News   Nov 04, 2024
 91     0 
News   Nov 04, 2024
 481     4 
News   Nov 04, 2024
 621     0 

Globe: Paris skyline may be open to development

wyliepoon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
2,011
Reaction score
3
Link to article


Paris skyline may be open to development

JAMES MACKENZIE

Reuters News Agency

September 18, 2007 at 4:04 AM EDT

PARIS — French President Nicolas Sarkozy, not normally seen as a patron of the arts, called for new ideas yesterday to develop Paris over the coming decades and pledged to encourage "bold" thinking by architects.

"The question for us is not to think about the next six months but the next century," Sarkozy said at a ceremony to open a new architectural heritage centre in Paris.

The new museum complex, completed after years of wrangling, will "be the occasion for putting architecture back at the heart of our political choices," he said.

He outlined no specific plans to rival former president François Mitterrand's "Grands Travaux" such as the National Library or the redeveloped Louvre museum, which gave a new face to the French capital in the 1980s.

But he said it was not enough simply to maintain existing architectural treasures.

"Architecture bears witness to a shared past but at the same time, it is a projection towards the future," he said. "Architectural policy has to combine heritage and creation.

"I commit myself fully to this mission, to give back the possibility of boldness to architecture," he said.

Sarkozy's remarks were in line with a tradition of French presidents such as Mitterrand and Georges Pompidou leaving their mark on the capital.

But he may also have had an eye on the mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoe, one of the rising leaders of the opposition Socialists, who has built a base with drives to improve life in the capital, most recently with a successful city bike scheme.

Sarkozy said eight to 10 architectural agencies, both French and international, could be commissioned to assess the needs of the greater Paris region "for the next 20, 30, 40 years."

Strict planning laws restricting skyscrapers in Paris have helped to preserve the city's distinctively harmonious appearance. But they have led some to say it risks becoming a museum piece compared with more dynamic capitals such as London and Berlin.

"I think there are certainly some taboos no one dared talk about or touch, for example big-scale projects or skyscrapers," Swiss architect Jacques Herzog told France Inter radio.

But Herzog, whose buildings include the Tate Modern in London and the new National Stadium in Beijing, said he felt that change was in the air. "Until not very long ago, Paris had several projects that were very, very visible in the world and I feel there is an energy there to pick up where we left off 10 or 15 years ago."

Sarkozy left open the question of relaxing planning laws to allow more skyscrapers, but he called for an end to "simplistic" arguments between supporters and opponents of big towers.

Remarking that the widely detested "Tour Montparnasse," a 210-metre black tower that looms over the Paris skyline, had "not made our job any easier," he said: "We can't have a policy of uniform skyscrapers."

But he praised projects such as the curving "Lighthouse" skyscraper being built in the business district La Défense.

Sarkozy, who as interior minister in 2005 cracked down hard on rioting in the poor, run-down suburbs outside Paris and other French cities, said any redevelopment had to include the whole greater city area and strengthen connections between the centre and the suburbs.

"Architecture must also humanize housing developments and suburbs, which have been left to one side for far too long."
 
The socialists should have picked Delanoë as their presidential candidate last election.

I wouldn't want to see anymore skyscrapers in central Paris, that's for sure. Maybe in some of the outer arrondissements. Of course, I'd love to see more and better buildings in La Défense.
 
Indeed - is it worse to be doted over and treated like a prima donna, or is it worse to be ignored? I think we're due a little more TLC, but maybe the neglect has also toughened us and made us more self-reliant. The recent round of investment in cultural infrastructure, for instance, has drawn mostly from the non-governmental sector and we're now quite perky as a result.
 
Toronto isn't in danger of becoming an over-preserved museum piece yet, thankfully, though I think we should always be on guard against such tendencies. I think Sarkozy sums up the challenge nicely when he states, "Architectural policy has to combine heritage and creation."
 
... though some here have stated that they'd have glady traded our historic Old City Hall - one of the best local examples of Richarson Romanesque - in exchange for preserving all of the Old Town - including, one assumes, the ugly and architecturally insignficant buildings. And the lively discussion we're having about the Distillery District shows a variation of this approach - a willingness to claim architectural significance for structures that are dispensible, in order to block new tall buildings perfectly suited to the city-building process. The Annex is also a great example of how clever NIMBY's are marshalling their forces under the banner of heritage, in order to list large Queen Anne monster homes and entire streets, apparently so that that their neighbourhood will never, ever see the construction of contemporary buildings ever again.
 
Toronto isn't in danger of becoming an over-preserved museum piece yet, thankfully, though I think we should always be on guard against such tendencies. I think Sarkozy sums up the challenge nicely when he states, "Architectural policy has to combine heritage and creation."

Context, Urban Shocker... context. Sarkozy's comments might make sense in Paris but they don't make sense in Toronto where nothing is sacred and we've never taken care of our heritage... we've bulldozed over so much of our history in the name of progress. To even suggest that we need to be on guard so that Toronto doesn't become an "over-preserved museum" is like saying Midtown Manhattan is at risk of losing its small town feel. We have to fanatically look after the scraps we have left.
 
The Annex is also a great example of how clever NIMBY's are marshalling their forces under the banner of heritage, in order to list large Queen Anne monster homes and entire streets, apparently so that that their neighbourhood will never, ever see the construction of contemporary buildings ever again.

God bless 'em. The Annex is one of Toronto's best neighbourhoods. The last thing it needs is giant glass boxes replacing the well-established people-scaled retail strips and residential streets that make it such a pleasure to explore.
 
Once again, US proving himself to be to heritage what Pim Fortuyn was to immigration...
 
Shocker, what the hell is your repeatedly stated problem with the Annex? Would you like to see Rosedale razed, as well? How about the entire UES in NY? What, all old mansions must die?

Weird.
 
... though some here have stated that they'd have glady traded our historic Old City Hall - one of the best local examples of Richarson Romanesque - in exchange for preserving all of the Old Town - including, one assumes, the ugly and architecturally insignficant buildings.

I do believe I didn't say gladly -- I would be very sad to lose Old City Hall under any circumstance. I would, however, be willing to trade it to have the entire old town back. Obviously "ugly" is rather subjective (many people would hurl that epithet at modernist glass boxes) and I believe the significance belongs to the district as a whole.

This isn't to say that I don't support appropriate, contextual modern interventions. Often, something glassy and completely different is the best thing to build in an otherwise historic neighbourhood. I'd much rather have something modern and innovative than an apeing of the historical style, under most circumstances. I like the Pompidou Centre and the Louvre Pyramid. Another trade I'd be willing to make is the old Bank of Toronto for the TD Centre.
 
I do believe I didn't say gladly -- I would be very sad to lose Old City Hall under any circumstance. I would, however, be willing to trade it to have the entire old town back. Obviously "ugly" is rather subjective (many people would hurl that epithet at modernist glass boxes) and I believe the significance belongs to the district as a whole.

This isn't to say that I don't support appropriate, contextual modern interventions. Often, something glassy and completely different is the best thing to build in an otherwise historic neighbourhood. I'd much rather have something modern and innovative than an apeing of the historical style, under most circumstances. I like the Pompidou Centre and the Louvre Pyramid. Another trade I'd be willing to make is the old Bank of Toronto for the TD Centre.

What was so significant about "the entire old town" as to merit the sacrifice of OCH? It was piddly next to Montreal's; sure, it'd be nice if it were still there, but methinks this sentiment sounds more like a weak bow to dumb tourists who come to Toronto and wonder, "where's the old town?". Maybe it's just the whole *idea* of an "old town" that's sexy, more than anything.

And re a Bank Of Toronto/TD swap; yeah, I agree it was a sad loss. But we can extend this exercise to the point where it becomes more an academic exercise than an exercise in lament (eg. swapping St. Peter's for its Early Christian predecessor)
 

Back
Top