Globe: Paris skyline may be open to development

[adma]

Minato ku, if I may transcribe things into Toronto terms, what you're suggesting is as simplistically asinine as to suggest the Annex be destroyed because Scarborough is suffering, or because the pre-heritage/preservation/"museum" sensibility of half a century ago would have deemed it "naturally" expendable (evidence being, I suppose, the apartment towers along St George, Walmer, etc)

 

[Urban Shocker]

Not, I think, destroyed in its entirety. Locally, the bigger picture perspective would surely acknowledge that there are some fine Modernist apartment buildings in the vicinity of St. George, Walmer etc., and that one might indeed treasure the era that got them built in the nick of time before the collective preservationist sphincter of the Annexites clamped shut with the apparent intention that nothing will be permitted to change there, ever again. And in Paris, must Haussmann's kick at the can be seen as the end of history rather than a phase the city went through? Minato ku has acknowledged that possiblity with: "destroying some average Haussmannian buildings when a good project would be proposed instead of it." rather than demolishing it lock, stock and barrel ( which is what the good Baron did to what existed before ).

 

[Minato ku]

Of course I don't speak of buldozen all the old building of the center, Haussmann ideas today are not feasible and I like having old building.
I just want more room for the devellopment of the city. Especially where are the public transportation.

The comparaison with Toronto is quite interesting, Toronto still build skyscraper in its downtown, so why Paris couldn't do the same in district that already had skyscraper and high-rises (Montparnasse, Gare de Lyon).

Montparnasse

Gare de Lyon

New skyscrapers and high-rises would be a lot better than these 70's building and Montparnasse tower will feel less sole with taller building around.

About the heritage, old building (pre WW2 building) are more rare in Toronto center than in Paris center.
Destroying a 19th century building in Toronto is not the same thing than destroying a 19th century building in Paris.
The Haussmannian buildings are way too numberous to be seen as a monument or heritage buildings, I would not say the same thing for a 16th century building.
This is why I think that we could destoy some of these when there is a a good project proposed.

 

[newuser2k9]

Sorry Minato, your (always insightful) pictures make it too hard for me to direct quote.

Essentially, it is this:

a) Paris' core is a landmark as a whole. It's not just the beauty of the buildings, but their significance. Post-enlightenment Paris was the centre of the world, the point where the spotlight was focused on Paris. Any modern buildings will not have the same significance, even in the future, as Paris takes second place to other global Alpha cities (it is an Alpha + city, versus an Alpha ++ like London).

b) Tour Montparnasse thankfully can only be seen looking down a few streets, like Rue de Rennes. More towers would obstruct more sight lines and impede on more of the atmosphere, as, from an architectural standpoint, France has not been at the top of aesthetics. Even if one could design a fairly nice skyscraper, such as the fairly pretty hotel near Palais de Congress, chances are it would age comparatively very poorly.

c) There's no reason why construction couldn't be had outside the Periphique. As most of the population lives there, and land is cheaper, it would be better suited to the business practice.

Yes, I can see both Minato and Shocker's points. There is a fine line between preserving what is important and meaningful, and advancing the city. I do not want another Bruges, for example. That's why I'm not against modern infill, or even modern redevelopment (with nice architecture). What I am against is revising the planning and massing, which reflect the last time Paris was the seat of the world, by building ostentatious skyscrapers outside La Defense. The city, like Rome and the other lucky-to-be-spared European capitals, should try and preserve its soul until a new generation brings it back to the forefront of civilization.

 

[Minato ku]

A) No Paris core is the center a CITY, not a landmark. It should be adapted to the inhabitants of the metropolitan not the tourist.
Paris should be an Alpha ++ city, it is only because of the conservatism that it lost place.
(this ranking is a bit to much finance based, the economy is not only finance).
In the 1980's Paris was more important than London.

B) I think the oposite, Montparnasse tower is only and need other friends, it is also a good way to completly rethink Montparnasse district.

C) Because of the transport, the suburbs are less well served than the center. The only place where you can find metro line, RER lines, suburban trains that go in all over the metropolitan area is in the center.
The people who work in the office don't only live in one place they can live everywhere.
The center is by far the best place for the business.
As I remember the biggest concentration of office in Toronto is not in suburbs ? Also in Tokyo, New York, London, Osaka, etc... it is also the case for Paris but unlike the other Paris has more difficulty to modernized it offices space.

If Paris core was only a few km², I would maybe agree with you but we speak of 100 km², it is HUGE.
Even the 30 km² of the 10 first arrondissements are already to big to be seen as a landmark.