The Haussmannien revolution: Making modern-day Paris

Ah: Paris. The city of lights has much to offer. Few cities had such a fascinating and rich history. Many figures made their living within its walls. But today, I want to focus on the city itself. Obviously, the town changed drastically since its foundation. Yet, the image we have in mind of Paris can be largely attributed to the work of one man: Georges-Étienne Haussmann. Ok: I have to admit that this is not a fair assessment. Yet, Haussmann‘s work is probably the most copied and controversial city planning of our time. It was the template for almost every modern city and megalopolis you know. Without further ado, let us explore it further.

It all started with Napoleon III. The 19th century was a transformative century for the city and you know that. The French Revolution, the 1830 revolution and the 1848 “year of revolution“ all debatably started here. The common people had taken their destiny into their own hands. Yet, some things still remained from the “Ancient Regime“. Paris's infrastructure was such a thing. 1850 Paris was a mess. Overcrowded, ill-lit, dirty, unhealthy and dangerous. The last large-scale restructuration of the city dates from around Louis XIV‘s times and used a now long obsolete model. Enter Napoleon III. In 1851, Napoleon got rid of the restraints of the presidency for an imperial rule via a successful Coup d‘État. He now had (almost) unparalleled power for his schemes. What sort of schemes? Well, that Napoleon was a romantic and an idealist. He was also deeply interested in every detail of the management of his empire. The idea for the project probably gained traction in his mind when he saw London a few years back. London was another city seeing much change at that time. New sewers, new infrastructures and new streets. But what would have impressed our Emperor most were the parks. We have written evidence that Napoleon III was stricken by the new Hyde Park. Paris - his Paris - would have a Hyde Park. Better yet: BE a Hyde Park. In an 1852 public speech, the emperor would summarize his plan like this:

“Paris is the heart of France. Let us apply our efforts to embellishing this great city. Let us open new streets, make the working class quarters, which lack air and light, more healthy, and let the beneficial sunlight reach everywhere within our walls.“

Work would begin and, not long after, Haussmann would enter the stage.

Our new Parisian prefect had the ambition to match Napoleon‘s. Haussmann wanted to transform Paris into the “ideal bourgeois city“. Prototypes of such “bourgeois cities“ were popping up here and there in Europe. The recently rebuilt city of Karlsruhe in Germany is worth a mention, as it was the most probable inspiration for Haussmann. Karlsruhe is built around a center street surrounded by geometrically regular plazas. Each plaza leaves ample place for various facilities, whether they are for cultural, religious or business affairs. Haussmann would take Karlsruhe and adapt Baroque sensibilities heavily. His city would live and breathe for the demands of modern commerce and transportation. A most needed change, but most of all, change was necessary for one simple reason: the incredible population growth since the Industrial Revolution. A need that would permanently mark the city as well.

In any case, let us explore Haussmann‘s plan in four parts:

Streets: Before the project, the typical approach was to expand the city on the periphery and leave it at that. Haussmann would choose to "cut" streets through the existing city instead. Yes, such streets were used as living and working spaces, but also carefully placed to provide rapid access to key points (including transportation systems, government facilities, banks, etc.). It might seem mundane but it was a groundbreaking approach. They also carefully chose the streets in a way to control major intersections and expected "hot spots" of urban activity. Obviously, cutting through existing quarters required demolition and expropriation, which was made with ethics that were let‘s say out of date.
Buildings: Their approach was to almost entirely ignore the concerns of government and authorities to focus on the needs of the people. In the words of the architecture historian Howard Saalman: "As much possible for the people, as little as possible by the people". For that, they simplified and reduced the number of institutions by sector. No more multi-strata layers of bureaucracy in the government each in their building. Instead, one building for it all but controlling a smaller sector of the city. Such choices would limit the time load put on the population itself. In a way, Napoleon III wasn't that concerned with the needs of Bureaucracy since he knew that it would ALWAYS find a way, whatever happens. Radical approach. It has some merit. Another great quote from Saalman: "Small-scale complexity into monumental simplicity".
Parks and Promenades: Probably my favourite aspect of Haussmann‘s plan. An inclusion makes sense for the romantic Napoleon III (aren't we all?). The emperor really thought that including nature within the city would lift the spirit and morals of his citizens. In a way, I agree. A city without a park feels very different than one with some greenery. In reality, this part of the project is probably their biggest achievement. Yes, in time, the streets and buildings needed some adaptation for Paris‘ citizens. But parks? They stayed largely the same.
Services: A city must sustain the needs of its citizens. That might seem basic, but medieval cities were largely made by time and opportunity - not what was really needed on a large scale. City (gas) lights, fresh water, sewers, cemeteries. Those are essentials today that were not given at that time. We have to appreciate that.

One thing you might wonder about is how they paid for all that. In a word: they didn‘t. They issued public funds to finance the project, but that was largely insufficient. Napoleon III could have gone directly into debt, but remember that an incredible debt is largely considered an important trigger to the French Revolution: let's try to not repeat that. Instead, he chose a very mischievous approach. Building contracts were written to force firms to not only complete the work but also pay compensation for all financial burdens of the contract (for example, expropriation). Contractors were not that wealthy and would have to resort to debt with banks. Normally, banks would refuse to cover them since the only guarantee they had was that the contract was made by the government. To bypass that, Haussmann had the guts to declare the projects completed before they began. Yes, it was false, but it gave the juridical power to the government to take in debt itself for the contractors on the strength of that status alone. Probably way out of line today, but (technically) not at that time. Although, that practice was still kept secret during the project.

Was Haussmann and Napoleon III‘s legacy criticized? Yes (and even by their contemporaries). Did it was perfect? No, of course not. Yet, we can‘t deny it was an irreverent success. What do you know of Paris? The Eiffel Tower? The Arc of Triumph? The Louvre? The Paris Opera maybe? They all were completed during this project or after (and because of it). Haussmann “bourgeois“ Paris IS Paris. On that note, please have a wonderful day.

I will see you next time.

References

Haussmann: Paris transformed, Howard Saalman, 1971.