Paris has traditionally limited the height of buildings in the city centre to 12 stories and most fall in a uniform five and six stories, making one of Paris' unique signature harmonious look.

But a report just heard on NPR says the Mayor of Paris, in his re-election bid is urging a lifting of the ban, which was put in place it said after the Montparnasse Tower was built and considered by many Parisians to be an eyesore on the Paris landscape.

Thus the old saying the best view of Paris is from the Montparnasse Tower because you can't see the tower itself.

Since the tower was opened Paris has a slew of new highrises but mainly in places like La Defense, well out of the historic tourist town centre

But now the mayor has commissioned 11 architects to make plans for several buildings well in excess of the 12 story limit.

Such as Twin Towers on the Seine, in an area he says is now not a 24-hour living area and that the towers, with mixed use of residential, shops, etc. will breathe life into the area.

Other factors, according to the Mayor - Paris must built up and not out - the city centre is very small and dense and in keeping with greenbelt movements all over the world city planners are thinking more of going up than out for environmental reasons

Others however are not enthusiastic over the plan, which it says will be put to a vote at some time

Many of course are worried that Paris will lose its romantic cache and become just another London or Frankfurt or New York, etc.

The Mayor says Paris should not become a museum town but a living modern town

And while i see the anti-tall reaction because i too love the diminuitive Paris as it is i think reality means the Mayor may be right for the best interests of the city.

What do you think?

Well, I suppose Frankfurt is indeed a "living modern town," but how much discussion to you seen on this forum about travel to Frankfurt as a destination? The proposal would satisfy certain objectives, but defeat others. Would the trade-off be worth it? How many of us go to Houston for its urban character?

Well i think Frankfurt was a poor comparison on my part

i'm sure the parisian architects will be extremely careful to make these higher buildings blend in as much as possible

but Twin Towers on the Seine does sound intrusive doesn't it?

The mayor's plan is extremely limited and has never concerned the center of Paris. He would like a few high rise buildings (but not at all "high rise" by modern standards -- 25 stories at the most) at Porte de la Chapelle, Bercy, Porte d'Italie and one other location on the outskirts. He has stated that they would have to be outstanding architecturally, which precludes most financially viable projects.

A few years ago, there was a municipal poll (in the form of a questionnaire sent to all Parisians) and the idea of new high rise buildings was asked, explaining that they would be exceptional and never in any central area. Nevertheless, about 75% of Parisians said "no way!" (I was in the minority.) However, the mayor is a very stubborn man, and incidentally the most popular politician in the entire country, so he is trying again. If, as expected, he wins the municipal elections in the spring, the new high rises will definitely happen.

Twin Towers in Bercy perhaps would not be so intrusive and yes revitalize a dying quarter it seems

>What do you think?

I think that the Eiffel Tower should have been torn down as promised.

PQ, please note that La Défense is not in Paris, and the mayor has absolutely no control over what happens there. A new and very strange tower, the Tour Phare, is breaking ground there, and you will be hearing about it in a year or two. It will be completed in 2012.

http://www.defense-92.fr/lesprojets.html

I can see both sides of this, though I would tend to be with the 75% who don't want anything to be added to the city center. The whole "urban sprawl" thing going on in Paris' area just keeps shoving the poor further out and closer together. But when the mayor says they must be architecturally outstanding, etc, who was the person checking up on that at, say, the new Opéra?

I meant the buildings, not the poor.

What I don’t like about the mayor’s point of view is his common and really old-fashioned mistake of height-equals-modernity. In the past decades, outstanding contemporary architecture has been shaping Paris in accordance with building laws, height regulations mercifully allowing the superior number of less brilliant and out-of-fashion buildings to blend with its surroundings more easily. Another mistake is the belief that the mere intention to build excellent architecture is enough to actually achieve excellent architecture, there are just too many examples contradicting this.

Further, in my opinion neither the Beaugrenelle nor the Place d’Italie area show sufficient proof that all you need to spice up a neighbourhood are some state-of-the-art high-rises, and though I appreciate the concern the mayor shows towards the less popular city limits, I guess it’s more the lack of other, more prominent building sites within the city limits to leave a landmark (outside the périphérique doesn’t count).

Skyscrapers are fine with me, but just for the heck of it isn't a good guideline.

I don't think that he was mayor when Mitterrand chose that opera project. Jacques Chirac was. The poll wasn't about adding things to the city center. Skyscrapers will never be added to the city center.

Ira!! That's blasphemy!!!!!!!!!

Wonder how much Jacques got out of the Bastille Opera deal?

>Skyscrapers will never be added to the city center.

What's the Tour Montparnasse, chopped liver?

Ira, I think the operative word in that sentence was "added".

As far as I know, the last tall building built in Paris was the Tour Cristal in the 15th (Beaugrenelle) in 1990. 28 stories high.

Hi K,

Perhaps it should have been "will never again be added"?

He is thinking forward! Sub-urban sprawl will no longer be economically feasible.