Modern Architecture in Historic Cities

Policy, Planning and Building in Contemporary France

Sebastian Loew

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• ISBN:
  9781134732654
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Architecture General

Modern Architecture in Historic Cities illustrates why France has been so successful in combining conservation and modernity, and points to important lessons for other countries which can be drawn from the French experience.Beginning with an empirical review of particular events which have affected attitudes towards heritage in France, this book highlights the continuity in French thinking and the longstanding role of the French government as patron and leader. Planning, conservation and design control legislation are examined, highlighting the range of instruments available to government in order to influence results and enhance the role of the architectural profession.

1

INTRODUCTION

The original motivation for this book came from the observation of the frequent existence of modern buildings in the historic core of urban areas in France. These new buildings are seldom facsimile copies or redevelopments behind retained façades; in most cases they are genuinely modern in that they use the technology, structures, forms and materials of their period and thus give the historic areas an appearance of continuing evolution. This addition of contemporary buildings to French urban areas exemplifies what Lynch (1972: 171) calls ‘layering’, namely ‘the visible accumulation of overlapping traces from successive periods, each trace modifying and being modified by the new additions, to produce something like a collage of time’.

Coming from the British context where the insertion of buildings in conservation areas is a subject of debate in the popular press as well as in professional circles (most recently in Larkham 1996 and in Tiesdell et al. 1996), the French situation is intriguing. There appears to be something in the French system which either permits or encourages the presence of contemporary designs in protected historic areas, something special, possibly to do with decision making or processes, and therefore worth investigating. It raises questions about a number of interrelated issues such as the conservation of the historic areas, planning and design control and the relationship between the various professions concerned with the built environment.

Three reasons, at least, justify this exploration: first, at a time of increased European integration and collaboration, it is essential that practitioners in one country understand not just the legislation of others but how this legislation is implemented and who are the participants in the process. Secondly, understanding the practices of another country may help professionals to look again at their own practices, without necessarily copying foreign ones. Authors acknowledge the importance of international comparisons (see for instance Larkham 1996:110) but, for reasons possibly connected with language, France is underrepresented in these comparisons; this is puzzling, particularly considering the geographical proximity of Britain and France, the similarities between the two countries, and their positions in the European Union. Thirdly, for many years and in part fuelled by HRH The Prince of Wales’s comments and writing (1989), a debate has taken place in Britain regarding the roles of planners in design control, and their relationships with architects (see Punter 1993b). An understanding of how the French deal with the issue may inform this debate. An additional reason justifies this work at this particular time: the two main British political parties are showing a growing interest in the design of the built environment. The last Secretary of State for the Environment of the Conservative administration recognized the importance of design issues and launched a number of related initiatives, such as the Revised Planning Policy Guidance 1 (DOE 1996) and the Urban Design Campaign. Before the May 1997 election the Labour party indicated that in case of forming the next government architecture would play a greater role than it had in the past. Indications are that the elected administration will keep its word; already the heritage ministry has been replaced by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the recently ennobled Lord Rogers is known to be in close contact with the Prime Minister. There is evidence that the results of fifteen years of Socialist presidency in France and the impact of the grands projets have been studied by the Labour think-tanks (see for instance Rogers and Fisher 1992).

In the last twenty years France has had a deliberate policy in relation to the promotion of modern architecture, resulting in some spectacular and well publicized schemes. Some of these are prominently situated in the middle of highly protected historic environments, such as the Louvre pyramid, the Pompidou Centre, and the new Opera at the Bastille. They are monuments in their own right, self consciously created as such. They correspond to one of the meanings of the word ‘monument’ suggested by Choay (1992) in her analysis of the role of the built heritage in Western societies. Choay makes a distinction between the deliberately created monument, built in order to commemorate an event, a person or a rite, and the historic monument which is not created as such but becomes one through a phenomenon of historical selection. Choay further remarks that, through the media, some of these new buildings (she gives Pei’s Louvre pyramid as an example) become symbols even before they have been built. Thus these examples are exceptions; they are the result of public patronage at the highest level, in locations of very high profile.

More generally, these schemes are significant in the way they reflect a positive attitude towards architectural creation and are used as models which filter down to other levels; they are admired, even by people who do not necessarily like their architectural style. As a result, cities throughout France have new buildings which are the counterpart of the country’s traditional national monuments. Not all of them are as well publicized and as well known as the Parisian examples but, as argued by Belmont, they have a further, complementary role:

Nowadays French architecture is recognized throughout the world. The Parisian grands projets have largely contributed to this reputation but they should not make us forget the existence of a ‘daily architecture’ distributed throughout the national territory which has a role just as important…. They [the other buildings] give structure to the cities and lead the way for the whole of the architectural production.

(Belmont 1990:7)

This reflects a common view on the architectural renewal that has taken place in France in the past twenty years. French authors such as Lucan (1989) try to explain the reasons for this architectural renaissance in terms of political changes and of changes in architectural theory, in the architectural profession and in the commission of buildings. In particular he pinpoints the role of public bodies in achieving this renaissance as patrons and promoters of new architecture, a point made by other authors such as Boles (1987), Contal (1990) and Goulet (1983). Lucan places the moment of change as the mid-1970s and highlights controversial projects of the time, such as the Montparnasse tower and the redevelopment of Les Halles, as marking the end of an era.

This architectural renaissance has aroused the interest of writers beyond the French borders: British and American architectural critics such as Glancey (1990), Rogers and Fisher (1992), Hillman (1992) and Huxtable (1992) have discussed it, often praising the quality of the schemes. Comments on new buildings frequently reflect the fact that they are judged in relation to the contribution they make to their context, in terms of their physical form and through the meanings of that form in that particular place. The connection between new architecture and historic areas is thus made: the new building is the latest ‘layer’ in the evolution of the place. The following is an example of this kind of comment; it specifically relates the new buildings to their historic context in Paris:

Through the varied treatment of volumes, materials and colours, the city’s public buildings thus assert the specificity of their respective roles, and are easily identifiable within the traditional urban context. They bring life to the quartiers, and contribute to the aesthetic renewal of this part of the city’s marked classical heritage.

(Godefroid 1988:96–7)

CONTEXT AND PRECEDENTS

The link between new architecture and historic areas is one of the preoccupations of a number of authors looking for an explanation for the role and meaning of heritage in contemporary society. Choay (1992) undertakes a theoretical analysis of the evolution of West European ideas about heritage: she dates the birth of the historic monument at the Renaissance and explores from then onwards the way that successive generations have dealt with their built heritage, and how different periods have been interested in different and selective aspects of that heritage. The consideration of cities, districts or ensembles (as opposed to isolated buildings) as monuments is a very recent phenomenon, reflecting a new approach towards history and towards space, and requiring a new set of rules. Like Lynch and other authors, she sees the city as evolving through time:

[The architects] remind us that over time styles have coexisted, side by side and articulated in the same city or the same building: the history of architecture, from the romanesque to the perpendicular or to the baroque, is legible in parts of the great European religious buildings: the cathedrals of Chartres, Nevers, Aix-en-Provence, Valencia, Toledo. The seduction of a city like Paris is the result of the stylistic diversity of its architecture and its spaces. They must not be frozen by rigid conservation, but continued.

(Choay 1992:13)

Choay concludes by considering how changes in the interpretation of the concept of heritage result in new attitudes towards conservation, enhancement, modernization and the re-use of buildings. Looking at the future, she wonders whether generations to come will continue to use their heritage as an inspiration for creativity or whether they will turn it into a narcissistic reflection of a desired past.

Similarly, Bourdin (1984, 1986) is interested in the importance given to heritage in contemporary Western society, which cannot be explained through either the interplay of economic forces, government intervention or simple nostalgia. This leads him to investigate, through the analysis of the rehabilitation of old neighbourhoods, the meaning of heritage which he considers has been ‘reinvented’ as part of society’s search for authenticity and roots. He sees the dangers of transforming Western civilization into a vast museum and at the same time losing the meaning of heritage. Although he does not mention new buildings specifically, the implication of his analysis is that historic areas need to incorporate them in order to continue their evolution. The work of Hewison (1987) shows similar concerns in the British context, albeit with different emphases: for him the obsession with what he sees as a sanitized, nostalgic and invented heritage endangers creativity. His implicit and pessimistic conclusion is that without new creative inputs, historic areas will be frozen in an image of a non-existent past. An increasing number of writers have a similar preoccupation (see for instance Sudjic 1986 or Moore 1989).

The evolution of the concept of heritage in France is also the subject of the work of Babelon and Chastel (1980). They describe it as developing in six ‘moments’ or events, culminating with the present ‘scientific moment’ in which the concept of heritage is widened to encompass environmental concerns (see Chapter 2). Their analysis introduces links between ideas about heritage and the practical choices made by successive governments in terms of what to protect and how to protect it. For instance, they relate the legislation to protect historic areas (the 1962 Malraux Act) to the tensions resulting from post-war reconstruction, and they show how one consequence of this legislation has been to make heritage accessible to wider sectors of the population. The links between ideas, legislation and the administrative structures created to implement it open an additional avenue of investigation.

The issue of new buildings in old neighbourhoods is, therefore, part of a wider theoretical debate about the meaning of the built heritage for society, the choices about what is to be conserved, the interpretation of the past and the effect of conservation on creativity. It is a subject of increasing relevance at a time where rapid changes in society and pressures for development affect the way that people think about their environment. The term ‘heritage’ has been used, misused and debased in the past few years. It cannot be considered a neutral word; nor, as discussed by Larkham (1996:13–21), can it be necessarily equated with conservation, though the two are often confused. The French equivalent, patrimoine, is equally controversial: according to Kerorguen (quoted in Untermaier 1985:40), it owes its origin to pâtre, patrie, patron, patriarche and père (shepherd, homeland, boss, patriarch and father), all words loaded with contentious meanings. In this book, heritage is what one generation has received from previous ones, to care for in order to pass it on. It is also what the current generation values and leaves to future ones, including present additions as well as heirlooms: what these are depends on societal decisions and therefore requires structures to assist in the making of these decisions.

The link between the theory and the practice of conservation within the French context is made initially by Babelon and Chastel (1980). It is also the subject of Kain’s work (1981), in which he finds a justification for conservation in the already mentioned ‘collage of time’ suggested by Lynch: the best environment for human development is one which shows the traces of successive generations. A further issue, the relation between regulations and physical form, is discussed by Evenson (1981). She deals with the evolution of building control in Paris and indicates that, in spite of modifications in matters of detail, the strict design controls that have existed since the early nineteenth century have ensured a formal stability which gives the city its physical identity. Within this stable environment stylisitic changes can be incorporated without difficulty and without disrupting the whole. Like other authors, Evenson (1981) refers to the 1960–75 period as a temporary aberration when building regulations were changed entirely, to accommodate new forms of development fashionable at the time. The resulting large redevelopment schemes which took no account of their surroundings were soon rejected by the population, particularly after the redevelopment of Les Halles and the erection of the Montparnasse tower. As a result, the authorities returned to more traditional regulations.

Jegouzo (1986) looks in detail at the legal instruments dealing with heritage protection and their implementation. He highlights the particularly significant fact that, until recently, the legislation concerned with planning and that concerned with heritage protection have followed different paths with different objectives, the former dealing mainly with urban growth and with socio-economic issues, the latter with the protection and enhancement of the cultural, historic and aesthetic heritage. Jegouzo is interested in the relationships between the different strands of legislation, in their partial integration since 1962 and in the role played by the participants in the implementation of the laws. Frier (1979) concentrates his detailed analysis on the specific and uniquely French regime affecting the control of building design in the surroundings of listed buildings (see Chapter 3) and emphasizes the complexity of the French system. Neither of these authors is concerned specifically with the insertion of new buildings in historic areas and for them this does not appear to be an issue which needs highlighting although it is mentioned in relation to specific examples. The interest of their work lies in their view of heritage only as a legal entity and in their concern for the management of the law: for them, whether a new building is inserted in a historic area or not is a matter of how the regulations are applied. They give an insight into the complexity of the French legislation and into the multiplicity of participants in its implementation and indicate further avenues worth pursuing such as the split between the planning and conservation legislations and the administrations in charge of them: among these, the role of the Architecte des Bâtiments de France (ABF) stands out as crucial whenever heritage or design is concerned.

Booth (1989) covers issues related to the roles of different actors in the French development control decision making process, and the negotiations between them, explaining how a seemingly very rigid system allows a great deal of flexibility, at least in certain contexts, to those who know how to manipulate it. He concentrates on specific aspects of the French system: he analyses how decisions are taken and by whom, and examines the nature of the transactions that take place between participants to reach those decisions. He tests the effectiveness of the regulatory system, specifically the relationship between the policies and the development control decisions and the effects on the applicant. His examples are taken from the Lyon conurbation and do not deal with historic areas, but they give a different insight into the system from that given by French authors. Punter (1989) also analyses the French system from an outsider’s point of view and highlights the importance of the role of the state in urban development as this is a particular aspect which differs from the British system. The role of the public sector as developer does not appear immediately relevant to the insertion of new buildings in historic areas and it tends to be taken for granted by French authors; nevertheless it is an issue which requires further exploration.

Thus, a general survey of the literature concerned with conservation, new buildings and aspects of legislation dealing with both, indicates that the connection between new and old is not a central issue for any of the authors. On the other hand, the specific issue of insertion of new buildings in historic areas is dealt with by texts concerned with aesthetics. Pearce (1989) investigates the practice of conservation in Britain and deals with what he calls ‘building in context’ which he sees as complex and not easy to resolve. He treats the subject mostly as one of aesthetics but distinguishes it from style. He discusses the relatively recent preoccupation with ‘keeping in keeping’ which he considers unhealthy, and welcomes new ways of dealing with the insertion of new buildings in historic cores: this is followed by the analysis of a number of recent British examples from the formal point of view. More general architectural design texts are addressed to the practising architect or planner, showing through examples what are successful ways of dealing with the problem of insertion of new buildings in historic areas. Though authors such as Worskett (1969) and Brolin (1980) do not attempt to be prescriptive or to develop a theory of successful insertion, they do so implicitly and the advice they give reflects the period in which they write: the former confident in the merits of modernist design, the latter more cautious, preferring a ‘keeping in keeping’ approach (see Chapter 4). An altogether different approach is taken by Tugnutt and Robinson who try to make the link between theories about heritage and designing practice. They suggest that success relates to the attitude of the designer which they call ‘contexture’ in contrast with the fashionable contextualism:

‘Contexture’…involves weaving together the old and the new to create a satisfying living totality…. When this sense of place is allowed to...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 The history of planning and heritage protection in France
• 3 Control of new construction
• 4 Case studies
• 5 Clients and their agents
• 6 Participants in the control of development
• 7 Conclusions and lessons
• Appendix 1: Glossary
• Appendix 2: Questionnaire sent to Architectes des Bâtiments de France
• Bibliography
• Index