Developing prototypes for France’s mass housing programme, 1949–53

Abstract

The results of two key competitions run by the French Ministry of Reconstruction and Urbanism in 1949 and 1950 have long been regarded as prototypes for les grands ensembles, the large mass housing developments of the 1950s and 1960s. Claudius‐Petit, the minister (1948–52) and a strong supporter of modern architecture, believed that industrialization would raise both the quality and the volume of housing construction. The competitions, one for 200 dwellings at Villeneuve‐Saint‐Georges and the other for 800 in Strasbourg, were judged large enough to attract the interest of contractors working in the public works sector and capable of developing industrialized building techniques. In each competition the winning project, though able to satisfy the technical demands of the competition, won because of its architectural qualities, while the second place project addressed the issues of production more comprehensively. However, the subsequent development of mass housing in France has caused the legacy of the competitions to be identified with the mainstream emphasis on production and economy, bitterly attacked from the late 1950s onwards. This has overshadowed that combination of architectural and technical values, central to Claudius‐Petit’s vision for post‐war housing, which was embodied in the two winning projects.

Notes

1. B. Pouvreau, Une politique en architecture, Eugène Claudius‐Petit (1907–1989). Paris: Le Moniteur, 2004, especially chapter VIII.

2. D. Voldman, La reconstruction des villes françaises de 1940 à 1954, histoire d’une politique. Paris: Harmattan, 1997, chapter 10.

3. R. Kuisel, Capitalism and the State in Modern France, Renovation and Economic Management in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: CUP, 1981, chapter 8; see also I. Wall, The United States and the Making of Postwar France 1945–54. Cambridge: CUP, 1991, chapter 6.

4. D. Voldman, op. cit. [2], p. 322.

5. Ibid., pp. 322–3.

6. J. Bastie, La Croissance de la Banlieue Parisienne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1964.

7. For housing conditions in Paris see J. Lucan, Eau et Gaz à tous les étages, Paris, 100 ans de logement. Paris: Picard, 1992, especially pp. 113–69; for a contemporary indictment see G. Mathieu, Logement notre honte, Le Monde, 11–19 April 1958.

8. After Dautry, who also had experience of building and reconstruction in the north of France after WWI, the six ministers at MRU before Claudius‐Petit held the post for less than a year, A. Kopp, F. Boucher and D. Pauly, 1945–1953, France: l’architecture de la reconstruction, solutions obligé ou occasions perdues?. Paris: ARDU, 1980, pp. 287–8.

9. See B. Pouvreau, op. cit. [1], chaps VII–VIII; on the crucial issue of the battle for new legislation on rents see D. Voldman, op. cit. [2], pp. 328–39.

10. B. Pouvreau, op. cit. [1], p. 111.

11. S. Effosse, L’invention du logement aidé en France, l’immobilier au temps des Trentes Glorieuse. Paris: Comité pour l’histoire économique et financière de la France, 2003, chapter III.

12. In the Monnet plan, investment was focused on the reconstruction of the infrastructure and materials such as cement. Large‐scale investment in the modernization of the housing stock only came with the Hirsch plan in 1954, P. Rioux, The Fourth Republic, 1944–58. Cambridge: CUP, 1987, chapters 11 and 16.

13. On the formation of Claudius‐Petit’s ideas with La Jeune République and the wartime resistance, see B. Pouvreau, op. cit. [1], chapters III–VI.

14. Ibid., chapter V.

15. E. Claudius‐Petit, Renaissance, L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui 1 (May–June 1945) 5–6.

16. B. Pouvreau, op. cit. [1], chapter VIII.

17. On the differences between the building industry and the firms employed in public works see A. Chatelain, Une grande industrie motrice française attardée, Annales, économies sociétés civilisations 3 (1958) 573–85; see also M. Lescure, Histoire d’une filière: immobilier et bâtiment en France (1820–1980). Paris: Hatier, part III.

18. D. Voldman, op. cit. [2], pp. 353–6.

19. See the quotation in B. Pouvreau, op. cit. [1], p. 115.

20. Ibid., pp. 120–2.

21. See, for example, the speeches on reconstruction by Kérisel and Marini to a meeting of the Société nationale d’encouragement pour l’industrie in early 1946, reported in Technique Moderne Construction (February 1946) and Le Genie Civil (February 1946) 66.

22. On the development of larger building firms in Paris, including Coignet, see D. Barjot, Industrie du bâtiment et logements populaires après 1945, in J. Girault (ed.) Ouvriers en banlieue XIXe–XXe siècle. Paris: Editions de l’Atelier, 1998, pp. 218–42.

23. The competition was announced in Le Bâtiment, Travaux Publics et Particuliers (11 September 1943).

24. P. Abraham, Architecture Préfabriquée. Paris: Dunod, 1946; see also P. Abraham, Orleans, Une expérience de prefabrication. Technique et Architecture 6, 7–8, pp. 312–19.

25. Wartime work on standardization by COBTP and AFNOR is summarized in the Courrier de la Normalisation 66 (July–December 1945), with an introduction by Dautry and officers of MRU.

26. For a discussion of the REEF see La codification technique, le REEF. Cahiers du CSTB 12 (July 1948) 15–23.

27. This area of MRU’s work is summarized in Cahiers du CSTB, series B which addressed the issues of ‘Techniques et matériaux’; more scientific issues ‘Essais et recherches’ were covered in series C.

28. See, for example, the frequent articles in the late 1940s in journals such as L’Architecture Française, Techniques et Architecture and L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui. MRU’s exchanges with the UK and the USA are discussed in D. Voldman, A la recherche de modèles, les missions du MRU à l’étranger. Images, Discours et Enjeux de la Reconstruction des Villes Françaises après 1945. CNRS, Cahiers de l’IHTP 5 (1987).

29. Cahiers du CSTB 12 (1948) xv–xxiv.

30. For a discussion of the site see N. Bullock, You assemble a Lorry, but you build a House, Noisy‐le‐Sec and the French Debate on Industrialised Building 1944–48. Journal of Construction History (forthcoming, 2007).

31. Under Vichy, the case for collaboration was made by conservative figures like Laprade, in the post‐war years by progressives like Lods. ATBAT, established in 1945 by Le Corbusier and the engineer Vladimir Bodiansky to unite architects, engineers and contractors, is only one of the most celebrated versions of this way of working.

32. The part played by the CSTB in MRU’s 1947 competition is described in G. Demarre, Résultats du concours pour l’édification de maisons nouvelles. Cahiers du CSTB 9, pp. i–v.

33. CSTB was established following proposals from the Commission de Modernisation du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics, the building sub‐committee of Jean Monnet’s Commission Générale du Plan. CSTB’s work on MRU’s chantiers d’expérience is described in Les Chantiers d’expérience du Ministère de la Reconstruction et de l’Urbanisme. Cahiers du CSTB 12 (1948) i–vi.

34. For a discussion of the changes to the funding of social housing being debated at the time, see D. Voldman, op cit. [2], pp. 328–44.

35. B. Pouvreau, op cit. [1], pp. 112–18.

36. See, for example, Marini’s lecture, Vers la rationalisation des methods de construction, reported in Cahiers du CSTB 46, pp. ii–vi.

37. Chantiers d’éxpérience du Ministère de la reconstruction et de l’urbanisme, quelques projets primes au concours 1949. Cahiers du CSTB 87, p. ix.

38. L’Architecture Française 103–4 (1950) provided extensive documentation of the results of the competition.

39. The Villeneuve‐Saint‐Georges competition was the first to focus on the problems of high‐rise housing suitable for urban or inner suburban housing.

40. The files for the Villeneuve‐Saint‐Georges competition are to be found at Centre d’Archives Contemporaines (CAC) at Fontainebleau: CAC/771080/44–52.

41. The prize‐winning teams are listed in L’Architecture Francaise 103–4 (1950) 4.

42. Otherwise unknown, the brothers had worked before the competition with André Lurçat on housing at St Denis.

43. There is no record of the jury’s deliberations; for the names on the jury, see Un concours du MRU. La Construction Moderne (April 1950) 271–2.

44. Cahiers du CSTB 87, p. ix.

45. Ibid.; see also the extended statement that accompanied their submission, CAC/771080/48 and 51.

46. The Solotareff’s statement appears in L’Architecture Francaise 103–4 (1950) 6.

47. CAC/771080/048.

48. See note 64.

49. Zehrfuss’s project was not published in all journals but was published in Cahiers du CSTB 87, pp.ix–xv.

50. J. Debelvalet, Un nouveau chantier expérimental, groupe du Pont de Sèvres. Cahiers du CSTB 136, 14, p. xv.

51. The competition is very well documented in the MRU files to be found at CAC/771081/001–009.

52. Under the provisions of the Washington Agreement, French families housed in accommodation requisitioned just across the Rhine in Kehl had to be rehoused in France by 1 April 1953, see D. Voldman, op cit. [2], pp. 381–91.

53. The list of initial entrants is given in CAC/771081/001, the final selected list in /002.

54. The Committee members are listed in /002.

55. The names of members of the jury are to be found at /002.

56. On the links between jurors, and between jurors and competitors see J. Lucan, Histoire de l’Architcture en France 1940–2000. Paris: Le Moniteur, 2002, p. 190.

57. The voting and the judgement of the jury are at /002.

58. The most complete published record is to be found in L’Architecture Française 12, 117–18 (1951).

59. Ibid., pp. 51–5.

60. Ibid., p. 53.

61. Ibid., pp. 46–7.

62. Details of the estimated cost of each project are to be found in /002.

63. The MRU’s Delégué Départmental report of November 1950 refuted the allegations that Lajoinie’s failure was a product of the firm’s inability to build the project for the quoted price, and declared the Solotareff scheme good value for money and cheaper than conventional construction, CAC 771080/44.

64. CAC/771081/003–;004 documents the progress of the site; see also La cite Rotterdam à Strasbourg. Annales de l’Institut technique du Batîment et des Travaux Publics (March–April 1953) 216–49.

65. See the address by Spinetta to the Productivity Mission to the USA in 1951, CAC771081/1, p. 14.

66. See, for example, B. Vayssière, Reconstruction, deconstruction: le hard French ou l’architecture française des trente glorieuses. Paris: Picard, 1988, pp. 72–3, 318–21; J. Abram, L’Architecture moderne en France, du chaos à la croissance 1940–1966. Paris: Picard, 1999, pp. 97–101; J. Lucan, Architecture en France, 1940–2000, histoire et théories. Paris: Le Moniteur, 2001, pp. 57–62.

67. J. Abram, ibid., pp. 120–5.

68. See, for example, P. Landauer, La Caisse des Depôts et consignations face à la crise du logement (1953–1958), histoire d’une maitrise d’ouvrage. PhD dissertation, Université Paris 1‐ Panthéon Sorbonne, 2004.

69. On the exportation of French expertise, particularly to Russia and Eastern Europe, see B. Vayssière,Une politique du logement, Ministère de la Reconstruction et de l’Urbanisme 1944–54. Paris: Institut Français d’Architecture, 1995, pp. 109–11.

70. The expression, coined by Patrice Noviant, is used by Vayssière to characterize the production‐orientated housing built after the mid‐1950s.

71. See the increasingly critical tone of the references after 1956 in F. Dufaux, A. Fourcault and R. Skoutelsky, Faire l’histoire des grands ensembles, Bibliographie 1950–1980. Paris: ENS Editions, 2003, pp. 35–61.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nicholas Bullock

∗Nicholas Bullock is Reader in Architectural and Planning History in the Department of Architecture, University of Cambridge, a Fellow of King’s College and teaches in the Graduate School of the Architectural Association. He has written on the housing reform movement in nineteenth and early twentieth century Germany and France and on aspects of Modernism both between the wars and after 1945. His latest book, Building the Post‐War World, Modern Architecture and Reconstruction in Britain, was published by Routledge in 2002. He is currently researching a book on housing and planning in post‐war France and looking in particular at the French programme of industrialized housing construction and its impact on suburban growth.