New towers for Paris

This could be Paris in the fairly near future. These fashionably crooked towers are among 11 architects' visions for developing the French capital in the next few years. They were presented by Mayor Bertrand Delanoe this week in his latest attempt to convince reluctant citizens to get over their aversion against tall buildings.

The projects aim to give life to three ramshackle districts near the edge of the compact capital, at the Porte de la Chapelle in the north and Bercy and Masséna on the Seine in the southeast. Some of the concepts are over 200 metres (660 feet) tall, as high as London's Canary Wharf towers. Delanoe, a popular Socialist, is taking a risk, promising high rise development if he is re-elected next March.

Since he was elected in 2001, Delanoe has been struggling against the prevailing view that "the world's most beautiful city" is fine as it is and the last thing it needs is modern architecture.  Parisians have been queasy about new high structures since 1889 when Gustave Eiffel foisted his new-fangled contraption on the Left Bank. His tower, unpopular at first, was supposed to be temporary but Parisians eventually got used to it and no-one has suggested removing it since the 1920s.

More recent attempts to fiddle with the skyline -- in the 1970s and 80s --  were disastrous.

[Picture: Bercy project by Barthélemy-Grino]

[vision for La Chapelle by Brenac and Gonzales]

The worst offence was the brutal 207-meter (685 feet) monolith over the Montparnasse station that has blighted the Left Bank since 1972. Revulsion against the Tour Monparnasse and smaller tower developments led to stricter zoning laws in 1977 and these were tightened up in 2003. That year, residents and the council approved a ban on anything above 25 metres (82 feet) in the centre and 37 metres (122 feet) elsewhere.

Delanoe says that Paris, a relatively small city of 2.5 million, badly needs livening up with new architecture that can help solve its shortage of space. The capital, he says, is in danger of turning into a museum, held back by the obsession with keeping it just as Baron Haussmann, Napoleon III's prefect, redesigned it in the 1860s.

It is losing out to London, Berlin, Barcelona, Moscow and other cities that have been transformed by bold design. Delanoe is worried that Paris is being upstaged by towns beyond the boulevard périphérique, the area that is finally becoming known as greater Paris. La Défense, the business district to the west where the late President Mitterrand built his monumental Grande Arche, will soon feature some of Europe's most avant-garde skyscrapers (earlier post on la Défense).

"Why should Paris turn its back on the great wave of architectural creativity that has washed through other great metropoli?" asked the Socialist Mayor. "Why is it absurd for Europe's most densely populated city to reconquer its space vertically?"

Delanoe is opposed by many on his own side, notably by the Greens party which shares power with the Socialists in the city council. "These projects are distinguished by pretentious and quite great ugliness," said Yves Contassot, Deputy Mayor and environment chief on the council.

Unsurprisingly, Delanoe's view is supported by Nicolas Sarkozy. And the dynamic, modernising President -- a political adversary of Delanoe -- is of course trying to make the campaign his own. "The debate on whether to have towers or not is absurd," Sarko said this week. "It's not an ideological question. We shouldn't have towers if they are ugly. If they're beautiful, we should have them." 

Delanoe said the Montparnasse tower and a 1970s riverside string of towers on the western Left Bank were "absolute urban failures" that would serve as the counter-model for new, environmentally friendly commercial and residential buildings. One of the conditions for the architects was that no tower should be built on concrete concourses, like the one around the Montparnasse tower. "I will accept no project that is not a true work of art," he said.

If re-elected, the Mayor plans to seek council approval to launch a competition for designs, with construction to begin two years after later. This could mean the arrival of the new towers by about 2015.

[La Défense, west of Paris, with Phare project under construction]

Comments

[Roger Goodacre]

What is it about socialist mayors and skyscrapers, those conspicuous symbols of capitalism? Mayor Livingstone wants to inflict a whole forest of high-rise towers on London - and never mind what the inhabitants think.

[John]

Charles Bremner, why do you keep propagating this myth of Paris as (I quote) a "relatively small city of 2.5 million"? For a guy like you who's lived in France long enough to know it more than superficially, it's both surprising and annoying. What you're referring to is the administrative City of Paris which is just the small area at the center of the much larger Paris metropolis (and which has 2.1 million residents by the way, not 2.5 million). It's a bit as if you described London as a small city extending over one square mile. True in a literal sense, but is it really informative?

Have a look at this image for an idea how large Paris really is. Large screen resolution needed!
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=494542

As you rightly mentioned, there are actually bold skyscrapers under construction in La Défense and other communes outside the City of Paris, but why do you describe these as "towns beyond the boulevard périphérique"? Would you describe the skyscrapers in Canary Wharf as being in "towns beyond the Tower of London"?

In fact, when considered as a whole, Paris (and not just the tiny City of Paris) is teeming with construction projects. Did you know that according to the latest Paris Crane Survey by Drivers Jonas there is more office space under construction in Paris at the moment than in any other Western city? Paris has far more office under construction than either London, New York, or Chicago, and by a large margin. Outside of the City of Paris, Paris is being regenerated at an incredible pace, pay a visit to Issy-les-Moulineaux for instance, so it doesn't really need to be lectured by cities like Rotterdam or London which build far less buildings than Paris overall. It is unfortunate that due to archaic administrative divisions Mr. Delanoë is only mayor of the tiny City of Paris where most of the construction projects are not located, and so he doesn't communicate about these projects. If there were as many buildings u/c in Greater London as in Greater Paris, you can be sure that Ken Livingstone would have made it known far and wide. But authorities in Greater Paris are not very good at PR unfortunately.

Here you can have a look at the latest Paris Crane Survey. 20.8 million sq ft of office space u/c as of September 30, 2007, and that doesn't even include offices u/c in the outer suburbs.
http://www.businessimmo.info/_documents/wbg_lettre/paris_crane_nov07_final.pdf

If you want to write an article for the Times about all the projects going on in Greater Paris, you'll find very thorough and up-to-date information in this online forum:
http://www.paris-skyscrapers.fr/forum/index.php

For those who don't read French, you can find a digest of the same in English here:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=332767

By 2015 Paris will have three to four 300-meter skyscrapers (about the same height as the Eiffel Tower). These will all be located in La Défense. This is the largest construction boom ever experienced by the metropolis since the days of Haussmann. So all things considered, whether the tiny City of Paris builds skyscrapers or not is a bit irrelevant, because what's happening in the rest of the metropolis outside of the City of Paris is already enough to keep Paris as the forefront of architecture trends and fame.

[Thanks John. I know this subject exercises you and I welcome your opinon, but Paris is Paris. The rest is Ile de France/banlieue etc, as I made clear in the post. People who live the other side of the Peripherique do not say they live in Paris in the way that someone who lives in Brooklyn lives in New York City or someone in the boroughof Chiswick lives in "London". I mentioned that the notion of conurbation is arriving with "Greater Paris", which Sarkozy is pushing and Delanoe not so much. CB]

[Daniel Strohl]

Re : Le Figaro and Charles Bremner

There is an interview (podcast) of Charles in today's "Le Figaro".

http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualites/2007/11/23/01001-20071123ARTFIG00534-comment-les-francais-supportent-ca-.php

Charles gave in a very diplomatic formulation the opinion of a foreign journalist regarding the recent SNCF strike and the tolerance of the population.

He did this in a really perfect French, even if a small grammar lapsus occured, which he corrected immediately.

Chapeau, Charles !

PS for ouf foreign friends : "Le Figaro" is a well known daily, rather centre right. The second well known daily is "Le Monde", which is rather centre left.

If my link above does not work, you may type the URL of Le Figaro http://www.lefigaro.fr
and then go down the front page to the article "Comment les Français ont-ils supporté ça ?" (How did the French put up with that ?).

[Actu75]

Having lived in Paris for a reasonable time (was born there) I share Mr Brenner's approach. The need of a Great Paris entity allowing commun policies in urbanism, economy -and so on- is being progressively understood, but unfortunately it still faces considerable administrative political and even cultural obstacles (juts refer to the confuse though essential battles around the SRIF -Schéma régional d'Ile de France).
Even with Delanoe and Sarkozy sharing some common sense analyses, it won't be easy to change the path followed during the 60's 70's that saw Paris retrench itself behind the Periphérique borders.
It's not only Paris and the Parisians who are reluctant for a change. A look at the entry of the southern suburbs of the "Petite Couronne", from the Porte d'Ivry to the Porte de Versailles brings a clear sumbol.
It is lined up by tall, modern and thick buildings, headquarters of important companies. Altogether they seem to form a wall facing the bareer of the Peripherique wich message is "look we are economically attractive now: you did not want us, but we do not need you".

[Jorg Andersen]

Yes, Paris is different from other capitals because it is like an island in the middle of a much bigger conglomeration. The peripherique is the city wall, leaving Paris intra muros, as they all say there, and the barbarians outside. Even someone who lives in Neuilly (the richest district, touching the Bois de Boulogne} cannot say they live in Paris. you have to have that precious 75 on your car.

[John]

Charles Bremner wrote: "People who live the other side of the Peripherique do not say they live in Paris in the way that someone who lives in Brooklyn lives in New York City or someone in the boroughof Chiswick lives in "London"."

Well Charles Bremner, it seems to me you're confusing local approach and general approach. Of course when you're in Paris someone living in, say, Levallois-Perret, will tell you he/she lives in Levallois-Perret, because you're a local and with locals we give precise locations. In NYC it's the same, locally someone from Astoria will say he/she lives "in Astoria" and not "in New York". But then when that person from Astoria is in LA or, for that matter, in Paris, he/she'll say he/she lives in "New York" or "New York City", he/she won't say he/she lives "in Astoria". Equally, someone from Levallois-Perret, when in Bordeaux or in London, will say that he/she lives "in Paris", not "in Levallois-Perret".

The Greater Paris already exists economicaly, culturally, and in the daily life of people, so why do you focuss exclusively on administrative definitions? I don't get it. Besides, I actually lived in London, and I remember that people living in far away places like Richmond or Croydon didn't really consider that they were living in London. How often have I heard people telling me: "If I had more money I would live in London instead of (Cudham, Upminster, and several other far-away places I've heard)". And I guess what they meant by "in London" was zones 1 & 2 of the tube. On the same note I also know quite a few Brooklynites who still stay they go "to New York" when they cross the East River to go to Manhattan.

[Actu75]

Sorry for the M.

[Gilles]

No more towers in Paris, please... It's horrible.
Thanks, Charles, for your blog.

[Donald]

Those skyscrapers that look all out of shape at the beginning of the article may be à la mode today but they are quite ughly and, I think, will not stand the test of time.
They mistake novelty for beauty - a really childish mistake. The Pompidou Center is only lovely, even after having so many years to adjust to it, if you think oil refineries are good looking. I most certainly do not.

Everything has to change with time - it is truly unavoidable - but the planners and the people of Paris should choose wisely. They have not always done so.

[Monika]

I don't understand your problem, John. I follow absolutely Charles' point. Not only do locals distinguish between intra-muros and extra-muros there's an administrative border between Paris and its suburbs as you mentioned by yourself.
If you live intramuros your car plate will have a different number, you will pay different local taxes, you will be governed by different people, you live in a distinct "departement", your postal codes are different from those of extra-muros communities. Politics and decisions (like building big towers) made by Paris' mayor will not apply to its suburbs. Payement for these projects will come from Paris money. The suburbs won't pay for projects in Paris as much as Paris won't pay for projects in its suburbs.
I think all these arguments give good reason to distinguish between Paris and its suburbs...

[Paul B]

John,
It's all about journalistic flexibility. If you want a nice headline such as "Paris is burning" because of a riot in the 92, then forget the periph' limit. If you want to prove that London attracts more tourists that Paris, you take the administrative definition. This way you conveniantly forget about eurodisney, versailles and the ring of hotels of the petite couronne. It's all about what you want to prove in your news report.

[chanei kahn]

As a British ex-pat living in Paris for almost 15 years, I can safely say that Delanoe is the most hated man in Paris. He should stop chopping up Paris as though it were his own personal manopoly board.
Why mess with perfection?

[Lily]

A) It is quite exciting to follow the intra-extra-muros debate here on the Greater Paris construction projects.

B) “High” buildings are well-known high energy consumers and environmentally questionable. Are these projects environmentally competitive?

C) Is it Sarkozy or is it Delanoë (or both?) who want Paris to give other European cities an environmental/ecological example – similar to New York’s ambitions within the US?

D) If Delanoë hopes to follow the New York example, he should also have someone look into “vertical farming”:

http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/04/05/skyscraper-farming-farming-reaches-to-the-sky/

E) Are other infrastructural aspects studied at the same time, i.e. public transportation, parking space and road access – to accommodate the increased strain on traffic? Would residential building naturally keep pace with the additional construction of office space? or

F) Is this all about potentially winning an election? Or

G) Is this about creating a “Parhattan” or “Paris-Hattan” on the analogy of Frankfurt/Main justifying its status as “Mainhattan” with every new high building that reaches into the sky?

H) Daniel, thank you for the link to Charles’ interview on ‘le figaro’. It’s interesting to compare ‘le figaro’ readers’ comments there with our comments here.

[Actu75]

@John
"The Greater Paris already exists economicaly, culturally, and in the daily life of people"
It merely does.
The fact that daily life implies mobility, that you might live in Malakoff Neuilly Levallois, Aubervilliers or Montreuil (or further deep in thee suburb)and work, shop or "se cultiver" in Paris, (or in the other way from Paris to suburbs) does not prove that Great Paris exists. Actually this notion is unknown, un-referenced to "greater parisians" who might only, for some, mention the Gross Paris of the occupation's years.
Greater Paris would exist if common policies were in greater number and efficiency than separate policies. And it's still a very long way to go.

[christopher muir]

Having worked in tower buildings, I can only describe them as being quite unpleasant environments. Open planning, air conditioning, waiting for lifts and a generally robotic atmosphere provide no joy at the office. The vertical placement of staff is probably, to use the vernacular, "cost effective," but it's not a morale booster. For passing pedestrians, there are often unnatural wind gusts caused by the new, adventurous architecture. Also, there's a loss of sunshine in the surrounding lanscape. And by the way, what about the threat of terrorists slamming their hijacked aircraft into these structures? In late 1991 we were reading about the impending "death of tall buildings in major cities." Time passes quite quickly.

[Lily]

I) I had forgotten about another aspect: What about DECENTRALIZATION?

France is not that densely populated. There are many smaller cities in France that could satisfy an increasing demand for office space. Such projects would be less costly, less ambitious, but (?)lack Parisian glamour.

[Valentin]

I completely agree with Paul B, it's all about the point one wants to make.

All big metropolis are divided into administrative zones (and I dont speak about arrondissements here). From that, it follows that taxes, plate numbers, postal codes etc are different. This is true for Greater London and NY too, nothing unusual for (Greater) Paris.
Then there are areas that got an identity and a culture by themselves and function much like small independent towns. I remember someone once pointing out the difference you feel going from Levallois to Paris, literally like going from one town to another. But one feels exactly the same moving from the 18th, say, Goutte d'Or, and 15th, Convention: different atmosphere, culture, people, architecture, subway line... this is about a sort of neighbourhood feeling, it has nothing to do with Levallois, Asnières or Neuilly being in a different department. "Departement" and "commune" is just about artificial, administrative division. The REAL difference you feel when you move to, say, Tours; thats when you realize you went from PARIS to a province city (no pejorative meaning intended).

As to governance, big projects and their financing, in reality it is always coordinated at Region level - money included. Only small, indeed neighbourhood scale projects remain purely local.

Just to say that I tend to agree with John on this.

[Monika]

Interesting what you say, Valentin, on project coordination. What kind of projects are these? It is obvious if you want to build a motorway or new railroads you need to coordinate with surrounding neighbourhoods but is it so for town development plans as that proposed by Delanoe?

BTW: Delanoe fears that Paris will become a museum town and that's a bit of my impression, too.

In any arrondissement housing prices are climping or are at a very high level.

Fewer people can afford to live in Paris and they are forced to move to the outskirts or even further away if they dispose only of a modest income. That means imho that there actually is a danger that the Paris population will be largely made up of elderly people with big purses which generally tend to have more conservative ideas, being at the end of their professional career. There will be fewer students, fewer families and fewer middle aged people or young pros.
But I don't see how new and more offices could help there. People will go to these offices in the morning and will leave them in the evening. They won't change much I think...

[John]

@ Monika: I don't see what different department numbers, car plates, and local taxes have to do with this. Roughly half of Greater London doesn't have a London postcode for your information (they have Middlesex postcodes, Croydon postcodes, and so forth). Does that make them less Londoners than the more centrally located people who have a London postcode? Also, if I remember correctly, the different London boroughs have different local taxes. Again does that discredit the idea of a unified Greater London? So I see no real difference with Paris here. As for car plates, they will disappear next year for you information. French people will all have uniform national car plates. Already today many of the 92 car plates you see in the streets are from people who do not actually live in the 92. It's just that for tax reasons it's more convenient to register in the 92. Same with 60 car plates. I've seen a big increase of 60 car plates in the streets of Paris recently.

Also for your information, water distribution is already managed at a Greater Paris level, public transportation is already managed at a Greater Paris level, and refuse collection and waste treatment is also managed at a Greater Paris level. Paris joined up with 85 surrounding municipalities to manage wastes. The area covered contains 5.3 million people who generate 2.67 million tonnes of domestic wastes per year. You can find a map of the area here:
http://www.syctom-paris.fr/img/photos/coll/carte/carteCommunesBVOM2006.jpg

Interesting to note that the wastes produced by people in Mr. Bremner's arrondissement are actually managed by the Saint-Ouen center, a "town beyond the Périphérique" you know... These town people are too courteous treating the wastes of a "foreign" Parisian arrondissement. Lol. That's a picture of the ultra high-tech Saint-Ouen incineration plant if you're curious:
http://www.syctom-paris.fr/img/photos/exist/stouen/gd/1.jpg

I could add up examples: main Parisian food market in Rungis, Parisian universities located all across Greater Paris, etc. Last but not least, FYI Monika, Mr. Delanoë's City of Paris owns lots of land in the suburbs and many social estates there, so the city proper and its suburbs are intricately linked as you can see. All the more absurd to present the city proper and its suburbs as two completely separate and different entities.

@Paul B
Yeah, I think you're right, there's a lot of "journalistic flexibility" going on here. I wonder if journalists realize how contradicting it is to describe a riot in Clichy-sous-Bois (located a good 10 miles from Notre Dame) as a "Paris riot" and then describe Paris as "one of Europe's smallest capitals" as the BBC did in this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5081090.stm
or even better, as no less than "Europe's smallest capital" as Newsweek did in this article:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmnew/is_200607/ai_n16557564

[Dominique]

All of this is a never ending story.

Se the history of Paris : ile de la cité first, then jumping on the shores, ever bigger since.

See :

http://tinyurl.com/yol2f6

The problem is more the neverending tension between Paris and the rest of France. Paris was always the place deciding for France, concentrating power since Philippe LeBel. Building the state was actually building Paris. This is why most of the rest of the country always refuse the city to increase it's size. Provinces always complain that the "people of Paris" decide (see the revolution, the Communards, la nuit du 4 aout, revolution de 1848 etc...). Some even say that entire France is only a colony of Paris. On the other side, Paris always wants to be bigger because it says it is competing with other global megalopoles.

Paris is now smaller than the departement "Seine" (n°75) of the 60's because of this mistrust of the country toward Paris. Administrative Paris (n°75) was larger in the 60's than it is now.

But the historical trend is still the same : "Clichy sous bois" will one day undoubtly be within the city of Paris, just like "Belleville" is now in eventhough it wasn't in 1800.

Jorg Andersen,

I believe that what you describe is not quite true. I was born in the suburb and have been called a "parigot tête de veau" every time i was going in the country for hollyday. The rest of France doesn't make the difference between Paris and the suburb. They are all "Parigots". This Paris intramuros thing is very present today because of the riots and immigrations debates. But it is biased indeed. It was not before the 60's when suburbs were called "faubourgs" in waiting of being integrated within an everlarger Paris.

This debate is more a debate that comes from a "centralisation versus devolution" debate. Very much a "montagnards" versus "girondains" thing for those of you who are familiar with french politics under the french revolution.

[Dominique]

For those interested in paris / Lutèce :

http://www.paris.culture.fr/

[Daniel Strohl]

Lily,

"I had forgotten about another aspect: What about DECENTRALIZATION?

Yes, this is the first alternative solution which comes to mind. I do not quite understand why it is absolutely necessary to have standard office work made in (greater) Paris; the most part of it could be done in smaller cities or even villages for a fraction of the cost - all necessary infrastructures are already available there : phone, videophones & teleconferences, high speed Internet, trains, roads, airports etc. This was not the case 10 or 20 years ago, but things have changed – however, regarding mentalities, the evolution is much slower ...

The second idea would be to extend the "decentralization" in another direction : transfer whenever possible most of the work done in centralized and expensive offices (they are expensive even "en province") to employees working at home.

Of course, this would be a bit of a "révolution culturelle" for our highly centralized society (especially in France) - but it is not impossible. It would reduce costs, not only for the employers and the employees, but also for the society, in terms of reduced traffic jams, pollution etc. and not to forget, the lesser impact of transport strikes ...

The drawback for the « Ministre des Finances » would be a smaller revenue from the gasoline taxes ... In this respect, it would be interesting to know the surplus of gasoline taxes induced by the road traffic increase during the recent strikes ... It is probably not negligible !

[Ros]

JORG ANDERSEN says "The peripherique is the city wall, leaving Paris intra muros, as they all say there, and the barbarians outside." Yes, maybe, but I wonder if there's anyone old enough here to remember the time when it was NOT the périphériques which made the City Wall but the "Extérieurs" (which are now mysteriously called the "Intérieuers") - there was no 92, 93 etc & people from Malakoff, Montrouge and so on were considered as Parisians with 75 number plates - it's just a case of pushing more and more outwards (as is happening in London - I've always presumed that the Home Counties were so called as they were near to London )so where will Paris end in 50 years time
,

[peter kinsley www.peterkinsley.com]

I remember Paris when it was without skyscrapers, doing two years conscription in the British army, with NATO, in 1953-55, and curious to visit the Mexican House in the Cite Universitaire, a beautiful building by Le Corbusier. However when I saw his plans to put a city into four huge apartment blocks,and the experiment in Marseille, I had a horrible thought that these tower blocks might be built, some time in the future, on blue Mediteranean shore. Since then we have witnessed the destruction and despoilation of much of the coastline of the Med., so I had to add Monsieur C. to my list of great villains of the world, others being Lord Sandwich for causing all the ulcers, and EDF planners who have stuck hideous cement posts all over La Belle France, ruining towns and villages. Other countries put electric wires u n d e r g r o u n d.
More skyscrapers in Paris? Help! Stop the world, I want to get off!
Peter Kinsley, London.

[azloon]

re futuristic photo (above) of parisian skyscrapers with parkland in foreground

i would favor eliminating the trees to accomodate appeased arab heads of state wanting to pitch large bedouin tents.

[Actu75]

Greater Paris: verre à moitié vide ou à moitié plein?
Several services are indeed managed beyond the cities level. But then they mostly are managed at the regional scale of Ile de France that spreads much beyond the limits of a Greater Paris. Even then it is sometimes still uncompletely globalised as passengers could experiment at the end of the strike when some RER or interconnections stopped functioning while leaving the RATP and entering the SNCF zone.
It might, it should change. Yet betwin the small scale of Paris and the larger scale of the Région.... Greater Paris remains much of a virtual idea.
Administrative matters and divisions don not only provide, as some comments too quickly assert, an artificial pespective. They are rooted in peoples' daily life.
Would you like to change the focus then have a quick unformal street survey, say in the streets of Argenteuil and around Place Clichy (bordered by distinctive social neighbborhoods). I'd be most surprised if people felt they belonging more to any form of "Great Paris" than to their city.

[John Styx]

Some of my friends teach in junior high and high school in the Petite or Grande Ceinture. All of them are Parisians born and bred and were inclined to think like John. They were aghast to learn that most of their pupils had never been to Paris, except on the Champs-Elysées -- even those who live in Saint-Denis or Vitry. These kids talk about "l'autre côté du périph" as if it were a whole different country.

[Valentin]

"These kids talk about "l'autre côté du périph" as if it were a whole different country"

Exactly, it's a cultural thing, with little connection to the administrative division. People in the 19th arrondissement speak about the left bank as the bourgeois land - and they're all inside the same Paris proper, administratively.
The street fights this autumn were between gangs from Gare du Nord and those in La Défense as two different banlieues, not parts of the same city.

People in Brooklyn or Harlem are just as rooted in their neighbourhoods as people in Saint-Denis or Montreuil.

But when those same people go somewhere outside the Paris region, they speak about Paris, not Clichy-La-Garenne.

It's called a metropolis.

[Valentin]

According to INSEE, Paris urban area occupies a surface about 20% of the Ile-de-France region, but concentrates almost 90% of its population (11 million) - which explains why the administrative Region participates at most of the urban projects.
When you look at their map, you can clearly see the metropolis as a grey spot in the centre of the region, covering the "petite couronne" and extending beyond - with Paris intra-muros as a small dot somewhere in there.

[John Gregory Flinn]

I'm going to ask a silly question - are these towers meant to be lived in, or worked in?
Because London, and elsewhere in the UK, are getting rid of towers of the former type.
And, more office space may stand empty if an economic downturn develops.

I remember Paris before the Montparnasse tower was built; but then after it was built, I thought how typically French it was to have such a modern tower block in the classic Parisian architecture.

DONALD posts "They mistake novelty for beauty", and if these strange twisted shapes serve no functional purpose or advantage then they may well become as such.

[John]

Actu75 and John Styx, again I see nothing special to Paris in what you're describing. In London people living south of the Thames often describe the area north of the Thames as a complete different world. I remember this Brazilian exchange student living in Elephant and Castle who complained to me that if he had had more money he would have lived north of the Thames and he would have been able to enjoy the "real" London. In NYC people from the Bronx or Queens also describle Manhattan as a complete different world.

[John Styx]

John, there is such a distinction in Paris between the left and right banks. I myself am a left banker and wouldn't like to be found dead on the right bank. However, I do work, shop and stroll on the right bank. Those kids are in a different situation: it's a different world for them because they never go there -- as in former times villagers never went farther away than a few miles from their villages.

John Gregory (too much Johns here!), the towers are supposed to be (at least partly) lived in. The main problem of the Paris area is urban spreading: there are too much people trying to live in/near Paris, and too low a surface to accomodate them. So you have to increase population density. If you want parks and greenways as well, you have to build towers. That's the line of thought.

[John]

@ John Styx: so because a few kids in some ethnic ghettos in the suburbs never set foot in central Paris this means that Greater Paris doesn't exist in daily life? What a warped vision of the world. I can also find some kids in ethnic ghettos in the Bronx who never set foot in Manhattan. Does that mean NYC doesn't exist in daily life?

FYI there are more than 11 million people living in Greater Paris, and more than 90% of them do not live in ethnic ghettos, not to mention that 5 million of them actually work and another 3 million are students, and they use the Paris network of motorways and/or the RER/suburb trains/Métro to commute across Greater Paris every day of the week. INSEE now estimates that the average commute in Greater Paris is longer than 10 miles. Wake up to reality please.

[Ros]

Peter Kinsley :
I remember the same Paris as you do and lived almost opposite the beautiful Mexican House ( I was in the Maison de Grande Bretagne which hasn't changed). Then I moved to the south and saw the Le Corbusier block being built in Marseille - you should see it now! You have no need to worry - I'm sure these skyscrapers will never come to Paris.

[John Styx]

Jeez, John, I'm not talking about ethnic ghettos! I'm talking about normal suburbs: Saint-Denis (not the worst parts of it, mind you), Vitry, Aulnay-sous-Bois, Maisons-Alfort, and even Vincennes! Not a few people at work commute daily from Versailles (12 miles from Paris), Melun (38 miles) or even Sens (more than 60 miles). Do they think they live in Paris? Most certainly not! Do people who live in the Yvelines, which is covered by the huge Rambouillet forest, think that they're even remotely Parisians? I think not. So what does your 'Greater Paris' mean exactly?

I'm very well aware that there is such thing as a "Région parisienne". I doubt it's the same thing that you call Greater Paris.

[Paul B]

John (Styx)
If you ask to a statistician, an urban planer, a geographer, to draw a line where he thinks the actual city stops, there is no way he'll put it somewhere between Paris and St Denis, because any parameter you look at is statistically the same between north of Paris and South of St Denis. What John and I, and actually many people () are saying, is that even if there are two mayor there, there ought to be one. If there is a border there, it ought to be removed, because it's completely artificial and counter productive (as the mess in transport policy demonstrates).
The rest is all about perception. It's in your head. From my home town, I've always thought "I'm going to Paris" when visiting my cousins in St Denis. Now that I'm in Paris, I think "let's go to St Denis", like I would say "let's go to Belleville". Just a mater of localisation. Just because I can't say "I'm going to Paris" if I'm already in Paris. The administrative structure behind these two names is irrelevant to me, it's just another metro line to take. So in my case, I guess I leave in a greater Paris that I just call "Paris".

[Paul B]

and I forgot the link : http://parisbanlieue.blog.20minutes.fr/

[christopher muir]

Struggles between the police and law-breakers are changing. Both sides can use video and camera phones to their advantages. Instructions from a president to the established media to "cool it" wont's really have the desired effect. The internet has made us all observant bystanders, wherever we might live.