Haussmann, Sitte and the Streetscape (by Louis Wyatt)

 

This weeks lectures and readings focused on two opposing thinkers behind early urban planning, that of Georges-Eugene Haussmann (1809-1891), and Camillo Sitte (1843-1903). While the former believed that the foundation of a modern city lay in grand boulevards and streetscapes, the latter held juxtaposing opinions, finding that true urban planning lay in the winding and seemingly organic streets which had been the framework for many European towns and cities. Each system processed different benefits and failings, and it is these that I hope to address in this essay.

 

Under Baron Haussmann, a “systematic recreation of Paris” was undertaken (Van Zanten 1994), whereby the old warrens of medieval streets were demolished, to make way for the grand boulevards that have come to define modern day Paris. While the overall concept of splendid boulevards dominating the capital of France had not been the sole idea of Haussmann, with Louis Napoleon commissioning and drawing up the scheme, it was Haussmann who governed and oversaw the cities transformation. Haussmann had “a remarkably complete vision” of what the new Paris was to be, and thus was comfortable to demolish large tracts of housing and existing streets in the name of modernity and progress (Van Zanten, 1994).

 

The benefits of this undertaking were immense, with the city transformed into a modern metropolis. The wide streets allowed for better movement of vehicles and services across the city, promoting improved communication, as well as economic benefits to the inhabitants (Harvey, 2005). People could navigate through the city more easily, which had particular benefits for the large number of tourists who flocked to Paris every year. Likewise, the grand boulevards helped prevent blockades and barricades being erected by riotous individuals hoping to spark civil decent. In 1848 there had been a wave of riots in Europe and across Paris, sparking Napoleon to consider how best to defend the city. With wider boulevards, blockading the streets became near impossible, due to the sheer size, and indeed amount of recourses required for the blockade to cross the street (Robb, 2010). Likewise, the extension of the Municipal Boards control to include a greater number of surrounding suburbs, meant that the railways were extended so to take in a larger proportion of the population, doubling the area of the city in the process (Van Zanten, 1994).  In turn this allowed a greater percentage of the population to access infrastructure that had previously been limited to the inner city. While the benefits of Haussmann’s expansion are many, they are summed up best by the then Archbishop of Paris, François-Nicholas-Madeleine Morlot when he wrote to Haussmann:

 

“Your mission supports mine. In broad, straight streets that are bathed in light, people do not behave in the same slovenly fashion as in streets that are narrow, twisted and dark. To bring air, light and water to the pauper’s hovel not only restores physical health, it promotes good housekeeping and cleanliness, and thus improves morality” (Robb, 2010).

 

Haussmann’s grand scheme however did not go ahead without creating concern, displacing residents and turning Paris into a “construction site” (Van Zanten, 1994). The construction of large boulevards through previously dense housing resulted in the major displacement of people. In 1866 alone, 848 houses were condemned as part of the cities expansion (Van Zanten, 1994). Likewise, such grand schemes came at a financial cost, with Haussmann forced to acquire hundreds of millions of francs worth of loans to fund the projects, with this immense financial toll inevitably being one of the factors which defined his downfall (Van Zanten, 1994). Such financial strains are evident in the opening of new boulevards and the fanfare that surrounded them. While the earlier openings hosted grand military parades, by the end of Haussmann’s governance, the roads were being quietly opened, the government unable to afford the frivolities it had previously been accustomed too. Thus while the advantages of Haussmann’s designs are unquestionable in creating the modern Paris, it must be noted that the grand schemes of constructions placed a considerable toll on the cites population, particularly its poorest and most vulnerable citizens.

 

In comparison to the extensive work carried out by Hussmann, Sitte’s work remained largely hypothetical and philosophical, as it was never constructed. Thus while critiquing it is challenging, I will attempt to do so, based on the general principals he believed important, those of an organic, irregular city. The organic city proliferated medieval towns of Europe, having arisen from the slow population growth, and the ad hoc expansion of towns. While easy to navigate for the local resident, winding warrens of narrow streets could be difficult for tourists to navigate. Likewise, wind flow was curtailed, traffic found it difficult to move, and policing was a challenge. The vistas however that emerged from these cities, Sitte believed were far more aesthetically pleasing than those of a grand boulevard. For Sitte, the city, like the individual buildings, needed to be considered as a whole, from “architecture, sculpture, painting and other decoration” (Collins and Collins, 1965).  For when Sitte conceived his notions of what a city should look like, he imagined it from the perspective of the average citizen walking through the streets; where they would find new and pleasant views to admire along his journey.

 

To compare the works of Haussmann and Sitte, are to compare two juxtaposing notions of what urban centres should be. While both the gridded city and the organic town have existed within the urban context for thousands of years, benefits and criticisms exist for each. Thus while the grand boulevards of Paris created a beautiful, functional city, they also caused huge population displacement and cost the French government hundreds of millions of francs. In contrast however, the organic city that Sitte promoted, was disorganised and irrational, but provided the average citizen with a beautiful city to wander through, new views and vistas available from each turn. I imagine the discourse on the benefits and failures of each design principal will never end, as neither can offer the answers to all a cities problems.

 

 

References:

Collins, George and Collin, Christiane. (1965), Camillo Sitte’s Background, Life, and Interests. In Collins and Collins Camillo Sitte and the Birth of the Modern City. New York, America: Random House.

 

Harvey, D.  Paris, Capital of Modernity. London, England: Routledge, 2003.

 

Robb, G. Parisians an Adventure History. London, England: Picador, 2010.

 

Van Zanten. (1994). Haussmann, Baltard and Municipal Architecture. In Building Paris: Architectural Institutions and Transformations of the French Capital, 1830-1870 (pp. 198-213). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.