21–30 of 90 posts
Anecdotally, after having lived in Paris for ~6 months, one of the most noticeable aspects of the city is its relative uniformity. Unlike Berlin, London, or Prague, you can wander for awhile in Paris and essentially see the same style of architecture and urban landscape repeated. It has something of an “endless” effect on your time perception.
Anecdotally, after having lived in Paris for ~6 months, one of the most noticeable aspects of the city is its relative uniformity. Unlike Berlin, London, or Prague, you can wander for awhile in Paris and essentially see the same style of architecture and urban landscape repeated. It has something of an “endless” effect on your time perception.
That's because Paris is stuck in the 19th century with its Haussmannian style. Usually a city lives and changes to adapt itself to its times, and Paris was no exception... Until the 19th century. Now the local government wants to "preserve" it for the joy of tourists, to the detriments of locals. Housing is scarce causing high prices. Buildings are old and inconvenients. Paris is a museum-city. Designed for tourists.
Since a few years there's a construction boom in and around the city. With the new subway lines to come (greater Paris), new neighborhoods are built everywhere.
Your vision of Paris is at least 50 years old...
Anecdotally, after having lived in Paris for ~6 months, one of the most noticeable aspects of the city is its relative uniformity. Unlike Berlin, London, or Prague, you can wander for awhile in Paris and essentially see the same style of architecture and urban landscape repeated. It has something of an “endless” effect on your time perception.
It make the city center usually very uniform and, arguably, beautiful, but it can be annoying to live in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I can’t agree, sorry. I’m not sure if you’ve lived in Paris or not, but these “it’s a tourist city” comments almost always come from people that haven’t lived there. There are dozens of incredible neighborhoods in Paris that have little-to-no tourist presence. It’s akin to saying NYC is a tourist city because Times Square is a mess.
Unfortunately, the rules meant to preserve the Haussmanian parts beloved by tourists are applied uniformly throughout the city, even in those neighborhoods without tourists which you mention. There were deviations from the rules throughout the ages, especially on the left bank with the newer, taller towers (Place d'Italie, Montparnasse, Berges de Seine). But these deviations were always one off, pushed through by an…
It's no wonder we're kind of vaccinated against towers... I could add to the list: place des fêtes, Olympiades, les Orgues de Flandres...
Anecdotally, after having lived in Paris for ~6 months, one of the most noticeable aspects of the city is its relative uniformity. Unlike Berlin, London, or Prague, you can wander for awhile in Paris and essentially see the same style of architecture and urban landscape repeated. It has something of an “endless” effect on your time perception.
It is something very common in France. Most city enforce strict rules when it comes to their "historical" city center to preserve the look. Even changing windows has to be approved by the town hall to preserve the look of the buildings. Where I live, I am not even allowed to hang something on my balcony. It make the city center usually very uniform and, arguably, beautiful, but it can be annoying to live in.
I know what you're talking, and I know its a common design-pattern amongst architects and urban developers, but I think while uniformity can be beautiful, it certaintly isn't always. And more importantly: heterogenity can be beautiful as well.
It is the latter sentence that is somewhat avoided in many countries/cities zoning codes and is IMO just wrong. Compare the skylines of Manhattan/HongKong with the ones of Kowloon's monotone apartment building skylines in the outskirts. Or the picturesque Italian towns.
I could go on for lengths about it but there is an acknowledged dissent amongst planners to accept the fact, that in contrast to the "Paris-Way" the "London-Way" does also work. Interestingly, that often aligns amongst political views as well (Statism vs. Laissez-faire)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because Paris is stuck in the 19th century with its Haussmannian style. Usually a city lives and changes to adapt itself to its times, and Paris was no exception... Until the 19th century. Now the local government wants to "preserve" it for the joy of tourists, to the detriments of locals. Housing is scarce causing high prices. Buildings are old and inconvenients. Paris is a museum-city. Designed for tourists.
> Housing is scarce causing high prices. Buildings are old and inconvenients. Paris is one of the most dense city in the world, there's nothing which can solve that.
Clearly there are options, which aren't on the table because of preservationism and zoning.
[1] https://www.google.de/maps/@48.8575448,2.2997841,3a,75y,329....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Housing is scarce causing high prices. Buildings are old and inconvenients. Paris is one of the most dense city in the world, there's nothing which can solve that.
It's not entirely true. If you walk the inner-city neighbourhoods, you will rarely encounter buildings with more than 10 stories [1]. Clearly there are options, which aren't on the table because of preservationism and zoning. [1] https://www.google.de/maps/@48.8575448,2.2997841,3a,75y,329....