Daily Blague

Very interesting review. I particularly enjoyed the parallels with London and New York City.
As a French citizen, and a Paris resident, with an interest in urban planning, I have a few additional comments.

What caracterises Paris among other capitals is its density (of the order of 250 residents per hectare) which is comparable to the density of Manhattan, with the difference that Paris intra muros is primarily made up of five (European)-storey apartment buildings. While the local terrain offered no real obstacle to urban growth, Paris, historically, and unlike London, has had to shelter itself behind successive circles of protective walls, still partly visible physically and in the street layout. Today the city limits still coincide with its last line of fortifications, the 1840 enceinte de Thiers, torn down as late as 1920! Entrances to the city are still called "gates" (portes). This is why the city has grown concentrically, like Vienna, and unlike London again, which has always been more polycentric, with variations in density and a less recognisable "shape".
In the 19th century, while Paris grew, it rejected what it did not want at its periphery - facilities servicing the city such as railyards, cemetaries, slaughterhouses, warehouses, etc...(again at the difference of London)... and the "dangerous classes". This was the birth of the modern banlieue. Although Paris'inner suburbs are now rapidly gentrifying, and that there are very residential suburban areas, this "banlieue" image still prevails. Hence the rather insular attitude of Parisians towards anything that lies beyond the Périphérique, a physical and psychological barrier (is there anything similar with Manhattanites?).

This little historical digression is to highlight the challenges the city is facing to adapt to the 21th century, as evidenced by the ongoing process of revising the city masterplan :

- Paris proper is a nearly completed city, with little potential for change within its present boundaries, with only a few areas (ex industrial/wharehousing areas along the railyards) left for new development. For those interested, innovative urban projects are underway in those areas). But, for the most part of this primarily residential city, it is now unthinkable to tear down the 18th and 19th century buildings to make room for new projects (this was done locally though, in the 60's and 70's, with rather traumatic effects). In Manhattan, while keeping the grid layout, it is always possible to tear down a building and replace it with a taller structure on the empty plot. The cityscape is not affected. Not so in Paris, due to more and more stringent regulations on building heights and to fierce opposition from its conservative residents. Recent suggestions by the mayor's entourage that high-rise buildings should be built in selected areas were met with much opposition.
There are many downsides to this situation. Many voices warn that Paris is turning into a wealthy, fossilised village, an open-air museum losing economic vitality, like Venice or Florence. All this increased of course with the self-flagellation following the loss of the Olympics.

As an illustration, up-to-date office space in Paris is often provided by gutting the inside of buildings (including the ornate ceilings and the marble fireplaces) while keeping the nice, emblematic 19th century cut-stone facades. But some lament what is derogatively referred to as "facadisme", and I would not be surprised if the new masterplan did not contain limitations to this practice.

In my view, The only possibility for Paris, a city still in its 1860 boundaries to adapt to the 21 century, is to get bigger. The mayors of London or Rome rule territories of a size without comparison with the small city of Paris. The issue is both political an urbanistic. A growing number of people advocate creating a "greater Paris", which would include the near banlieue under a single ruling authority. This unified management would give the city the possibility to launch ambitious urban projects and redesign some of the depressed areas of its close periphery, where land is still available. This is why the future of Paris, to a great extent, lies beyond its present limits, in some of its less desirable banlieues.

I am still happily reading Mr. Jones lively and literate work, having just reached the point of the narrative covering the Second Empire era. I am eagerly looking forward to the interaction of Haussman, Viollet le Duc and His Imperial Majesty and their tremendous effects of the city.

I would recommend this book highly on the strength off its excellent explanation of the era of the Revolution and the subsequent Terror alone. Mr. Jones, perforce in a work of limited length, does gloss a few points, nevertheless, his narrative is engaging and educated, entertaining and informative for both the average reader and those of us who deeply love the city, its architecture, planning and social history.