![Sample our Environment & Sustainability journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5935/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Environment-Sustainability.jpg"})
Abstract
The transformation of Paris by Haussmann (1853–1870) is presented as a classic case of state-led modernization. What most accounts do not take into consideration is that Haussmann faced formidable opposition from property owners in his attempts to realize the emperor's ambitions for Paris, an opposition that centred on competing interpretations and uses of planning law. Based on heretofore unstudied archival material, this paper traces Haussmann's attempts to establish his (at times) creative use of planning law as legitimate in a context where planning was firmly in the hands of property owners. Haussmann's strategic use of the law, or planning practice, was able to lay bare the fact that planning law has no legitimacy in itself – only particular uses of the law can gain or lose legitimacy. Planning power can thus be defined as the possession of legitimacy in the use of planning law; and since the legal framework is a site of contest rather than a source of legitimacy, planning power depends on external legitimation. In the Haussmann case it is clear that state backing was central, even though (implicit) early support from the Parisian population cannot be ruled out until more research has been conducted.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Murray Low and Jayaraj Sundaresan for their constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Antoine Paccoud is an LSE Fellow in Human Geography at the London School of Economics. He works on Haussmann's transformation of Paris, Alain Badiou's concept of the state revolutionary and on private rental gentrification in UK metropolitan regions.
ORCID
Antoine Paccoud http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5446-7384
Notes
1. Paccoud, “Paris, Haussmann and Property Owners (1853–1860).”
2. Halbwachs, Les Expropriations.
3. Loyer, Paris XIXe Siècle.
4. Bourillon, “Rénovation ‘Haussmannienne’ et Ségrégation Urbaine.”
5. The word ‘ambitions’ has been preferred to that of ‘plan’ here given the limited nature of the Emperor's initial plans – detailed in Casselle, “Les Travaux de la Commission des Embellissements de Paris en 1853” and Tamborrino, “Le Plan d'Haussmann en 1864” – in comparison to what was actually undertaken during the public works.
6. Engels, The Housing Question; Smith, The New Urban Frontier; Lefebvre, Espace et Politique; Lefebvre, State, Space, World; Clark, “The Order and Simplicity of Gentrification”; and Merrifield, The New Urban Question.
7. Geddes, Cities in Evolution; Holston, Modernist City; and Scott, Seeing Like a State.
8. Benjamin, The Arcades Project; Berman, Solid Melts into Air; and Harvey, Paris Capital of Modernity.
9. Engels, The Housing Question, 71.
10. Geddes, Cities in Evolution, 205.
11. Benjamin, The Arcades Project, 14–15.
12. Ferguson, Paris as Revolution, 118.
13. Schubert and Sutcliffe, “The ‘Haussmannisation’ of London.”
14. Van Loo, “L'Haussmannisation de Bruxelles.”
15. Vernière, “Les Oubliés de l'‘Haussmannisation’ Dakaroise.”
16. Rodgers, “Haussmannization in the Tropics.”
17. Volait, “Making Cairo Modern (1870–1950).”
18. Chapman and Chapman, The Life and Times, 251.
19. Pinkney, “Napoleon III's Transformation of Paris,” 130.
20. Giedion, Space, Time and Architecture, 496.
21. Jordan, Transforming Paris, 241.
22. Gaillard, Paris la Ville, 28–30; Harvey, Paris Capital of Modernity, 131–133; Benevolo, The Origins of Modern Town Planning, 135–136; Hall, Cities in Civilisation, 737–738; and Roncayolo, “La Production de la Ville,” 114.
23. Gaillard, Paris la Ville, 29.
24. Halbwachs, Population et Voies à Paris, 34.
25. Hall, Planning Europe's Capital Cities, 74.
26. Benevolo, The Origins of Modern Town Planning, xii.
27. Ibid., 135.
28. Coded as F2 II Seine 33, 34 and 35 in the National Archives.
29. From 1790 to 1964, the city of Paris was at the centre of a large department (one of France's 86 at the time), called the Département de la Seine and designed to include Paris and all of the suburbs contained within a radius of three leagues, approximately 12 km. Magné de la Londe, Les Attributions du Préfet de la Seine, 38.
30. I have searched extensively for the continuation of this archive past 1859 but it seems to have been lost, as was the case with a large amount of documents, when the City Hall was burnt down in the final days of the Semaine Sanglante in May 1871. Milza, L'Année Terrible.
31. These letters are relatively well distributed over the period: 1854 (18 letters), 1855 (11), 1856 (28), 1857 (26), 1858 (21) and 1859 (7).
32. Out of the 115 cases studied here, 93 originated from property owners (with the others roughly split between tenants and individuals representing companies or developers). These property owners were a heterogeneous group: based on the information in the letters, it was estimated that 43 owned a single property, 47 owned two properties and 3 owned three properties.
33. Sutcliffe, Towards the Planned City, 128.
34. Roncayolo, “La Production de la Ville,” 97.
35. Benevolo, The Origins of Modern Town Planning, 104.
36. Faure, “Spéculation et Société,” 443.
37. Gaillard, Paris la Ville, 28.
38. Harvey, Paris Capital of Modernity, 127.
39. Roncayolo, “La Production de la Ville,” 114.
40. For a detailed theorization of Haussmann's early years in Paris as one of Alain Badiou's political events, see Paccoud, “A Politics of Regulation.”
41. Benevolo, European City, 217.
42. Ibid., 217–218.
43. Choay, Les Mémoires d’Haussmann.
44. Choay, “Pense´e sur la Ville,” 166.
45. Choay, La Règle et le Modèle, 274.
46. However, there are clear indications of increased discontent as the works progressed, and especially in the final years of the Empire. Tamborrino, “Le Plan d'Haussmann en 1864.”