, since they were unhealthy and poorly built, renewal the urban fabric and

10

embellishes the city, creating mass employment and improving tourism, which would increase the
revenue from tariffs, and finally sell the new residences for a higher price, profiting even more.
Nonetheless, the increasing cost of the interventions is not the only criticism that can be made.
Jones (2005) states that 350.000 persons were displaced due to Haussmannization. The inner
arrondissements had a great population decrease, while it almost doubled in some outer regions.
Finally, after this in depth analysis is possible to assert some conclusions about the hygienic
process that occurred in Paris in the hands of
Haussmann. First of all, the concepts and
solutions utilized in the interventions were in
large part ideas discussed for a long time and
actually implemented in other cities before, so in
this field there was no innovation. However, the
scale and speed of the interventions, which
turned Paris into a completely different city as a
whole and not only in a restrict area was
something never seen before. Haussmann did
what the political instability, the economy, the
government will, among factors, did not allow to
happen before. His legacy and ideas did not stop
after him, the following rgime proceeded with
the programme of urban renewal according to
his intentions (Hall, 1997, p.87).
Secondly, the motivations behind this process
were

not

military,

but

for

hygienic,

embellishment, infrastructural and urban mobility

Figure 10: New Rue Rivoli in 1855 bordering the Louvr
by Adolphe Braun. Source: Metropolitan Museum of Art

porpoises. However, it is reasonable to state that

the military benefits from the interventions were
known and desired as well.

Thirdly, one of the great criticisms that can be made is the gentrification generated with
Haussmannization. However, it also needs to be taken into account the previously situation of the
city, which made impossible for the core regions of Paris to sustain the same number of
inhabitants after its improvement and redevelopment. But a valid point as Hall (1997) states is
There was great interest in demolishing the slums, but no attempt was ever made to provide
alternative arrangements. Haussmanns clearances simply meant that the slums were shifted from
one area to another.

11

In conclusion, the period between 1850 and 1870 determined the death of one city and the birth of
another in its place. The medieval Paris was forever gone and the City of Light rose from the ashes
and wreckages of Haussmann destruction, becoming a world reference of beauty and urban
renewal.

Figure 11: Paris in 1967 by Ledot Freres. Source: Geographicus

12

3. WINDS OF MODERNITY
The beginning of the XX century began with a new modernity era. The automobile, among other
inventions would drastically change the concepts and ideologies behind urban planning. However,
the improvements in technology also led to an enormous damage during the First World War. New
guns and vehicles as armored cars, railway guns, the hand grenade, among others, increased the
mortality of the attacks beyond
measure,
directly

and
with

this
old

collided
tactics

of

defense, resulting according to

Jones

(2005)

to

France

population shrink to 1891 levels.

On its turn, the city of Paris
survived almost unharmed from
the

war,

unlike

many

other

regions, especially the northern

region of France, which could be
related to the fact that the
German army never manage to
Figure 12: WWI destrucion in northern France by Odette Carrez.
Source: REUTERS

invade Paris despite its efforts, and the air

raids by zeppelins was concentrated in
northern areas.

The war brought the end of four empires in

Europe (German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and
Russian); in Wagennar (2011) words it started a
tendency toward fragmentationthe period of
large super-states appeared to be over. At the
same time he states that this era marked the Hey
days of urban planning in europe. Wagennar
(2011) also argues that the between wars first
period corresponds with an era of ecstasy and
hope, where a number of utopian plans and the
concretization of old ideas emergerd, as the
Garden city movement in Germany or the Zuid Figure 13: Ponctual amage by zepellin air-raid in Paris
Plan designed by Berlage for a south expansion
of the dutch capital, following the Amsterdam School style. A general trend by that time was the
concern with leisure and recreational spaces, which was clearly in the concept of the Garden City
and also in the great amount of squares in Berlages plan. At the same time, Tony Garnier
13

proposed the Cit Industriell in 1917, an incredibly precedent of the Plan Voisin, which will be
discussed later in this chapter. According to Curtis (1982), Garnier vision shared some principles
with the Garden city movement. In his vision for the Cit Industriell he proposed a small size case,
around 35.000 inhabitants with a clear demarcation between industry and housing, linked by a
trade centers through railways.

Figure 14: Cit Industrielle by Tony Garnier. Source: Lapisblog

In this context, the days of the beauty of the art nouveau with its organic and harmonic trace were
over. A new line was drawn in the horizon of architecture and urban planning, and it was a plain
straight line of concrete crossing over the historicism and begging a new era: The modernism
flourished.
Among the leaders of the Modern movement, one of them cannot be suppressed: Le Corbusier.
Many trends of the first decades of 1900 as the industrial assemble line, the urban mobility and the
rationalism can be transferred for his ideology. Le Corbusier thought was sustained in the idea of
rationalization, not only of the city and the architecture, but also of the man; the Franco-Swiss
architect created the modulor: The mathematic translation of the modern man and his measures.
14

1925 was an important year for Modern architecture, since it was the year of Exposition des Arts
Dcoratifs, where according to Shaw (1991) it represented an official consecration of the Moderm
movement. However, three years before, Le Corbusier published the Contemporary City plan. A
sky-crapper city with high density, several sectorizations, a rigid orthogonal grid and buildings with
a cross shape. This shocking and revolutionary plan was the basis of the next step: The Plan Voisin.
Figure 15:
Contemporary city
plan by Le Corbusier.
Source: StudyBlue

The heavy black

lines
the

represent
areas

built

upon. Everything
else

is

either

streets or open
spaces.

Strictly

speaking the city

is

an

immense

park.
Le Corbusier note
in the map.

15

The Plan Voisin is the direct result of the transfer of the Contemporary City to a real context.
Published in 1925, the plan was an alternative to the current Paris central occupation in the right
bank of the Senna. Shawn (1991) states that Le Corbusier vision considered that the center of Paris
formed a symbolic point of convergence, which instigated the architect to design a new layout in
this area instead of the outskirts of the city.
The plan is developed in an L shape, and covers an area of approximately 5,2 square kilometers
north from the le de la Cit. It can be divided in three retangles, one in the west area, parallel to
the Champs-Elyses, another in the middle, bordering the Louvre and following the Rue Rivoli until
the Rue de Louvre, and finally one that begins in the Senna between the Louvre and the Pont
Marie station, and covers the northern region until the station Gare de lEst. As displayed in the
contemporary city, this plan is developed in a rigid orthogonal grid and in the center of each block
there is a skyscraper with around 200 meters of height. One important feature is the elevated
highway which crosses Paris in the east-west direction, passing in the middle of the Plan Voisin.
The model below illustrates the plan; it is possible to see the highway passing through the middle

Figure 16: Plan Voisin model by Le Corbusier. Source: Fondation Le Corbusier

16

of the model and the design of the skyscrapers equally oriented and following the same pattern
from its progenitor plan as well. The high verticalization of this proposal is one of the most striking
features of this landscape, performing an innovative concept in mass housing by its magnitude and
scale. This high density proposal, according to Shawn (1991) is Le Corbusier solution to Paris
horizontal congestion.

Figure 17: Street level of the Plan Voisin by Le Corbusier. Source: Fondation Le Corbusier

The towers in cross shape form a true wall, enclosing the pedestrian and blinding his view to the
rest of the city. However the Shawn (1991) states that the open space between the buildings would
provide space to view of the landscape below them. As a true modernist building, the skyscrapers
are minimalist, simple and without any kind of ornamentation.
In this plan, the setorization assumes a major role as well. The rational city is beyond the
architecture of the buildings, it should embrace the whole plan. Here, Le Corbusier states clear
demarcations. The west area of the plan follows a program with residential cultural and
governmental buildings and the east area should be occupied with offices. Among the buildings
the area would be covered by parks, pedestrian parks and grass.
17

Figure 18: Plan Voisin by Le Corbusier. Source: Media Architecture

Furthermore, the plan major axis is in the same place as the Grand-Croise. To take advantage of
enormous existing boulevards to develop the grid seems like the first resolution of this plan. It is
interesting that despite the indifference with the existing buildings, he preserved the Louvre, the
Arc de Triomphe and the Place de la Concorde.
Le Corbusier was aware of the enormous effort to perform this plan and did not seek for public or
government support, instead, he defended that a simple profit motivation would mobilize
industrial leaders, thus, a private consortium of investors supported by banks and corporations
would buy all the property inside the plan area, destroy the existing buildings and raise the
skyscrapers. Actually, the ideology of Le Corbusier is almost the same as Haussmann, that the new
development would bring profit and that it would be used later to build new residences. However,
the modernist architect seems to forget the final fate of Haussmann, dismissed by Napoleon III due
to the enormous pressure motivated by the unreal expenditures with the renewal.
The Voisin Plan is in fact a development of the Contemporary City proposal, with solutions that
were utilized in previously plans as in the Cit Industrielle and the Garden City. However the
manner how Le Corbusier completely ignores all previously existing buildings and urban fabric in
the area of his intervention actually makes questionable if this project was indeed the transfer of
the Contemporary City concept to a real context. This plan could actually be placed in any city
18

since it doesnt dialogues with its surrounding. When the plan and the sketches are analyzed, it is
clear the contrast of the existing Paris and new region hidden inside a two hundred meters wall
that borders the new area. This proposal, just like it could be anywhere else, it transmits the idea
that it could also be replaced by any other intervention since it is mostly a sobreposition, a collage
over the existing city.
However, the innovation behind this concept is undeniable. It also had a great reflex in poster
urban planning, as the case of Braslia. The capital built in the 50 idealized by Oscar Niemeyer
follows many aspects of this plan as the different use for each area, the superblocks, the layout that
encourages the automobile use, the vast greenery between the buildings and even the
displacement of unskilled workers to outer regions.
In conclusion, the Voisin Plan was one of the first modernist plans in this scale, performing a break
with historicism and relation with the context, and in my opinion it should be faced not as a
realistic plan, but as one possible scenario of the Contemporary City supported by a context. In any
case, probably it was for the best that it was only a proposal.

4. THE NO PLAN AFTER THE WAR

Destruction. This is the world that describes the state of European and Asian cities after the Second
World War. Rotterdam, Berlin and London suffered several injuries; Stalingrad, Warsaw, Dresden,
among others were a pile of wreckages and ashes, not to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki which
were vanished, virtually not leaving even wreckages. The destruction of WWI was increased several
times. The potency of the bombs was improved, the air-raids were performed by bombers airplanes designed specifically to destroy new artillery weapons and ballistic missiles with great
explosive power destroyed entire blocks.
However, the postwar era was characterized by an interesting situation: the new possibilities in the
horizon of urban planning due to the amount of destroyed areas that needed to be rebuilt. This is
the case in the Netherlands, more specifically in Rotterdam. The city suffered a bombardment by
the Nazi army, which destroyed completely its center. A polarity among historicist strategies,
visions of the city as a work of art and modern strategies, leaving the past behind, focusing in the
future, was traced. In Rotterdam case, the modern, rational and flexible approach with Van Traa
plan was the outcome of this confront. Nonetheless this solution cannot be considered a pattern in
europe, since each city had a different scenario to work with and different backgrounds, as the case
of Paris.
Surprisingly, Paris on its turn did not suffer as the other cities in Europe, which can be quite
attributed to the German general Dietrich von Choltitz. In the final part of the war, when Hitler
19

realized that he might lose Paris, he gave specific orders to the general destroy the city, which were
disobeyed in the surrender of the German troops at the city in 25 august 1944. The post war in
Paris was not marked by plenty opportunities of reconstruction and trial of new urban concepts as
in other countries and even other cities of France; the post war in Paris had a face, and it was
misery. Jones (2005) quotes a speech by a soviet woman in this context:

We were told that we would see some beautiful shops in France. But all the shops are either
empty or shut. There is nothing to buy. The population as a whole walks on wooden shoes . . .
Nobody wears stockings. They wear very short dresses not because its the fashion but because
theres no material. (Jones, 2005, p. 427)

Figure 19: New possibilities from the ashes in Rotterdam by unknown

Nonetheless, France was experiencing a shift in its demography pattern due to a baby boom
situation between the middle of the 40s and the beginning of the 50s. This situation created a fast
industrialization. Although Paris population itself shrunk in this era, the city suffered the effects of
immigration flows and the urbanization process, expanding drastically the size of the banlieue - a
suburb, an outer area of a large city.

20

It is interesting to notice how by this time, ideologies of the beginning of the century still influence
the planning. Jones (2005) states that the Minister for Reconstruction, Claudius-Petit, was in favor
of a decentralization of business and
industry. While this idea goes in the
opposite direction of the modernist think
of Le Corbusier, it follows the Garden City
approach; the minister was also in favor
of the creation of a green belt in English
lines between these areas, just like
Ebenezer Howard predicted around fifty
years before.
However as Jones (2005) defends, there
was no need by that time for larger
projects. But in this context, the case of
Figure 20: Ponctual damage in Paris by Willy John Abbot.
Source: The Nations at War

The Halles deserves to be mentioned.

The Halles is a region near the Louvre,

which was constructed around 1100 during the reign of King Louis VI. Throughout time, tragicomic succession of renewals, design contests, political interest conflicts changed the face, the
destiny and the dreams for Les Halles as a true odyssey as described by McCall (2011).
However, the focus of this analysis is the proposals after in the postwar era. In the 1950 decade a
commission was formed to discuss renovations in the market, but in 1963, de Gaulle government
decided to move the market to the peripheral area of Rungis. Later in 1968, de Gaulle set a
competition for the new Les Halles.
The public opinion made harsh critics. The argued that the new designs ignored the culture and
identity, as the needs of local population.
In fact when analyzing the pictures, is clear that some proposals, as the one in the third column in
the first line in picture 21, are completely detached from the historic context, approaching through
a futuristic design, even for the next decades. Perhaps this could indicate the ideology behind Paris
urban planning after the Second World War, but since the planners never had the opportunity to
concretize this post war utopias, is hard to affirm that Paris would probably follow the same line as
Van Traas plane for Rotterdam, however, this situation, together with the decision of de Gaule to
move the place of the market, for sure transmits the weak link with historicism in the proposals by
that time.

21

Figure 21: Designs for Les Halles context by Various. Source: McCall

In conclusion, Paris holds a special and unique position among the European cities in the post-war
era. Unlike other cities as London, Rotterdam and Berlin, Paris remained with a virtually intact
urban fabric, which of course is a great thing, but which at the same time has its down side for
urban planning since it denied the opportunity to develop new projects and renewal the urban
layout. In fact, Paris never experienced such situation, since Haussmanns work was almost a
surgical operation in the urban network to fix centenary problems rather than an empty field to
perform and test the dreams and visions of that time.
Paris was facing another problem: the suburban growth. However, a political change was about to
end the so called black decades of urban planning in Paris and begin a new era.

22

5. PUBLIC HOUSING IN THE SUBURB

The decades of 60 and 70 were marked as the final period of the baby boom in Europe, creating
new trends in urban policies and urban planning. The mass housing, although was not a new
concept Le Corbusier indirectly was performing a mass housing concept through his
industrialized and dense proposal in the Voisin Plan as argues Urban (2012) was experiencing a
new era where the State assumed a central position in the planning. Although the first report from
the government was made in the 60s, the VINEX (which was the fourth report), was only published
in the late 80s, as a support to a mass housing policy in The Netherlands. The need for more
houses to roof the crescent population was a serious concern. The first approach was to avoid
urban concentrations, thus the spread of business and creation of new centralities were
encouraged as a measure to achieve equality. However, this trend was shifted with the VINEX. The
new policy embraced diversity between regions, with a vision for the future, to create a strong
economy and infrastructure through an integrated policy and plan. In this scenario, the mass
housing is only a fraction of the plan.
Paris situation however was different. The city experienced a period of slum growth and political
changes. Only in the beginning of the 50s a housing program was developed and supported by a
public policy. The cheap housing assumed the form of HLMs (habitations loyer modr). Jones
(2005) argues that by 1953, the government stimulated the construction of HLM states in nonedified areas in the peripheral areas.
To solve the slum problem in the suburbs the modernism made its way again. For Jones (2005)
The grands ensembles - high-rise apartment blocks surrounded by green space as a way of

replacing slum housing became intellectually respectable, desirable even (Jones, 2005, p.440)
One point in common with the Dutch case is the shifting in the policy. At first years after the war,
the planning was opposed to the growth and spread of the city, however the new Minister of
Construction, Pierre
Courant, launched a
series of laws to
encourage a rapid
mass

housing

construction of lowcost

standardized

housing: the Plan

Courant
This program could
be considered the
23

Figure 22: Aerial view of Sarcelles by J. Biougeaud. Source: The Grands Ensembles

French correspondent for the VINEX policy for mass housing. It displayed a strong governmental
centrality, where the Plan stated the land use legislation, the financing method, a standard for the
constructions among many specific features as size, maximum price and even architectonic
typologies.
If the Plan Voisin was only a proposal, and honestly a very utopic one, now many of the new
buildings, the grands ensembles, followed his modern concepts, which were expanded and
propagated by the CIAM.
One of this new modernist mass housing was the grand ensemble of Sarcelles, located north from
Paris, around 14km from the Louvr. According to Cupers (2010) it was conceived by the architects
Jacques Henri-Labourdette and Roger Boileau; the complex was owned by the SCIC, a society
established by the government in 1954 to aid in the mass housing construction. Since it was
constructed gradually (1955-1975), the first residents had already moved in before the drawing of
the master plan, which only happened in 1960.

Figure 23: Sarcelles plan around 1964 by Henri-Labourdette and Boileau. Source: Municipal Archives of Sarcelles.

24

Cupers (2010) describes the development of the grand ensemble in three parts: The first one
(figure 21), built between 1955 and 1957 in urgency, disproved of any collective facilities. The
second phase (figure 22), around 1958, where is possible to see an orthogonal grid, and finally a
more complex plan (figure 20), from around 1964, which contains secondary commercial centers
inside the neighborhood units and a main commerce center in the middle of the complex.
The regular and orthogonal distribution of the buildings in only two directions displays a great
similarity with the horizontal buildings of Le Corbusier in the Voisin Plan. In addition, the layout of
the constructions, with a great clearance between them also can be related with the modern
concept behind his
plan.

Figure 25: Initial development of the area. Source: Municipal

Archives of Sarcelles.

Figure 24: Intermediary development of the grand

ensemble. Source: Municipal Archives of Sarcelles.

25

Figure 26: Community areas in Sarcelles by J. Biougeaud. Source: The Grands Ensembles

The architecture was massively standardized. The apartments had the same layout, the facades
were equal, with a rigid monotone composition.
The interesting feature of this project, besides its architecture, is its social aspects. Cupers (2010)
claims that the grand ensemble was a new world which united their dwellers, especially through
the search of solutions to their problems. This is the case of the Association Sarceloise, established
to defend the interest of the inhabitants. The production of a weekly newsletter to update the
community of the general situation, but the struggles from other grands ensebles as well,
contributed even more to the creation of a social network and unit. Among the claims of the
association, public transport, lack of schools and insufficient maintenance were some important
conditions that were not satisfactory.

26

Figure 27: Protest against SCIC in the '60s by Jacques Windenberger. Source: Sarcelles Maison du Patrimoine

For Cupers (2010), the monopolistic ownership, its distance from the center, the common
problems, among other issues contributed to the inhabitants to view the region as new city rather
than a housing area; a welfare state city. Eventually this pressure would mobilize the government
and the SCIC towards a dialogue, which would result in the creation of the Residents Council, with
power to regulate relations between the developers and residents, which had its first elections in
1966. Eventually, the scenario would move towards an empowering of the community, supported
by the local government, which later, around the 80s would be in charge of the urban planning
projects instead of associations and corporations.
In conclusion, the mass housing policy in Paris was motivated by the growth of its suburbs after
the Second World War. After a period of stagnation, the middle of the decade of 50 was a turning
point in the housing policy, which began to support the development of new areas and massive
housing projects: the grands ensembles. It is interesting to notice its similarity with the VINEX mass
housing case, since both were under centralized planning. However, the grand ensemble de
Sarcelles was a historic precedent of decentralization process and empowering of the
neighborhood.

27

Finally, the modernist movement, especially through the CIAM and the visions of Le Corbusier, was
expanded and sustained its strength through time. Several new housing developments in Paris
between the 50s and the 60s would embrace their ideals. The Sarcelles in its turn followed the
modern etiquette in all three levels: the urban layout, the architecture and the logistic. In fact, the
industrial-rational concept is ideal for large scale projects. As Jones (2005) observes the systematic

use of prefabricated parts in building reduced the number of work-hours required to build a
dwelling unit from 3.600 hours in 1957 to 1.200 hours in 1959. (Jones, 2005, p. 440)

Figure 28: Grand Ensemble de Sarcelles by unknown. Source: Le Grand ensemble: entre prennit et demolition

28

6. REINVENTING AND REDESCOVERING PARIS

The last decades of the 1900s was a moment where the thinkers and planers had to take a look at
the past in order to think for the future. The concrete line of modernism was broken by the
postmodern era and personalities as Jane Jacobs stood to defend an urban planning in a minor
scale, more humane, disconnected from old misconceptions. At the same time, the redevelopment
of inner cities was a key aspect, both for historic reasons, but also for the direction that future
should follow. However, this discovery is not essentially linked to physical features. Groningen is a
clear example of that. Until the 70s the city was experiencing an enormous flow of cars in its inner
city, which contributed to pollution and the decrease of the comfort in these areas. However, in
1975, a traffic plan that would bring to the surface a new Groningen was approved. The plan
consisted in the division of the inner city in four different zones, thus, the automobiles that need to
go from one area to another could not do it internally, it should round the center and re-enter in
the area of its destination. This measure, together with bicycle friendly policies decreased the car
usage as it increased the bicycle use. A new city was revealed and introduced, a new landscape
unfolded for the light of future.
Another important aspect of the rediscover of the city according to Wagenaar (2001) was related
to the process of dismantlement of industries, and their eventually transposition to outer areas in
the city, process is linked mainly with the economic crisis of 1980.
Paris on its turn also experienced the discussion about its inner city. Jones (2005) observes that by
the 80s, the facadism was a growing trend in Paris, for the desperation of the conservationists.
Paris also experienced the removal
of industrial plants in the central
area, near the Seine, that gave place
to a redevelopment program that
would rediscovered the Seine as
part of a bigger policy: the Grands

Projects. The architectural program

of the president Franois Mitterrand
was

meant

to

create

new

monuments that could dialogue

with its immediate surroundings.

Figure 29: Arche de La Dfense by unknown. Source: Paris property group

Among these interventions, some should be mentioned, as the Parc Andr-Citron, developed in
the site of an old Citron car factory and which brought a new relation with the Seine, the Grande
29

Arche de La Dfense, which was aligned with the Arc de Triomphe and the Arc du Carrousel,
however with a contrasting architecture and design, with no ornamentation and straight lines; and
finally the most striking one: the Louvre Pyramid.

Figure 30: Louvre Pyramid by unknown. Source: Imgarcade

The Louvre Pyramid was commissioned by Mitterrand in 1984 and completed in 1989. It is located,
as the name hints, in the Louvre, more specifically between the Louvre museum and the Tuileries
Garden and it is actually the bigger one among other four pyramids. It was designed by the
architect I. M. Pei, and by far, this feature was the one of greatest controversy. The pyramid
location is surrounded by historical buildings, mixed with Neoclassic, baroque revival and
Napoleon III style.
On its turn, the pyramid is a rigid structure, with 22 meters of height and a 35 meters base,,
constructed with glass and metal with a bold design. This project initially faced a heavy criticism
that stated the clear anachronism of this intervention. However, the same contrast was also the
argument for the defense of the project.
Like the tower, the pyramid was at first bitterly denounced by many prominent people in the arts,
who viewed it as an unwelcome intrusion of harsh modernism into the sacred precincts of Paris.
But also as with the tower, the Parisian mood mellowed as construction proceeded. Now that the
pyramid is finished, its sharpest critics seem to have retreated, and it has become fashionable in
this city not only to accept the building but even to express genuine enthusiasm for it.
(GOLDBERGER, 1989 p.1)

30

This comparison is interesting because the Eiffel Tower also inserted new materials in the
landscape and gradually become a symbol of the city, fate shared by the glass pyramid.
For the future, Jones (2005) observes that one of the greatest challenges of Paris is its relation with
its suburbs. The increasing population in these areas is an alarming problem, worsened by the lack
of infrastructure; Paris did not enter the XXI century without problems.

Figure 31: Parc Citron by Unknown. Source: Snipview

In conclusion, the decade of 80 was an atypical moment in Paris history; it was the first major urban
development of larger scale probably in the whole century. However, differently from Haussmann,
its trigger was a era of rediscover of the city, instigated by the discussions about how to manage
the built heritage and enabled by the industrial dismantlement in central areas of the city.

7. CONCLUSION
Paris is a unique city. This statement is world-wide spread, but is specially linked to the beauty of
the capital, this dossier however, through a line that connected Paris from the middle of the XIX
century until the years 2000 showed that under its beauty there is a complex layer of historic,
politic, urban and social development that also make it unique.
Paris, like other important cities after the Industrial Revolution suffered a great urban renewal due
to its unhealthy conditions, however this reform was something that the world had never seen
before and soon to be two centuries after, still difficult to forget. Haussmann assumed the
character of Midas every poorly built slum in the map he touched with the point of his pen was
31

transformed into light, into the City of Light. Ironically, economically the process was inverted since
he consumed vertiginous amounts of gold to perform this transformation. However, in twenty
years Paris was destroyed and built again, but stronger and smarter, more rational and beautiful, to
assume a leading position among global metropolis, that even nowadays is hard to match.
The fire of both World Wars burned houses and churches, entire blocks and neighborhoods in
many European cities, leaving a blank space to visions of the future be implemented, however,
again Paris stands alone. The city suffered more physical damage with the destruction due the
conflicts during the Commune de Paris than with the wars. In the silent period between the shots
of WWI and explosions of WWII, the modern era rose. However, Paris didnt have space for more
large scale interventions. But what about visions? Le Corbusier stands as one of the most important
architects of the modernism and leaves his mark. In second decade of the 1900s, the Plan Voisin
strikes the current urban planning concepts with a rational, industrial, anachronistic proposal for
the center of Paris, which would make a turn in the direction not only of urban planning but mass
housing as well.
After the WWII, if physically the city was unharmed, its spirit was hurt. Paris was still the City of
Light, but its inhabitants were living in the shadows. Misery was stamped in the empty stores,
unhappy faces and skinny bellies. The dark years of Parisian urban planning completed the
scenario. The black years of Parisian urban planning was an enormous contrast with the current
trends of the postwar era, which
However, the growing suburbanization challenge asked for a policy change, which was
accompanied by a political change. The outer slums would be rebuilt, and an old utopic proposal
turns out to have a lot in common with this context. The mass housing in Paris, like in VINEX Dutch
policy, would be developed under strong governmental planning, but this time largely influenced
modernist concepts in its grands ensembles. This era of industrialized mass construction that
followed in the next years was a laboratory of urban development that created a new trend
towards decentralization.
A few decades later, a urban ecstasy was instituted by the discussions and questions about
historicism and which trends to follow. The old brick in the wall, static for decades finally had its
position questioned. From this context, the pursuit for the ideal city of tomorrow marked the city
with its Grands Projects, which would bring even more discussions.
In conclusion, the shape of contemporary Paris began to be delimited with its urban renewal in the
middle of the 1800s; in the following years the city was dot out of the line in many occasions,
especially in both post wars periods. Despite the lack of physical innovations, it can be fairly given
the position of place of birth of many new concepts and ideas. However, the important question
remains to be answered: What is the role that Paris will play in the future? How World-wide
challenges as climate change, social equity and sustainability will be faced? Paris will be a
32

laboratory of ideas or interventions? The only certain that hovers over the City of Light is the
uncertain about the future, that will only be answered after planners, population, the capital, the
government and the city itself roll the dices of upcoming decisions in the eternal game of history.
And as long as Paris remains the City of Light, it wont lose the game, as the motto of medieval
water-merchants for states: Fluc-tuat nec mergitur It floats, nor does it sink.

33

8. REFERENCE LIST

BOEIJENGA, J., MENSINK, J. (2008) Vinex Atlas. :O1O

COMBEAU, Y. (2009) Paris: Uma histria. Paris: L&PM
CUPERS, K. (2010) The expertise of participation: mass housing and urban planning in postwar
France. Planning Perspectives. 26 (1). p. 29-53.
CURTIS, W. R. (1982). Modern Architecture since 1900. 3rd Ed. Oxford: Phaidon
FONDATION LE CORBUSIER (1971). Le Corbusier 1910-65. Barcelona: Ingoprint
GOLDEBERGER, P. (1989) Pei Pyramid and New Louvre Open Today. New York Times article.
HARVEY, D. (2003) Paris, capital of modernity. New York and London: Routledge
HALL, P. (1988) Cities of tomorrow. Oxford and Massachussetts: Basil Blackwell
HALL, T. (1997) Planning Europes Capital Cities: Aspects of Nineteenth Century Urban

Development. London: E & FN Spon

JONES, C. (2005) Paris: Biography of a city. New York: Penguin Group
LE CORBUSIER (1987) The city of tomorrow and its planning. Mineola: Dover Publications
MCCALL, R. (2011) Les Halles: A series of Unfortunate Events. Research Tesis
NETHERLANDS. DUTCH HOUSING INSTITUTE. (1961) Dutch Housing Legislation. Amsterdam:
Drukkerij en Uitgeverij J. H. de BUSSY
OLSEN, D. J. (1986) The city as a work of art. Massachusetts: Yale University Press
SHAW, M. (1991) Promoting an urban vision: Le Corbusier and the Plan Voisin. Massachusetts:
MITLibraries
URBAN, F. (2012) Tower and Slab: Histories of global mass housing. Abingdon: Routledge
WAGENAAR, C. (2011) Town Planning in the Netherlands since 1800. Rotterdam: O1O

34