I begin the tour by setting the stage in the centre of Paris. Paris has a massive central district. But the whole centre, which must span 12 miles in diameter, is kept strictly to a consistent building height, around 5 storeys is the norm. The streets here are often tight, but buzz with a really clear energy. The road network, seemingly based solely on providing views of the Arc de Triomphe, opens up loads of diagonal routes and 'V' shaped junctions, which provide plenty of opportunity for local community centres and clusters around small squares.
This is best illustrated with the obligatory Arc De Triomphe panorama. Open it and zoom around, that's miles and miles of well proportioned streetscape. It's all around Paris. A feat of urban planning. Turn 180 degrees and...
Oops. What's that? That's La Défense.
Europe's finest display of late 20th century architectural dick measuring, La Defense presses upon the heavy border of central Paris, a collection of meaningless skyscrapers and anonymous retail opportunity.
The problems with La Defense are threefold.
Firstly, here it is from the ground.
You could be anywhere. The place represents the worst of the effects of the 'international style'. Where paris has energy and character, La Defense has vague 'art' and plate glass. The central avenue, which, on it's own is a relatively decent public space is surrounded by a selection of shops such as Marks and Spencer, McDonalds and New Look. The only thing that places this in France is the vague association with the brands on skyscrapers such as 'EDF'.
Secondly, let's try to walk there.
Easy, right? Well, No. That lovely 8min, 550m walk is not as it seems. If you'll forgive my use of google street view;
You'll see that the recommended route is a lovely avenue, for cars that is. The actual route:
Involves several changes of grade, a walk through a massive shopping centre, a mandatory coat and bag search, and is a headless hunt for the next signpost. It takes closer to 20 minutes. Why a new development should be so horrendous at accommodating for people on foot is beyond me.
But this high density development is all a necessary consequence of commercial success isn't it? I wouldn't say so, there is no reason planners couldn't have enforced mandatory pedestrian compatibility and a 10 floor height limit. What for land values though? Well ignoring the fact that the place was basically valueless 50 years ago, if you take a walk 600m in any direction from La Defense, you will find scores of three storey family homes. Hardly Manhattan is it?
Which brings me to my final point. A brief check on Wikipedia tells me that La Defense accommodates 180,000 daily workers. How many people live in La Defense? 20,000.
Leon Krier can be my crutch for this argument.
https://fishtown.us/sites/fishtown.us/files/Arch.jpg
Seeing as no one actually wants to live in high rise buildings, building commercial buildings at this height in small zones necessarily creates large patches of suburban sprawl. This is what the americans have found. I think that Paris would have been better placed to expand it's well proportioned scale further as demand for building increased, perhaps integrate the 'horizontal skyscraper', and the odd monument like tour montparnesse doesn't do major harm. But our generation must learn from these 20th century mistakes and build cities that relate to humans and environments in the future.
Cartoons by Leon Krier, used without permission.
No comments:
Post a Comment