PalenQ

https://mattcroweahhha.wordpress.com...er-may-rise-2/

When the Tour Montparnasse - erected besides the Montparnasse train station in the early 70s the tower has to many stuck out like a sore thumb on the generally harmonious level Paris skyline where buildings of more than several floors have traditionally been frowned upon and not given go aheads. Critics decried the sacrilege of this sleek modern tower's intrusion oin the skyline it cna be seen of course from all over town since it is about the only building inside the Peripherique (freeway that circles central Paris) that sticks up so high outside of things like the Tour Eiffe and some churches steeples.

Critics on the Montparnasse Tower crack that the best view of Paris is from the tower's observation deck because it's the only vantage point from which you cannot see the tower itself!

And they Parisians were equally bent out of shape when the Eiffel Tower went up for some Internatioanl Exhibition and was not taken down as it I think was slated too - many Parisians also called that a blight on the skyline but now it is the symbol of Paris.

Well I don't think the Tour Montparnasse of the new Triangle Tower (not sure that's its name but it does sport a unique traingular pyramid-like shape. It will sit on the far edges of Pafris proper - in the 15th arronidssement besides the busy Peripherique freeway.

So far a vote by officials is so close it is hard to call - but personally I'm all for the project, especially since it sits well away from the center of Paris and heck Paris is not a museum like Venice and has embraced many modernistic structures, like the Pompidou Center and the Louvre glass Pyramid, which was also decried when it was erected but now is accepted by many as a nice touch to the Louvre courtyard.

So what do you think - should this tower be given the go ahead or banned? How would you vote - I'd vote Yes!
.

Christina

There was an article on that in the NY Times some days ago which is all that blog does, direct you to the NYTimes. I don't see that it is Pariscope who doesn't do major articles.

cigalechanta

We have a discussion going on this at Linkedin.
I personally vote ban it

PalenQ

Thanks Christina - my mistake in giving wrong link - HERE IS THE LINK TO THE ACTUAL NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ET MOI AUUSI!

PalenQ

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/wo...rise.html?_r=0

Well this is the LINK TO THE NYTIMES ARTICLE

flanneruk

" I'm all for the project, especially since... Paris is not a museum like Venice and has embraced many modernistic structures"

The issue isn't (or shouldn't be) modernity: it's sightlines. It's also the claim to be looking different, the more identical the townscapes they create end up.

The Tour Montparnasse isn't particularly horrid of itself (though at street level, it's just tackily bland): but more than one tall building that mediocre would start making that part of the Left Bank indistinguishable from the less awful bits of Detroit or Beijing.

A gimmick tall building, however clever or tasteful the gimmick (like we've allowed mob-handed into the City of London) would start making bits of Paris look like the City of London. Fine around La Defense, or in the suburbs - we can just about get away with it in the City, because that's the City's shtick. It isn't Paris's

What central Paris needs are more really good, unashamedly modern, buildings that conform to the standard 6-storey streetscape of most of the Right Bank. Like the Pyramid, or like the Centre Pompidou. Florence and Oxford are far better models for this than the City of London.

Beijing and Shanghai are the examples for all real cities of what happens if silly arguments like "modern must be good" are followed.

flanneruk

"The issue isn't (or shouldn't be) modernity: it's sightlines. It's also the claim to be looking different, the more identical the townscapes they create end up"

Originally read:

"The issue isn't (or shouldn't be) modernity: it's sightlines. It's also the claim to be looking different. In truth, the more Gehry or Zaha Hadid claim to be creating different buildings, the more identical the townscapes they create end up."

So the post above should read:

The issue isn't (or shouldn't be) modernity: it's sightlines. It's also the claim to be looking different. In truth, the more Gehry or Zaha Hadid claim to be creating different buildings, the more identical the townscapes they create end up.

The Tour Montparnasse isn't particularly horrid of itself (though at street level, it's just tackily bland): but more than one tall building that mediocre would start making that part of the Left Bank indistinguishable from the less awful bits of Detroit or Beijing.

A gimmick tall building, however clever or tasteful the gimmick (like we've allowed mob-handed into the City of London) would start making bits of Paris look like the City of London. Fine around La Defense, or in the suburbs - we can just about get away with it in the City, because that's the City's shtick. It isn't Paris's

What central Paris needs are more really good, unashamedly modern, buildings that conform to the standard 6-storey streetscape of most of the Right Bank. Like the Pyramid, or like the Centre Pompidou. Florence and Oxford are far better models for this than the City of London.

Beijing and Shanghai are the examples for all real cities of what happens if silly arguments like "modern must be good" are followed.

PalenQ

But flanner ole chap this Triangle Tower is practically on the other side of the Perepherique in an obscure district of town so would not intrude nearly as much as the Montparnasse Tower - I think for that location it harms nothing of the ballyhooed Baron Hausamann-inspired low-level cohesion of central Paris.

kerouac

Porte de Versailles is the extreme southern edge of the city, so I see no problem all with the Tour Triangle. Paris is already mostly surrounded by high rise buildings just on the other side of the périphérique. The new Paris courthouse is a high rise, too, scheduled to be completed in 2017 and it is the northern edge of the city in the 17th.

Nikki

New Paris courthouse? What will happen to the Palais de Justice?

kerouac

I think they going to turn it into a Starbucks.

kerouac

Here's what the new Palais de Justice will look like: http://www.lepoint.fr/images/2012/02...jpg_350697.jpg

FrenchMystiqueTours

I haven't read anything that anyone has posted here, nor the article, but I saw a photo of what they wanted to build and where they want to build it and I have no idea why people would object to such a building when, as kerouac mentioned, many parts of outer parts of Paris are developed with fairly ugly modern high rise buildings to begin with. This looks much cooler than anything I've seen on the outskirts of Paris. Take a ride coming into Paris on a train arriving at Gare de l'Est or Gare du Nord and you can see some astoundingly awful high rise buildings (though there is change in progress) and I'll take this building over any one of those disasters.

PalenQ

I agree with FrenchMystique's take on this Triangle Tower - a novel look and at the far reaches of what can be considered central Paris - unlike the Montparnasse Tour which does stand out as a sore thumb IMO - mainly because of a lack of other tall buildings.

kerouac

As much as people hate the Tour Montparnasse, there is another tower that I find even more despicable in central Paris -- the tower in the middle of the Jussieu (science) campus of the University of Paris. It's the horrible black thing just a few blocks from Notre Dame on the Left Bank. I actually had hopes that they would demolish it when it was determined that all of the asbestos had to be removed from the campus. But they just closed down the buildings bit by bit and took the asbestos out, leaving the tower where it was.