Paris is a new city. In the 1850s the city's boss, Baron Georges Haussmann, tore down most of the medieval city and created the beloved system of boulevards that intersect as in a spider web.
Haussmann created a sort of form-based code that gave us most of what we appreciate in "Modern" Paris. (not the Tour Montparnasse. That is a piece of crap. And so is most of La Defense). Grand limestone ground floors, beautiful upper floors and small attic apartments.
Paris is so, so much more. The city is organized in a spiral array of wards, each unique.
"Arondissements" 1 through 7 have most of the attractions. Tour Eiffel, Louvre, Champs Elysees. Your typical Paris.
"Arondissements" 1 through 7 have most of the attractions. Tour Eiffel, Louvre, Champs Elysees. Your typical Paris.
The Left Bank, where the Sorbonne is, kind of survived Haussmann. So did Le Marais. Very old streets have amazing little shops. Here are a few on the Left Bank. theshopkeepers.com/favorite-left-…
Modernity and the loss of scale are a problem that is not inherent to the Modernist planners and architects of the 20th century. It started almost 100 years earlier. Haussmann did not "destroy" Paris because his sense of aesthetics and decorum was very refined. But he could have.
There's a fine line between imposing a living, organic idea from the top down and imposing a fatally flawed one, also from the top down. Most cities that were "upgraded" in the 19th c. e.g. Buenos Aires, Paris got lucky.
Urban growth is bottom up. Otherwise it's a vanity project.
Urban growth is bottom up. Otherwise it's a vanity project.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
