Sustainable Cities: Sarkozy's "Grand Paris"

In recent years, the popularity of the green movement and eco-sensitive lifestyles seems to have skyrocketed to unprecedented heights. Consumers these days are inundated with opportunities to choose “planet-saving” products, which include not just the habitual hybrid or solar panel, but also hemp-fiber sheets, organic cotton, and bags made from recycled plastic bottles. Although there seems to have been an influx of concern over environmentally friendly practices in consumer-related industries, global warming is not a new issue for the world community. Quite to the contrary, the topic has been on the international agenda for some time now, and in decades past numerous countries signed an international treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to explore ways to reduce global warming. To be sure, the UNFCCC was an important first step in the international movement against global warming. However, after realizing the need for more powerful and legally binding measures to force nations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, an even more vital addition to the treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, was negotiated in 1997, and subsequently accepted by a number of countries. Undoubtedly, the most significant feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community to reduce their emissions by “an average of five percent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012.”

As some deadlines have already passed and additional near, parties to Kyoto are exploring ways to make their countries environmentally sound and thus increasingly likely to meet their emissions targets. France, having ratified the Protocol in May of 2002, is one such state that is taking innovative steps to transform its capital into a more eco-friendly place, and recently “the results of a nine-month study commissioned by President Nicolas Sarkozy” aimed to transform “Paris and its surrounding suburbs into the first sustainable ‘post-Kyoto city’” were unveiled. The study called for ten architecture and urban planning agencies to put forth proposals (see one example at left) to transform Paris into a greener and more united city, specifically tackling the issue of integrating the somewhat tumultuous banlieues. Going along with the popular (if not trendy) notion of sustainable living and green consumerism, this week I decided to explore the blogosphere to see how people have been reacting to Sarkozy’s “grands plans” for Paris. One post I came across which takes a rather pragmatic stance on the possible success of such proposals, is entitled “Grand, Gai Paris,” and was written by Mario Ballesteros, an “urban enthusiast” and freelance editor. Another entry I encountered, “The Post-Kyoto City,” was written by Piers Fawkes, the founder and CEO of the company PSFK, and highlights the argument that now is the time for the US to follow France’s lead and build or modify cities across America to increase sustainability. My responses to both of these posts are included below, and are also available by way of comments posted at each of the respective sites.

Grand, Gai Paris (comment)

Thank you for this enlightening post and for taking such a realistic stance on the future of Sarkozy’s plans for the urban renewal of Paris. While certainly the President’s efforts to come up with initiatives to make the city “more sustainable, livable, and equal” seem to correspond with those of France to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as mandated by Kyoto, I also found myself questioning Sarko’s real motivations for spear-heading such a project. Indeed, the feasibility of implementing any of the recently unveiled proposals seems extremely unrealistic considering the current economic situation and general unhappiness among the Parisian population with “President Bling-Bling.” Furthermore, while the environmental ambitions of the proposals may be viable, as you mention “even the grandest of urban design schemes wouldn’t be enough to pull Paris together.” As someone who spent considerable time in the capital city last year, I am in complete accord with your statement that “to the untrained eye its really difficult to notice how Paris can be alienating.” Having lived with my own famille d’accueille in the 9th arrondissement, I rarely ventured outside the city limits; it was so easy to become enthralled with the centuries-old architecture and historical sites that I regularly forgot about the Paris of the banlieues just minutes away on the RER. Even with the international coverage of the monumental riots that occurred in 2005, many people outside of France do not realize the extent of the segregation in the capital. That being said, at the end of your post you claim that the origin of the problem in Paris is due to “an all-encompassing malaise, a case of cultural exhaustion.” It seems as though you are implying that racial rationales for tensions have become somewhat obsolete. If so, what then would you propose as a solution to the division of the city, which so harshly isolates the banlieues from the more affluent centre-ville? Do you think that any of the ten architectural firms’ proposals could provide insight as to how this problem may be solved in the future?

The Post-Kyoto City (comment)

I, too, read The New York Times article by Nicolai Ouroussoff, and found myself asking the same question you pose about urban-planning in the US. While American environmental policies may not be as advanced as those of some European nations, Sarkozy’s recent study of proposals for a “post-Kyoto city” should act as inspiration for future urban-building schemes across the nation. To be sure, the plans the study produced for Paris are by no means perfect, especially considering the amount of money it would take to implement any one of the visions in the context of the current economic crisis. Still, however lofty Sarkozy’s ambitions may seem, such initiatives as the “grand plans” show that France is taking an important step towards a future where the environment will be one of the primary considerations in urban development (see one such example at right).

Even though the US rejected the Kyoto Protocol and may thus be less inclined than other nations to work towards eco-friendly infrastructure, as you point out in your post “we are at a pivotal time where we could reclaim” cities in America “and rebuild them.” While it will be difficult to rectify the mistakes of the past, in creating and adopting environmentally sustainable structures now we would be building for the future. I think that one of the most potent examples of this, which you also touched, is the case of New Orleans. Certainly the devastation the city experienced due to Hurricane Katrina was a great tragedy. However, as Ouroussoff makes clear in his article, the disaster presented an opportunity for “architects and urban planners all over the country” to begin “a spirited investigation of how to make New Orleans safer and more sustainable.” In addition to New Orleans, what cities do you consider to be ready for such large-scale plans as those proposed for Paris? Though I currently reside in Los Angeles, I had the opportunity to live in Paris for a year and was able to experience first-hand the advantages of a concentrated urban center and efficient public transportation system. As these are both attributes that are virtually non-existent in LA, I am hopeful that with the increasing publicity caused by Sarkozy’s study and Ouroussoff’s avocation for sustainable American cities, there will be extensive revamping projects to make LA a more compact and green city in the near future.