Transformation of Paris by Georges-Eugène Haussmann

[diegosimeone]

Under the Second Empire, Napoleon III ordered baron Haussmann to plan a renovation of Paris as the city was very toxic, disease was spreading and it was even considered a hideous urban center. Dangerously high population density, crime and unrest were also considered side effects of the poor state of the city. At least that was the official narrative.

The idea was for Paris to become a more friendly city to its citizens, to the empire and also enlarge its borders by including some new arrondissements to make it to the total of 20 that we have today. The general spirit was that the city was in need of air and light. Napoleon III was obsessed with lighting the city. The living situation in the Île de la Cité was actually rather awful, roads were barely 5m wide, so even passing by with a carriage was a nightmare.

In 1852, regulations were passed for this and the works officially began in 1853.

Some of these new laws were that:
- The state decides the extent of the expropriations
- The owners of the homes are obliged to clean the exterior of their buildings and every 10 years make extensive work to refresh
- The buildings will be aligned to the roads which will in turn be aligned with the sewer system.

Further regulation later assigned the maximum height possible for buildings (increased from 17.55m to 20m) and essentially pushed for all buildings to have the same size, as well as specific regulation on the angles at the top.

This of course was not cheap and financial troubles arose within just 2 decades. The idea was to borrow money and then sell the plots to developers who would have to play by Haussmann's rules. I'm not sure how it ended up being financed, but the last project based on the Haussmann works was in 1927! The idea was that this would be a collaboration of State, the wealthy elite (bankers, businessmen) as well as private entrepreneurs.

Landmarks that we know of now were ordered to be built. The Opera by Garnier for example was built under this scheme.
Large boulevards to form an axis between Parisian gaps were built, such as Boulevard Sebastopol.
Large places (city squares) as well, but also reconstructing existing ones.
Train stations were built. Such as Gare de Lyon and Gare du Nord.
Green areas and parks were created, which was a rarity in Paris.

It is said that within the first 7 years of the project, there were 8,000 businesses involved in the transformation of Paris. That includes 31,000 builders, 5,000-8,000 carpenters, 3,500 roof constructors, 6,000 locksmiths, 600 painters and some other professionals. Around 55,000 people were occupied with these projects by 1860.

In short:
- Buildings that were considered unsafe or unaligned with the project were demolished.
- A drainage system was created, spanning 560km long.
- A new domestic water supply system was introduced.
- A new sewage system was created.
- Large boulevards were built.
- The Parisian arrondissements grew from 12 to 20 when the then villages on the periphery of the city, such as Montmarte and La Villete, were included in the city planning.
- A new road construction system was implemented.
- Large city squares and parks were created.


Of course, there were lots of social side effects and a lot of criticism going on at the time.
The concept of removing poverty from the lower ranks of Parisians was not accomplished as critics suggested that the poverty percentages were roughly the same. Essentially the more central arrondissements saw its population displaced to the new peripherical arrondissements, so we saw a drop in population in the 6th arrondissement but a rise in the 17th. Several similar examples exist.
There was also the concern of financing the project as well as criticism that the benefactors of this remodeling of the city was reduced to a few businesses.

Another criticism was that the whole project was to make the city more manageable by the Emperor, as in make it easier to move troops and police around the city and battle any civilian unrest, give more mobility and range for cannons if they had to be deployed against the citizens and other similar concerns on security.

One thing that is appreciated by all historians now is that the epidemics and the outbreaks of disease were now limited. Overall, Haussmann's transformation of Paris is something seen in a a positive light by Parisians and it is usually considered prestigious to live in an immeuble Hausmannien. Though older buildings that survived Haussmann and built by authentic 'Parisian stone' are also highly prestigious.


Some images that I found on the before and after:

Paris avant et après Haussmann

LE FIGARO MAGAZINE - Difficile d'imaginer ce que serait Paris sans Haussmann. Jugé dévastateur par les uns, urbaniste de génie pour les autres, son oeuvre prête aujourd'hui encore à polémique. A vous de juger sur ces images. » LIRE - Comment Haussmann a rebâti Paris Léopold Sanchez (texte)...

www.lefigaro.fr

This link above has 9 pictures with labels of what it is being displayed, I cannot copy them all here but some of the below are included.

Spoiler: Spoiler

Île de la Cité 1855:

Île de la Cité 1857:

And this is of course the modern look only, unfortunately a before aerial shot is slightly impossible

At this point, I'd like to call on anyone who is familiar with the renovation of Paris to correct or add anything to what I've said. And I'd also like @loup99 or any other French members familiar with the history of the renovation, the social impact and the governance that lead to this, such as the bureaucracy involved that Loup mentioned in another thread.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

It would help to put some of those pictures inside spoiler tags to prevent the thread from crashing the browser with too many big pics.

I have a couple (large) maps kicking around which might be interesting for this topic. They're from the Paris Commune in 1871.

The first map is on the eve (mid-May 1871), with Hausmann's boulevards (grey), old boulevards (brown) and the Commune's barricades (yellow) denoted. Largest barricade is the so-called "Chateau Gaillard" in front of the Tuileries. Commune HQ is at the Hotel de Ville in the center, heavily barricaded all around. The hardcore working class quarters are in the northeast, the bourgeoisie is in the west.

Spoiler

The second map shows the path of the Versailles troops took during the Semaine Sanglante (May 21-28). They swept in through the west rather quickly. If the paths are correct, it doesn't seem Haussman's bouleverds were made much use of, the old boulevards seemed to work fine (he might have widened them). Much of the western parts of the city had been pounded for weeks by artillery, so it was it was pretty much destroyed. The yellow patches in the center are burned-down buildings, razed partly on Commune's orders, partly by enthusiastic firebrands, to slow down the advance of Versailles troops. Predictably, things only got tougher going for Versailles troops in the east, and it seems here Haussman boulevards were more critical.

Spoiler

Of course, the red lines are offensives, and the fact that many don't go through the Hausmann boulevards doesn't necessarily mean they weren't used to move men and material quickly to the frontlines. It might just mean there just weren't that many barricades on the new boulevards (except in the south, as the first picture shows), and more on the old boulevards and side streets.

EDIT: And because it has been mentioned, adding a map of the annexations of 1860

Spoiler

 

[diegosimeone]

Added the spoiler feature in the post.

 

[loup99]

A lot of things in the opening post, which is rather balanced in itself, so I will give you a few shorter and more general thoughts, which I can expand upon if there are specific remarks or arguments. First of all, I think it is important to stress the limits of the haussmanisation of the capital. Indeed, the attempts at introducing sewerages and in general a more "hygienic" town did not start with Haussmann. Today historians stress the partial continuity with previous efforts of other prefects, such as Chabrol (drainage system) and Rambuteau (rue Rambuteau, opened up during the July Monarchy, public toilets, sewers etc). The ambition existed already, but not necessarily the funds. Haussmann was not the first to have the idea, but his predecessors did not have the money required to go as far, especially due to the way Paris was organised with a bourgeois city council elected in a censitary manner by the wealthiest which incited financial moderation.

Conversely, the sewers were not entirely finished either under Haussmann, much of the peripheral arrondissements got proper draining systems much later. Additionally, it has to be noted that the style used by Haussmann on buildings continued to be used after Haussmann left office as prefect of the Seine. Therefore today not all buildings in Paris with a style haussmannien were built under Haussmann. So the Paris we know today was by no means stabilised during Haussmann's time in office, the Third Republic continued many efforts. Furthermore, keep in mind that the the spatial and social dimension within the Haussmannian buildings, with the top floors being small chambre de bonne, for poor domestics serving the more wealthy families living beneath.

Another thing I would like to point out is that you can't use the opinion of the Parisians today to judge what was built at the time in a historical thread, otherwise you risk ending up in teleology. So I think you should put aside the contemporary prestigious dimension altogether, it doesn't say anything about the reactions at the time and would be for another thread. There is enough source material from Haussmann and the 19th century of the reactions made at the time to not go to opinions today, I can probably dig up material if anyone is interested. We have to question a period with material from the period itself.

Finally, the importance of and the authoritarian nature of the annexation of the bordering cities can not be highlighted enough. This dramatically increased the size of Paris, but did absolutely not involve the existing inhabitants of these former cities, who became second-class inhabitants of Paris. A top-down extension in an autocratic manner.

At this point, I'd like to call on anyone who is familiar with the renovation of Paris to correct or add anything to what I've said. And I'd also like @loup99 or any other French members familiar with the history of the renovation, the social impact and the governance that lead to this, such as the bureaucracy involved that Loup mentioned in another thread.

Sorry for the sort of late reply, but better late than never.

The hardcore working class quarters are in the northeast, the bourgeoisie is in the west.

Don't forget the southeast as well, slightly less working class by percentage but still very significant and important during this period. This excellent map from Le Monde Diplomatique helps you visualising that:

Spoiler: Map of the Paris Commune

Note that there was large exodus of more affluent citizens who left the town during the Paris Commune.

 

[diegosimeone]

Another thing I would like to point out is that you can't use the opinion of the Parisians today to judge what was built at the time in a historical thread, otherwise you risk ending up in teleology. So I think you should put aside the contemporary prestigious dimension altogether, it doesn't say anything about the reactions at the time and would be for another thread. There is enough source material from Haussmann and the 19th century of the reactions made at the time to not go to opinions today, I can probably dig up material if anyone is interested. We have to question a period with material from the period itself.

I'm not sure if it makes sense to completely dissociate one from the other. Sure, the context is necessary, but this was viewed as a radical change and people are very critical of radical political moves of any sort.

I'm pretty sure you can dig up a lot of evidence for opposition to the Revolution as well, doesn't mean that the people living today cannot have an opinion on whether it was a good change or bad change. They have no basis of knowing how life would have been any other way, but at the same time, I think it is reasonable to allow for such impressions to be taken into account.

Both are welcome, but there should be different weighting of course. I understand that the people of Paris at the time didn't have that much of a choice due to the political regime, but sometimes in history someone has to take the big hits for the next generations to enjoy the new liberties or opportunities. I agree that from a historical context this is more vital, so please do share whatever you think is relevant from those days.

In addition, any reaction from the rest of Europe on this would also be welcome.

 

[loup99]

Sure, the context is necessary, but this was viewed as a radical change and people are very critical of radical political moves of any sort.

No, not necessarily, no. The bourgeois establishment which controlled the city were very critical of radical political moves of any sort, due to their economic interest being the city not getting in debt and taxes being low. Many authors with a romantic view of the old Paris were also very critical of this particular change, but an author like Hugo defended at the same point of time revolutionnary opinions in opposition to the Second Empire. On the one hand, Republicans and other revolutionaries on their left also organised and defended radical change. In Paris the Republicans remained in strong plurality if not majority throughout the Second Empire. The idea of the Republic under Napoléon III was a revolutionnary opinion. During the 19th century Paris certainly wasn't the city of status quo, it was rather the radical capital of revolutions, with the typical barricades up until 1871. On the other hand, as I explained Haussmann situated himself in continuity with other prefects and didn't finish everything, so the change isn't as radical as it might seem if you isolate him, even if it is a major change. Saying "people are very critical of radical political moves of any sort" is therefore a rather inaccurate generalisation. You can say some had their habits, but economic interests and Romanticism would be better explanations.

I'm pretty sure you can dig up a lot of evidence for opposition to the Revolution as well, doesn't mean that the people living today cannot have an opinion on whether it was a good change or bad change. They have no basis of knowing how life would have been any other way, but at the same time, I think it is reasonable to allow for such impressions to be taken into account.

Of course that people can have an opinion on the Revolution today and debate it as they wish, but when making a historical analysis their later opinions are irrelevant (other than perhaps influencing the historical questions we ask ourselves, after all, we also live in a given period and context). I think you raise questions that relate more to memory and political ways of commemorating than history as such.

Both are welcome, but there should be different weighting of course. I understand that the people of Paris at the time didn't have that much of a choice due to the political regime, but sometimes in history someone has to take the big hits for the next generations to enjoy the new liberties or opportunities. I agree that from a historical context this is more vital, so please do share whatever you think is relevant from those days.

That is teleology though. It is simple to look back today and retain "new liberties or opportunities", but as I pointed out that wasn't really something those who made the decisions at the time had in mind or, at the very least not in that way, neither did the critics. The haussmanisation of Paris was very much a process situated in a given context and reflects it. Later reactions can not impact it retroactively.

Here is a publication from 1868 by an opponent who would later go down in posterity, Les comptes fantastiques d'Haussmann [The fabulous counts of Haussmann] by Jules Ferry, brought to us by the Bibliothèque nationale de France : https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5475f.texteImage That should be an interesting start for those who read French.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Don't forget the southeast as well, slightly less working class by percentage but still very significant and important during this period. This excellent map from Le Monde Diplomatique helps you visualising that:

Note that there was large exodus of more affluent citizens who left the town during the Paris Commune.

Oh pretty. I'm going to steal that map.

 

[fr-rein]

One thing I heard about Haussmann's plans is that he actually made bigger parks in the center of Paris. Is that true?

 

[diegosimeone]

One thing I heard about Haussmann's plans is that he actually made bigger parks in the center of Paris. Is that true?

Parc Monceau is one, close to Avenue des Champs-Élysées. Based on London parks iirc.

The other thing that I'm aware of Bois de Boulogne was incorporated into Paris and made more civilian friendly, so it could qualify as a park I suppose. The other one is Bois de Vincennes which was also part of that, but I'm not aware of its history.

Other famous parks in Paris such as Jardin des Tuileries, Jardin de Luxembourg or Jardin des Plantes existed long before that.


I think it was another person who was responsible for the parks, not Haussmann himself. Jean-Charles Adolphe Alphand is the person I am talking about. Not sure if he acted independently or if the parks were pretty much ordered by Napoleon & Haussmann.

 

[loup99]

One thing I heard about Haussmann's plans is that he actually made bigger parks in the center of Paris. Is that true?

No. There are few parks in central Paris, and those who exist are not from Haussmann:

In fact Haussmann reduced the size of the Jardin du Luxembourg and Champ-de-Mars, Jardin des Tuileries and Esplanade des Invalides were already around. Those are the central parks in Paris, which is a very mineral town. What Haussmann did do was to plant the trees along the boulevards and avenues.

Parc Monceau is one, close to Avenue des Champs-Élysées. Based on London parks iirc.

The other thing that I'm aware of Bois de Boulogne was incorporated into Paris and made more civilian friendly, so it could qualify as a park I suppose. The other one is Bois de Vincennes which was also part of that, but I'm not aware of its history.

Not really central though.

I think it was another person who was responsible for the parks, not Haussmann himself. Jean-Charles Adolphe Alphand is the person I am talking about. Not sure if he acted independently or if the parks were pretty much ordered by Napoleon & Haussmann.

No independent initiatives in the urbanism in this era, or indeed at any point. Paris is a capital which has always been closely monitored, and it is not during the Second Empire you will find such initiatives. The difference with Alphand is that he stayed much longer than Haussmann and continued his works. While Haussmann was very much a figure of the authoritarian Empire, who was fired when the Empire was reforming itself.

 

[Director]

Those are the central parks in Paris, which is a very mineral town.

My apologies, but I do not understand the use of the word 'mineral' here.

 

[loup99]

My apologies, but I do not understand the use of the word 'mineral' here.

Sorry if that was a false friend. Mineral in the sense of opposed to green and plant-covered, a lot of concrete and few parks or green spots. As you can see on the map, the whole 18th arrondissement in the north has no large-size parks, despite being the second most populated.

 

[diegosimeone]

Sorry if that was a false friend. Mineral in the sense of opposed to green and plant-covered, a lot of concrete and few parks or green spots. As you can see on the map, the whole 18th arrondissement in the north has no large-size parks, despite being the second most populated.

Or you could argue that it's the 2nd most populated because it was has no large sized parks to take up its space?

I think the 11th arrondissement is the one with the highest density. It is not really just to compare population size itself as they are not even in land mass.

The 10th is also highly dense but due to the train stations there's not much living space. It has similar population characteristics with the 18th.

 

[loup99]

Or you could argue that it's the 2nd most populated because it was has no large sized parks to take up its space?

I think the 11th arrondissement is the one with the highest density. It is not really just to compare population size itself as they are not even in land mass.

The 10th is also highly dense but due to the train stations there's not much living space. It has similar population characteristics with the 18th.

I didn't intend to start a debate about density and population size or what the best indicator may be, I was just saying that Paris is a town with few and scarce parks, with the 18th arrondissement being a symbol of that.

 

[diegosimeone]

I didn't intend to start a debate about density and population size or what the best indicator may be, I was just saying that Paris is a town with few and scarce parks, with the 18th arrondissement being a symbol of that.

Sure, that's valid. There aren't many large parks in Paris in the city center like you would find in London, New York, Vienna, Amsterdam etc. But it's not like Athens where there's literally nothing, we even covered up any signs of green and all the rivers... Don't ask why

I think the idea in Paris was to make several small parks within neighborhoods, embrace the forests as green spaces and perhaps just reshape the existing green spaces within the city and add a few more, but not turn the city into a green space itself.


I'm also not sure what exactly 'center' of Paris would mean nowadays. The city is pretty much Point Zero, which is where Notre-Dame is situated, at the main island. The 18th arrondissement was incorporated into Paris and it was a collection of villages or something. I don't think the travaux haussmanniens were very involved in those regions, especially when you consider that the 9th and 10th arrondissements were used to add infrastructure, such as train stations or extend avenues, possibly diverting any traction from St Lazare (8th, borderline 9th) rather than make the city more green.

I guess that by city center you would accept anything within the 20 arrondissements. I don't think Paris really has a center, at least nowadays. But if I had to pick, I'd pretty much assume the extent of the Louvre and Bastille from Rive Droite and from Orsay to Sorbonne from Rive Gauche, would qualify as what you would call 'the city center'. So something along the lines of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th would be classified as 'the center', although not all parts of their jurisdiction, along with some bits of the 7th.

 

[Barsoom]

Sure, that's valid. There aren't many large parks in Paris in the city center like you would find in London, New York, Vienna, Amsterdam etc.

Amsterdam doesn't have any parks in the city center. They're all outside the defensive moat that protected the city until 1800 or so and were established as part of 19th century city planning. The only exception is an area in the northeast where the city planned to sell plots for building but initially couldn't find buyers due to war and economic crisis. The area was eventually built up but in the meantime a botanical garden, a zoo and a rather small park had been established there.

 

[diegosimeone]

Amsterdam doesn't have any parks in the city center. They're all outside the defensive moat that protected the city until 1800 or so and were established as part of 19th century city planning. The only exception is an area in the northeast where the city planned to sell plots for building but initially couldn't find buyers due to war and economic crisis. The area was eventually built up but in the meantime a botanical garden, a zoo and a rather small park had been established there.

True on Amsterdam, but it has a rather small city center and you get the feeling that Vondelpark for example is part of 'downtown' even if it's not. It's also a very green city/country, very natural, picking on something loup tried to say the opposite for Paris earlier, so you get the vibe that it's more green than it actually is.

At the end of the day, the term 'city center' needs to be evaluated. London for example carries the name 'central London' for everything that's Zone 1 in the Underground, but historically Hyde Park barely fits the map, but you still get Green Park and St James' Park as green spaces in central London under every context possible. Yet neither would really qualify as 'City of London' parks, which is also a very small part of the modern urban area.