Contrary to what some may have understood, the commission set up by Paris City Hall to make recommendations on the rehabilitation of the Place de la Concorde did not give it a blank check. The term " vegetalize ", a neologism used in all sorts of ways by the municipality, which is also to be found in this (very short) report, clearly doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone. Indeed, there is never any question of planting trees in the square, nor of transforming it into a permanent events venue, as has been the case far too often in recent years, and again today with the Olympic Games.
Let’s take a look at these recommendations as they appear in the report, starting with those that are not open to discussion because they take into account the historic character of the site.
The first two call for "conserving the historic character of the square [...] and [its]great perspectives" and "preserving and enhancing existing architectural elements and historic decor [...]". This is indeed the least we can do for a site that is entirely classified as a historic monument, and which lies within the perimeter of the Unesco World Heritage site.
The commission also recommends (to help restore the square’s symmetry) removing the two car hoppers, inherited from the Pompidou years, whose policy was to adapt the city to the automobile. This will, on the one hand, "recover the historic continuity between the Champs-Élysées gardens and the Place de la Concorde", and on the other, "reinforce the link with the Seine". There’s no denying that these two arrangements were unfortunate, even if they were barely above ground level; removing them is a good thing. Of course, this does not mean removing all traffic from the Place de la Concorde: Paris is a historic city, but it is also an economic capital. Pompidou’s policy was a disaster; Anne Hidalgo’s, which is the exact opposite, is another. The ideal solution lies somewhere in between, and the commission understood this perfectly when it recommended "reducing the footprint of automobile traffic", not eliminating it, by "separating the flows" of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.
-
- 1. The Place de la Concorde in 1846 in a painting by Jean-Charles Geslin (1814-1887) in the Musée Carnavalet, showing the first Hittorff state.
(illustration taken from the report) - See the image in its page
Another strong recommendation is to return the square to a state as close as possible to the first state designed by Jacques-Ignace Hittorff (ill. 1), by restoring the ditches created by Ange-Jacques Gabriel in the 18th-century (ill. 2 and 3). This means departing slightly from the Venice Charter, which specifies that "the valid contributions of all periods to the building of a monument must be respected". Can we say that the filling in of these ditches is a valid contribution? Even if Hittorff had proposed this solution from the outset, it’s debatable. Nevertheless, it is the square in its second Hittorff state (ill. 4) that was listed in 1937.
-
- 2. Ange-Jacques Gabriel’s 1756 plan for the Place de la Concorde
preserved at the Archives nationales (illustration taken from the report) - See the image in its page
-
- 3. The Place de la Concorde, as seen by Gabriel in 1763 on a print by
René-Jacques Charpentier (1733-1770) in the BnF collection
(illustration taken from the report) - See the image in its page
However, the charter also states that: "When a building includes the superimposed work of different periods, the revealing of the underlying state can only be justified in exceptional circumstances and when what is removed is of little interest and the material which is brought to light is of great historical, archaeological or aesthetic value, and its state of preservation good enough to justify the action". It is not absurd to imagine that this could justify a return to the first Hittorff state.
-
- 4. The Place de la Concorde around 1854 on an engraving
at the BnF showing the second Hittorff state
(illustration taken from the report) - See the image in its page
All the more so as, although underground networks do not allow us to find the depth of ditches as they existed until the mid-19th century (around 5 meters) everywhere, recent studies have shown that they could be recreated identically in 45% of their original location, while 32% could be recreated to a depth of over two meters, and 25% to a depth of between 50 cm and 1 meter. It’s easy to see how it would be possible to find these ditches on a large part of the square’s sides, while evoking them at other locations. If this is done skilfully, these differences in level will only be visible when approached. As for the question of the balustrades mentioned in the report, this is not difficult to resolve, since they still exist on what formed the inner side of the ditches (ill. 5), and it will therefore suffice to reconstitute those that have disappeared by repeating the same design.
-
- 5. The ditch balustrades, part of which has remained in place and
which will enable the other part to be reconstituted.
Photo: Didier Rykner - See the image in its page
This is where the word " vegetalization" comes in. As we’ve written many times before, the Place de la Concorde was never planted with trees. The only vegetation was in the ditches, and no large trees were ever planned, either by Gabriel or by Hittorff, as the historical study included in the report makes clear. The idea was to create gardens. It’s logical that ditches like these were never intended for this purpose, which is something that doesn’t exist anywhere in French architecture. If trees were indeed planted, whose foliage protruded slightly above the ditches in the early 19th century, they were planted after Gabriel’s death and removed by Hittorff.
As for the square itself, it was only grassed (there was obviously never any question of installing trees) for a very short time. According to the report’s historical survey, it was only laid with grass beds in 1786 (four years after Gabriel’s death), and this lasted just "a few years". This is in no way a historical statement, whether Gabriel or Hittorff, and the report is mistaken (and contradicts its historical study) when it speaks of "former Gabriel garden beds" which therefore do not date from Gabriel.
In fact, one of the recommendations is to "unseal the beds", i.e. part of the square itself. This does not mean installing lawns, and that would be a very bad idea indeed, given that the aim is to return part of the space to pedestrians, who will soon ruin it. The commission envisaged, although it is not written down, that it might be sufficient to remove the joints between the stones covering the floor of the square to allow water to pass through. The report states that this "waterproofing" should be "based on historical studies".
To conclude on the subject of "revegetation", it should be noted that one of the recommendations - "adapting plant species to climatic challenges" - specifies that "the evocation of ditches could accommodate part of this, without the height of their crowns obscuring the façades on either side of the Rue Royale". So there’s no ambiguity: no trees are to be installed on Place de la Concorde, at most shrubs in the ditches.
-
- 6. An ineffective and inelegant sunshade installed by Paris City Hall
in front of the 18th arrondissement town hall. Coming soon to Place de la Concorde?
Photo: tweet by Dominique Dupré-Henry - See the image in its page
On the other hand, the report is ambiguous on two points: when it speaks of the "installation of shade in summer" and the preservation of a "status of popular gathering". On the first point, we can legitimately worry about what these "summer shades" will be, especially if they are left to the discretion of Paris City Hall (ill. 6). With regard to the second, it’s obvious that it’s not shocking that popular events can be organized on an occasional basis in a square that has always hosted them. But the commission was concerned about their number, which is far too high, and their duration, which is far too long, as we’ve seen in recent years (ill. 7 and 8), notably with the Ferris wheel scandal (see all our articles devoted to the square). The report is too timid in addressing this issue, confining itself to "recommending the drafting of a charter setting out the general rules for the use of the square for events, in terms of both the duration of the events hosted and the location and volume of the installations their organization requires, while respecting the maintenance of pedestrian and bicycle flows".
-
- 7. Place de la Concorde in September 2017
Photo: Didier Rykner - See the image in its page
-
- 8. Place de la Concorde in May 2022
Photo: Didier Rykner - See the image in its page
Jean-Jacques Aillagon, the commission’s chairman, whom we questioned on the subject, was reassuring, pointing out in particular that "the program will be submitted to the national heritage commission, in September, and that there will then be a consultation of architects whose jury will be made up by the members of the commission".
So, while we’re a long way from what might have been feared, we’ll remain extremely vigilant. The specifications must be precise and highly restrictive, and only heritage architects must be admitted to the competition. Let’s not forget that we’re in Paris, and that the consultation Anne Hidalgo often boasts about boils down to "if you agree, we’ll do it, if you don’t agree, we’ll do it anyway".