The Remaking Of Paris
The 2024 Paris Olympics is a great starting point to explore one of urban planning's greatest success stories. What can we learn from it?
Source: gettyimages.com
The world is now one week into the 2024 Olympics in Paris. With the current Games, Paris becomes the second city (along with London) to host the Olympics three times, the first two being in 1900 and 1924. After completing a century without hosting the Games, the event is now making me think about the city, and what it means to urbanists.
Paris is aptly using the Games to bring attention to one of the world’s most beautiful cities. Despite the blowback and controversy the city received for its opening ceremony, organizers (in my view) were right to stage a ceremony that highlighted the distinctive character and culture of the city and nation. I recently wrote a three-part series on how Chicago’s loss of the 2016 Games to Rio de Janeiro cost it the chance to dramatically change its narrative and fortune. Few cities ever get this chance.
Paris’ beauty is taken for granted. But it wasn’t always that way. Paris did not start as a beautiful city that aged gracefully. The Paris of today is one that is the result of conscious efforts to make it that way, and it’s instructive to see how it eventually became the Paris we know today.
Let me say first, I’ve never been to Paris. I’ve never been to Europe. However, I understand the image the city brings to the minds of all who see it as an urban masterpiece – its grandeur and ability to inspire, its livability and human scale. For centuries Paris has been viewed as the city that the word serendipity was made for, where anything was possible.
But before there was the elegant (for most) Paris, there was the Paris that was elegant for a select few, and virtually unlivable for the masses. Think of Jean Valjean and Les Miserables Paris. As the political, business and cultural capital of the nation, it would always be at the center of France’s attention as the center of power there. But Paris’ reputation through the mid-19th century was also one of filth, overcrowded conditions, poverty and crime.
Paris, pre 1853. Source: messynessychic.com
Paris, pre 1853. Source: messynessychic.com
That changed when the newly self-anointed emperor Napoleon III appointed Georges-Eugene Hausmann as the prefect of the Seine. As the emperor’s designee to run the nation’s largest and most important city with sweeping authority, Hausmann was able to undertake a big, multi-decade public works program that dramatically changed the city’s perceptions and fortunes.
First, a little bit of French political history to set the context. Before becoming emperor, Napoleon III was Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, president of the Second French Republic. Bonaparte was elected in 1848. Faced with being constitutionally unable to be re-elected in 1852, Bonaparte staged a coup in 1851, and then instituted a new constitution and proclaimed himself as monarch in 1852.
During his reign from 1852-1870, Napoleon III oversaw the modernization of the French economy, and put in place political and social reforms that generally kept him popular. As monarchs are wont to do, Napoleon III consolidated his authority, and one of his first initiatives was to commission a renovation of Paris. Hausmann was selected by Napoleon III in 1853 and began assembling a team to craft a plan for Paris. With little input beyond the King, members of French elite society and Hausmann’s team of engineers and builders, Hausmann began his Parisian renovation in 1853. Here’s an explanation of what happened in Hausmann’s time leading the effort of the next 17 years:
· The Grand Hotel du Louvre and Rue de Tivoli. Hausmann immediately got to work on the construction of a luxury hotel and the first of many grand boulevards in advance of the Paris Universal Exposition in 1855.
· The expansion of the boulevard system. The construction of Paris’ boulevard system began with the rue de Tivoli but greatly expanded over the next decade. Dozens of boulevards filled with public squares, monuments and inviting views brought light and air to the city. See below:
Source: gettyimages.com
· The annexations of 1860. Directly from Wikipedia:
“On 1 January 1860 Napoleon III officially annexed the suburbs of Paris out to the ring of fortifications around the city. The annexation included eleven communes; Auteuil, Batignolles-Monceau, Montmartre, La Chapelle, Passy, La Villette, Belleville, Charonne, Bercy, Grenelle and Vaugirard,[33] along with pieces of other outlying towns. The residents of these suburbs were not entirely happy to be annexed; they did not want to pay the higher taxes, and wanted to keep their independence, but they had no choice; Napoleon III was Emperor, and he could arrange boundaries as he wished.”
· Parks and gardens. Prior to 1853 Paris had only four parks containing just over 130 acres and serving well more than one million residents. Over the next 17 years Hausmann added nearly 5,000 acres of parks and gardens and planted roughly 600,000 trees.
· Infrastructure system improvements. Hausmann simultaneously improved Paris’ water delivery and sewage systems while constructing the boulevards. Aqueducts were built to distribute fresh water to new reservoirs. Larger sewer tunnels and an expanded system carried sewage safely out of Paris, leading to a much cleaner River Seine. Hausmann also forced the consolidation of the numerous gas companies serving Parisians at the time into one company, and expanded the pipeline network to deliver gas for heating and lighting.
· Creation of a development design aesthetic for the city. Perhaps the most recognizable part of Paris’ renovation is the ubiquitous Hausmann apartment building, found on boulevards throughout Paris. Hausmann wanted to create a uniform design for the city, and created strict design guidelines regulating facades. The buildings followed a strict form, with ground floor retail or office space, a mezzanine level above it, and up to four additional floors of apartments topped by a mansard roof. Apartment builders were given more latitude to design the interiors, but Hausmann established and enforced the exterior look.
Hausmann’s tenure as prefect of the Seine ended in 1870, ultimately dismissed by Napoleon III. He grew unpopular among Parisians for the constant construction. Much of the renovation was either completed or well underway at the time of Hausmann’s dismissal. Work continued after his departure but did so at a much slower pace. But elements of the Hausmann plan were completed as late as 1927, nearly 80 years after its start.
I don’t know much about French history, but I’d bet that the shift in French public opinion on the Hausmann plan was complete by the time of the 1889 Parisian Exposition. Nearly two decades after the maniacal construction pace set by Hausmann slowed down, Parisians were able to adapt to the surroundings. They were able to take in the new beauty of the city and embraced it. The Exposition coincided with the opening of the Eiffel Tower, presented as a magnificent achievement of engineering and aesthetics. The Exposition showcased Paris and demonstrated that the city was a worthy world city leading a strong nation. It was something for all of France to be proud of.
How were Napoleon III and Hausmann able to accomplish so much? In a word, authoritarianism. Napoleon III ruled the Second French Empire during this same timeframe, before being deposed as France’s monarch in 1870. France returned to its republican ways after that.
More importantly, there was a political, social and economic convergence that led to the Paris we know today. Paris stood as the head of state, business and culture for an entire nation. Paris was under the leadership of an emperor with nearly unlimited powers. The late 19th century was an era of unparalleled growth in cities, globalization, manufacturing, science and technology, around the world. It was also an era when European powers were asserting their colonial dominance, competing for territories around the globe, and a beautiful city let the colonized know how “civilized” the French were. Napoleon III wanted to put his imprint on Paris so that it would be the envy of cities worldwide. He found Hausmann to carry out the work.
Could it happen in America? To the extent it happened in Paris, no. To do something comparable in New York City, for example, is inconceivable. It would require a level of national executive power we’ve never seen, a lengthy period of political stability that ensures the work is funded and completed, and virtually inexhaustive resources devoted to one city at the expense of many, many others. In fact, I don’t think it could happen in Paris again; I can only imagine it happening now in other authoritarian cities around the world.
That said, we’ve seen aspects of it in America. The 1909 Plan of Chicago, co-authored by Daniel Burnham, was a creation of the city’s business community and not a monarch. The Burnham Plan had many of the same Beaux Arts-style elements that defined Hausmann’s Paris plan. The Burnham Plan was instrumental in establishing the city’s Lake Michigan waterfront for public use, something that Chicagoans enjoy to this day. The plan also led to improved rail stations and connections that eased rail traffic in the city and led to the preservation of natural areas beyond the city’s boundaries, under the auspices of the Cook County Forest Preserves District. Chicago was able to even gain an exceptional boulevard system that linked large city parks across the city. But the public spaces and institutional buildings and diagonal street network the plan called for never materialized in Chicago. Perhaps Chicago’s efforts to simply provide basic services to a rapidly growing population, as well as the eventual rise of the automobile, had something to do with that.
The New York metropolitan area under Robert Moses also comes to mind. Simultaneously leading numerous public agencies controlling parks, bridges, highways, public housing and urban renewal, Moses’ power was as extensive as Hausmann’s. Moses was able to garner state and federal funding to take on numerous infrastructure projects in New York City and beyond. But as a mid-century man wielding power during the rise of the Auto Era, Moses was less interested in increasing the grandeur of New York than he was in facilitating the movement of the middle income and wealthy classes, and warehousing low-income residents.
Paris, present day. Source: gettyimages.com
If there are lessons to be learned from Hausmann’s work, however, one would be that public projects matter. Public projects set the tone for the private development that follows. Relying on the private sector to create a sense of place and importance for a city only goes as far as the lot lines of the private site. Civic buildings, parks and public squares, spacious and pleasant multi-modal environments don’t create themselves. Done well, they serve as the blueprint that signals how a city should look.
Source: gettyimages.com
Another lesson? The human scale matters. It’s understood by planners and urbanists trying to create more human scale development, but escapes laypeople until they experience it in other cities. Sadly, concerns about safety often are at the forefront of limiting human scale development, such as corner store retail, small public gardens, and bike/ped paths. Yet the irony is that human scale development makes places more safe, not less.
Paris hit its population peak in 1921, with about 2.9 million people. Its population slowly and steadily declined by 800,000 people by 1999, to 2.1 million. Of course, two world wars might have that effect, but most of that loss has taken place since the 1960’s. In America, if a city is not adding people, it’s losing relevance. But Paris doesn’t care. Paris’ beauty means that it retains the allure that will always capture the imagination of residents and visitors and occupy a prominent place in the hearts of those who love cities.
The Paris transformation was remarkable in the extent to which many of the projects apparently occurred in fully developed areas of the city, and were possible only through the destruction of nearly 20,000 existing buildings in those areas. I'd be curious as to how many of the projects in both Paris and Chicago were completed in fully developed versus "greenfield" areas. Did the transformation of Chicago's lakefront to public use require the destruction and relocation of industrial and other users, or was it accomplished through filling in former shoreline areas of Lake Michigan?
I agree that this type of transformation would likely be impossible in US cities today. But I'd argue that historic industrial areas surrounding the core of many rust belt cities offer opportunities for large scale transformation of previously fully developed areas that is not fully appreciated. You have noted this opportunity in portions of Detroit. A key ingredient in making the transformation possible is the reduction in land values to near zero, and the opportunity for the cities to acquire property necessary to put in appropriate infrastructure to support renewal (including new or widened streets, as well as sewers, riverwalks, and green infrastructure). That reminds me of a pet peeve about the "strong towns" focus on incremental growth. Sometimes - transformation of fully developed areas requires large scale projects that can tackle fundamental infrastructure challenges, or planning (or lack of planning) flaws in the original development.