Paris & the barricades: How Haussmann rebuilt a city to prevent unrest

The boulevards of Paris. Image: Getty.

The boulevards of Paris are centrepieces of the city, drawing well-heeled Parisians and doe-eyed tourists alike. But despite the high brand shopping and stylish cafes which dominate these wide and picturesque streets today, they were originally created not with posh Parisians in mind, but with pissed off ones.

Throughout the 19th Century, revolution was in the air in France, and the capital city had been at the centre of the civil unrest which had seen the country transition between royalty, republic and empire six different times by 1870.

One of the most useful tools for these riotous Parisians was the barricade, an ad hoc wall made from the all the neighbourhood’s furniture. Historian Mark Traugott recorded 21 instances of barricades being used between 1795 and 1871. The 1830 revolution saw over 4,000 barricades put up across the city; in that of 1848’s Feburary Revolution, there were as many as 6,000.

By blocking off Paris’ notoriously narrow streets, such barricades prevented the government of the day’s soldiers restoring order/ crushing dissent (eliminate depending on political sympathies). Failure to deal with this unrest let it snowball and led to the toppling of rulers time and time again.

The rue du Jardinet on the Left Bank, demolished by Haussmann to make room for the Boulevard Saint Germain. Image: Charles Marville/Wikimedia commons.

So by the time Napoleon III declared himself emperor in 1852, he realised that something needed to be done, otherwise he would go the same way as his predecessor. He found the man to do it in Georges-Eugène Haussmann.

A self-styled baron, Haussmann made up for his lack of architectural knowledge with his enthusiasm for demolishing things. He referred to himself in his own notes as an “artist-demolitionist”: rarely visiting the neighbourhoods he was destroying, he preferred to abstractly remould the city from a comfortable desk.

In this way, Haussmann re-planned Paris, bulldzing wide new boulevards through the fabric of old Paris giving soldiers easy access into all corners of the city – and preventing the construction of effective barricades. 

Haussman’s new streets are shown in red. Click to expand. Image: Dimitri Destugues/Wikipedia.

Haussman was particularly keen to do over neighbourhoods with dodgy reputations. Saint-Antoine, a suburb known for being restless and populated by those dangerous working classes so feared by Versailles – and one which had been at the heart of the 1789 revolution – had a shiny new boulevard cut straight through it.

Ancient roads such as Rue de Rempart, where Haussman himself had been caught in fighting in 1830, were demolished, to be replaced by swanky unbarricadeable boulevards like the Avenue de l'Opéra. No longer could any ne'er do wells throw their gran’s coffee table across a narrow street and overthrow the government.


Barricades were still used, most notably during the Paris Commune of 1871, but their strategic effectiveness was very much blunted. Instead they retained a symbolic value of resistance and revolution, which still captures imaginations today.

In his memoirs Haussman spoke with pride of erasing parts of Paris. Indeed he spoke about the peoples whose lives were destroyed in a way that would have made even a pre-revolution French aristocrat blush, describing them as “a floating mass of workers…. who are attracted only by impressions and the most deplorable suggestions”.

Despite this personal disdain, though, the ‘artist-demolitionist’ remoulded the city. It is thanks to him that most of the city no longer resembles the narrow and winding alleyways of the Marais district, the aristocratic area and one of the few untouched by Haussmann’s designs. It is thanks to him that people from around the world come to Paris to amble fondly along the boulevards unimpeded by barricades.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.  

 
 
 
 

Is Manchester doing enough to fight its air pollution crisis?

Clouds over Manchester. Image: Getty.

In June 2018, think tank IPPR released a report calling Greater Manchester’s pollution levels “lethal and illegal”. The report called on mayor Andy Burnham to urgently ramp up measures to improve air quality and for central government to give him the tools to do so.

Yet one year on, the Northern Quarter Forum has had to fight tooth and nail to close Stevenson Square to traffic for just five hours to celebrate Clean Air Week. This, coupled with the Great Ancoats Street fiasco – a multi-million pound plan to create a “European style boulevard” without any cycle infrastructure – raises red flags.

So what’s actually being done to fight Manchester’s air pollution crisis – and is it enough?

An ambitious pledge

Andy Burnham has pledged to make Manchester a leading green city in Europe. It’s an ambitious goal, considering central Manchester currently has the highest rate of emergency admissions for asthma in England – over double the national average – and Manchester is the second-worst council area in England for inhalable particulate matter. Greater Manchester is also the most congested region outside of London, with 152 roads in breach of legal NO2 levels.

The 152 roads in breach of air pollution levels. Image: TfGM.

 

All in all, 1,200 lives are lost each year due to air pollution. If that number is to be brought down to zero, Manchester better look for inspiration.

Oslo, European Green Capital 2019, prioritises pedestrians and cyclists in the city centre, and is transitioning to a completely car-free city centre. All public transport will run on renewable energy from 2020, and over 700 on-street parking spaces were removed, replaced with cycle lanes, pocket parks, and seating areas. Since the 1980’s Oslo has had tolled ring roads, and in 2017 introduced a further congestion charge.

The message is clear: becoming a leading green city means reducing the number of vehicles on the road. Switching to electric cars won’t be enough to save us, because worn tyres and brakes produce particulate matter, the micro plastic particles penetrating the deepest parts of our lungs and bloodstream.

What’s required, instead, is improved public transport – currently often both less convenient and more expensive than driving – as well as prioritising walking and cycling.

So with Burnham’s ambitious – and worthy – pledge in mind, let’s see what Manchester is doing.

Is enough being invested in public transport?

Last year, Burnham revealed his “Congestion Deal”, which includes a £122m Bus Priority Package (shepherding 9,000 more passengers a week) and spending £83m on 27 new trams. The deal also commits 40,000 more seats on commuter trains, and trebles the number of electric vehicle charging points in the region to 1,000.

Manchester’s Clean Air Plan also includes £116m government funded schemes for HGV’s, buses, taxis, and businesses upgrading to cleaner vehicles, as well as loans with preferential rates for those taking advantage of the funds.

While that may look like a lot of investment, it pales in comparison to the nearly £6bn being considered on road schemes. Moreover, research has repeatedly shown the benefits of road expansion are short-lived, “inducing” more car journeys leading to increased congestion and pollution overall.

The biggest cue for public transport in Manchester is Burnham’s recent proposal to franchise buses, bringing them back under public control. This will allow GMCA to develop a truly integrated public transport system and ensure all communities are served, not just those that are most profitable. It will also allow them to set the fares, bringing them in line with those in London; whereas it costs £4 in Greater Manchester for a single bus fare, the rate is currently capped at £1.50 in the capital.

That being said, there’s still a pressing need for more funding. When I asked the Clean Air Plan folk at Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) what’s the one thing government could do to help, they told me this: “To agree a devolved multi-year transport funding settlement with Greater Manchester” that includes ongoing funding, “to help us to transform public transport services to meet modern expectations as people experience in other cities across Europe.”

Despite the progress being made, as long as central government doesn’t provide new funds – and the bulk of existing funding is pumped into motorways instead – Manchester won’t become a leading green city.


Is walking and cycling being prioritised?

Burnham’s Congestion Deal also outlined a “Streets for All” approach, in which streets would be designed “for all road users” to enable alternatives to driving.

Chris Boardman became Greater Manchester’s first Walking and Cycling Commissioner in 2017 with an initial £160m earmarked to begin creating “Bee Network” safe cycle routes throughout the city – making Manchester a truly European city. That funding has now been allocated, and the first projects are coming to fruition.

However, it only accounts for 11 per cent of the £1.5bn needed to complete the Bee Network, and Boardman along with five other leading cycling commissioners are demanding government commit long-term funding to safe cycle infrastructure.

Boardman calls painted bike lanes a “waste of public money”, which encourage drivers to speed up, endangering cyclists. “Actual” bike infrastructure is needed, such as segregated cycle lanes.

He’s pointed out that government has recently agreed to spend £1.4bn on upgrading a roundabout near Bedford and building a new 10-mile dual carriageway – two projects that together may save drivers 10 minutes of travel. For the same price, Manchester could have a fully integrated cycle network that would revolutionise the way people travel around the city. Central and local government simply aren’t prioritising the measures needed to reduce air pollution.

That’s why Manchester City Council’s announcement of the £9.1m “Great Ancoats Street improvement scheme” – maintaining five lanes of motor traffic with no cycle infrastructure along one of the city’s most polluted and dangerous thoroughfares – has provoked anger and despair.

Cyclists protest on Great Ancoats Street. Image: David Saddington/author provided.

The council’s justification – “This scheme does not incorporate a segregated cycleway, as we need to balance the needs of different road users” – Illustrates a business-as-usual mindset of car dominated planning. It’s completely at odds with the scale of the challenge Manchester faces in turning around its air quality crisis.

There’s also a long way to go towards prioritising walking and cycling in the city centre. When Manchester City Council refused permission to close Stevenson Square to traffic for just five hours for the community to celebrate Clean Air Week, Northern Quarter Forum members took matters into their own hands.

They developed a plan to reroute the 13 buses that traverse Lever Street and presented it to the Highways department (essentially having done their job for them). Then it was actually Labour party councillor Angeliki Stogia who took the reins and pushed the request through.

Apart from Stogia, this lack of support for a resident’s group advancing what should be the council’s agenda is troubling. This, along with Great Ancoats Street, suggests a council not taking a “Streets for All” approach seriously, wand lacks the will to prioritise alternatives to driving in the city centre.

Is a congestion charge being introduced?

In the past year, the main focus has been developing a “Clean Air Zone”, covering all of Greater Manchester. The scheme would charge the most polluting buses, taxis, heavy and lights goods vehicles entering the zone.

This Clean Air Zone isn’t a congestion charge because it doesn’t charge polluting private vehicles. However, congestion charges are shown to be highly effective.

When Stockholm introduced its congestion charge 11 years ago, it was dubbed “the most expensive way ever devised to commit political suicide.” The charge began with just 25 per cent public approval – but when congestion dropped by 20 per cent, public opinion changed rapidly. After a seven month trial period, a referendum made the scheme permanent, and public approval now stands near 70 per cent. Revenue from the scheme has funded new metro lines and active travel improvements.

TfGM argue that charging private cars will hurt the poorest in society. However, ONS data show that while nearly all households in the richest 10 per cent by income own a car, just a third of those in the lowest 10 per cent own one. And nearly all homeowners have at least one car, compared to less than half of households in social housing.

In reality, households on lower incomes are far more likely to rely on public transport, and are disproportionately impacted by poor air quality.

The elephant in the room: the airport

Burnham has pledged to make Greater Manchester carbon neutral by 2038.

It’s difficult to imagine how this is possible, considering that Manchester Airport – 65 per cent owned by Manchester City Council – is expanding. Over the next 20 years, it plans to double passenger numbers.

Globally, aviation emissions are growing so quickly that by 2020 they’re projected to be 70 per cent higher than in 2005 and are currently 26 per cent higher than in 2013. If it were a country, global aviation emissions would be within the top 10 emitters. Here in Manchester, Pete Abel of Manchester Friends of the Earth says the current airport expansion plans would blow “our carbon budget twice over”.

A lack of follow-through

The stakes are high, the consequences dire. Strong, decisive action is required to rid Manchester of its poisonous air.

While Burnham has the vision, he doesn’t have the power. Without buy-in and consistent action from the 10 councils as well as central government, there’s only so much that can be accomplished – and it won’t be enough.

Public transport must become convenient and cheaper than driving. All city streets must enable walking and cycling. Mancunians – as well as city dwellers around the country – must hold elected representatives to account, let them know "business as usual" is no longer acceptable, and demand action to match the rhetoric.

An earlier version of this article was originally published by Manchester Confidential