For a long time, the Paris municipal authority has sought to free itself from the opinions of the Commission du Vieux Paris (CVP), attempting several times to reform it with varying degrees of success. It nevertheless survived, year in, year out, and continued to watch over Paris. Composed mainly of elected officials and experts, its opinions on real estate and urban planning projects whose aim is to ensure the protection of Paris’s heritage, although consultative, nonetheless carry real weight. In certain cases, it has prevented or limited heritage disasters. These are alas too numerous in the capital, but they would probably be even more numerous without this commission.
We have often written that Emmanuel Grégoire, the new mayor, would be even worse — which in itself is no small feat — than Anne Hidalgo. We had already had a foretaste of this with his decision not to appoint a deputy for heritage (while there is, to take just one example, a deputy for overseas territories!). But his policy, which clearly disregards historic Paris, is about to take a new turn with the change to the statutes of the Commission du Vieux Paris that he intends to impose, and which must be voted by the Municipal Council on 18 June next. This reform indeed aims to strip the commission of almost all its heritage competence, to remove elected officials, and to silence even further the experts, many of whom come from associations.
It is now a question — as explained in the explanatory memorandum — of adding to the CVP’s remit « the adaptation of the City of Paris to climate change ». While we do not ignore the legitimacy of this second mission, what does it do in such a body responsible for protecting heritage?
The presence of elected officials, from all political sides in proportion to their representation on the Paris Council, was essential. They examined the files with the experts, and were sometimes very attentive to heritage issues, even when they belonged to the municipal majority. It was notably the case of Karen Taïeb, the former deputy for heritage, whose commitment and dedication to this cause we have repeatedly highlighted. This joint work ensured a great legitimacy for the commission’s opinions, and it was very difficult for the City Hall, despite their non-binding nature, to override them.
From now on, there will be no elected officials. Only experts. And when we write « experts », it is enough to read the draft statutes to see that we are far from what existed, namely « people renowned for their knowledge of Paris ». They will henceforth be « chosen by the mayor » (who clearly shows little regard for heritage), and only a quarter will come « from the heritage sector »! The other three quarters will be devoted to experts in the « architecture and housing sector » (one can imagine their interest in heritage), « a quarter in the urban planning sector » (as if heritage did not include urban planning), and finally a quarter in the « sector of ecological transition in the built environment » (long live external insulation on Parisian buildings!).
And to ensure the attendance of these « experts », they will be paid. A generous remuneration that may go up to 500 € per year! An almost insulting compensation for those who, for the most part, devote their love of heritage voluntarily to the service of Paris.
Whereas the commission’s meetings were transparent, secrecy will now be imposed. Article 6 indeed provides that « members are bound by confidentiality regarding debates and are forbidden from communicating about the debates/agenda/resolutions of the CVP ». One would like to know what justifies such opacity, if not the desire to control anything that might oppose projects supported by the City.
Article 7 provides that « a file may not be presented more than 2 times to the commission when it is under instruction by the Urban Planning department ». Yet, as we were told by Anne Biraben, elected member of the « Paris Liberté ! » group (formerly « Changer Paris ») and member of the CVP, it is not uncommon for certain files to give rise to multiple exchanges, which ultimately make it possible to reach a consensus among commission members for projects that extend over a long period. Limiting the number of appearances before the commission means taking the risk of not examining in depth some of the most complex cases. One of the reasons, moreover, openly stated in the explanatory memorandum, is to reduce processing times. Developers and City services want to move quickly, with as little opposition as possible. Let us give them what they want, even if it is done at the expense of the beauty and history of Paris.
If the right-wing opposition is logically against this scandal, it is interesting to see part of the left on the same line. Thus the Nouveau Paris Populaire group, made up of LFI (La France Insoumise) councillors of Sophia Chikirou, has just issued a statement denouncing the disciplining of this institution, expressing indignation at the abolition of the elected members’ college and the reduction of the independence of experts. « Reducing the place of elected officials and experts means reducing the commission’s ability to make dissenting voices heard and to publicly challenge the City when Parisian heritage is under threat ». We could not have put it better ourselves.
Let us also note the position of Émile Meunier, also a member of the CVP, former Green Party councillor, and now vice-president of the Nouveau Paris Populaire group, who is also openly opposing this reform on Twitter.
Let us note, in conclusion, that the Commission du Vieux Paris, despite its reduced powers, remains essential in a city long abandoned by the Ministry of Culture. The designated protectors of heritage are in fact the Architectes des bâtiments de France (ABF), whose opinion, unlike that of the commission, is binding, meaning it is enforceable. One might nevertheless think that ABFs do not exist in Paris where more or less anything can be done with almost total impunity. It is true that they depend on the DRAC Île-de-France, itself under the authority of the prefect, and that they are certainly hindered in their action, unless they self-censor. But the results are there. Paris is steadily disappearing before our eyes.
As for the major protected heritage site ("site patrimonial remarquable") that was to include at least the first seven arrondissements of Paris, and which should have been subject to a preservation and enhancement plan, it is no longer really under discussion. To comply nonetheless with UNESCO, which requires complementary protections, there is now talk of a reduced perimeter, and only of a Heritage and Architecture Enhancement Plan (PVAP), much less protective. Paris, one of the most beautiful cities in the world, is under the rule of vandals. The Pompidou years, which we thought were behind us, are back.