4 ms·

While everybody loves Haussman's Paris today, at the time, it was extremely controversial and he was eventually ousted. Paris used to be like the cramped mediev

While everybody loves Haussman's Paris today, at the time, it was extremely controversial and he was eventually ousted. Paris used to be like the cramped medieval old towns you see throughout the rest of Europe. Here's a classic quote from one of Haussman's most powerful critics: "We weep with our eyes full of tears for the old Paris, the Paris of Voltaire, of Desmoulins, the Paris of 1830 and 1848, when we see the grand and intolerable new buildings, the costly confusion, the triumphant vulgarity, the awful materialism, that we are going to pass on to our descendants." Fast forward 100+ years and suddenly that quote sounds hilariously wrong. Makes you wonder what possibilities we're missing out on today by clinging to an aesthetic past. Just because Corbusier's dystopian prison ideas missed the mark, doesn't mean there isn't a better vision out there for a livable city just waiting to be implemented.

ambrozk 5y ago
I don't like Paris' broad boulevards. In my opinion they're the least interesting part of the city. The best places to congregate are always off the main line of commerce, away from cars and trucks. Obviously, proper waste disposal and lamps are good, but I don't know why we're taking it for granted that criticism of Hausmann's aesthetics is "hilariously wrong."
- dopidopHN 5y ago
  Those grand boulevards also had a security / social goal : to make sure police keep access and make it hard to barricade entire blocks. ( as opposed to narrow street that are easier to close down)
rst 5y ago
Le Corbusier-style tower blocks never happened in Paris, but they were built all over the US as part of "urban renewal" projects, and there have since been multiple generations growing up in those structures, to become nostalgic for them if it were ever going to happen. It hasn't happened yet.
eadmund 5y ago
> Fast forward 100+ years and suddenly that quote sounds hilariously wrong. Does it? I prefer those 'cramped mediæval old towns' to Paris.
- andi999 5y ago
  Which cramped mediaeval town are you comparing it to?
zukzuk 5y ago
The parts of Paris that were most affected by Haussmann's renovation are arguably still kind of awful. The Champs-Élysées for example is a horrible place to actually spend time in, and is currently undergoing major redevelopment to make it a bit more livable.
- merry_flame 5y ago
  Not his fault. The Champs-Élysées were almost pedestrian back then.
agumonkey 5y ago
Not far from the outcry around when the eiffel tower was erected.
bobthechef 5y ago
I reject the notion that aesthetics is arbitrary. It is not. I also reject the mystification and the dismissive progressive fallacy that the only reason anyone might oppose change is because they're crusty old reactionary humbugs (of course, if aesthetics is arbitrary, "progress" has no meaning). Le Corbusier's Paris is objectively hideous. It is objectively a nightmare. It would objectively be immoral to inflict something like that on Parisians. It would objectively harm the common good. A nihilistic misanthrope consumed with hatred for humanity, and himself, could do no better. For this reason, I detest language like "clinging to an aesthetic past". It is a hollow comment that begins from faulty assumptions about aesthetics. Of course, we often make aesthetic judgements in a relative fashion. People visiting Paris today might say Paris is beautiful, but what they mean is more beautiful than some other point of reference. Spend enough time in a beautiful city and your standards will shift such that you will be disappointed by aesthetically inferior cities you had previously thought were beautiful when you revisit them. This is good. Let our tastes become more refined so that we may make the world a more beautiful place. Let us resist mediocrity and ugliness. So perhaps those critics of Haussmanian Paris were making such a comparison. I certainly don't think Paris is the most beautiful city, but if you had grown up in a Corbusian nightmare or some aesthetically lesser locale, then it would certainly be an upgrade and perceived as such. Still, Haussmanian Paris is at least built according to classical principles and that is the most important factor. Of course, I am not opposed to development in the realm of art and architecture and so on, but modernist travesties like the ones pictured are not an authentic development, but a barbaric revolt against the past rooted in hubris, madness, or some other defect.
- dtagames 5y ago
  Bravo!
Bayart 5y ago
> Fast forward 100+ years and suddenly that quote sounds hilariously wrong. Only if you don't care about history and conservancy. Every medievalist is still frothing at the mouth, for good reasons.

ambrozk 5y ago

I don't like Paris' broad boulevards. In my opinion they're the least interesting part of the city. The best places to congregate are always off the main line of commerce, away from cars and trucks. Obviously, proper waste disposal and lamps are good, but I don't know why we're taking it for granted that criticism of Hausmann's aesthetics is "hilariously wrong."

dopidopHN 5y ago
Those grand boulevards also had a security / social goal : to make sure police keep access and make it hard to barricade entire blocks. ( as opposed to narrow street that are easier to close down)

rst 5y ago

Le Corbusier-style tower blocks never happened in Paris, but they were built all over the US as part of "urban renewal" projects, and there have since been multiple generations growing up in those structures, to become nostalgic for them if it were ever going to happen. It hasn't happened yet.

eadmund 5y ago

> Fast forward 100+ years and suddenly that quote sounds hilariously wrong. Does it? I prefer those 'cramped mediæval old towns' to Paris.

andi999 5y ago
Which cramped mediaeval town are you comparing it to?

zukzuk 5y ago

The parts of Paris that were most affected by Haussmann's renovation are arguably still kind of awful. The Champs-Élysées for example is a horrible place to actually spend time in, and is currently undergoing major redevelopment to make it a bit more livable.

merry_flame 5y ago
Not his fault. The Champs-Élysées were almost pedestrian back then.

agumonkey 5y ago

Not far from the outcry around when the eiffel tower was erected.

bobthechef 5y ago

I reject the notion that aesthetics is arbitrary. It is not. I also reject the mystification and the dismissive progressive fallacy that the only reason anyone might oppose change is because they're crusty old reactionary humbugs (of course, if aesthetics is arbitrary, "progress" has no meaning). Le Corbusier's Paris is objectively hideous. It is objectively a nightmare. It would objectively be immoral to inflict something like that on Parisians. It would objectively harm the common good. A nihilistic misanthrope consumed with hatred for humanity, and himself, could do no better. For this reason, I detest language like "clinging to an aesthetic past". It is a hollow comment that begins from faulty assumptions about aesthetics. Of course, we often make aesthetic judgements in a relative fashion. People visiting Paris today might say Paris is beautiful, but what they mean is more beautiful than some other point of reference. Spend enough time in a beautiful city and your standards will shift such that you will be disappointed by aesthetically inferior cities you had previously thought were beautiful when you revisit them. This is good. Let our tastes become more refined so that we may make the world a more beautiful place. Let us resist mediocrity and ugliness. So perhaps those critics of Haussmanian Paris were making such a comparison. I certainly don't think Paris is the most beautiful city, but if you had grown up in a Corbusian nightmare or some aesthetically lesser locale, then it would certainly be an upgrade and perceived as such. Still, Haussmanian Paris is at least built according to classical principles and that is the most important factor. Of course, I am not opposed to development in the realm of art and architecture and so on, but modernist travesties like the ones pictured are not an authentic development, but a barbaric revolt against the past rooted in hubris, madness, or some other defect.

dtagames 5y ago
Bravo!

Bayart 5y ago

> Fast forward 100+ years and suddenly that quote sounds hilariously wrong. Only if you don't care about history and conservancy. Every medievalist is still frothing at the mouth, for good reasons.