I am experiencing some francophile rage and indignation and a deep sense of loss. I’ll share. Of course.
It started with Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Paris métro station, that is, and my absolute favorite. I rarely had cause to take the 1 line as far as that, and when I did, I kept telling myself that I would hop off and take some pictures next time. I live here. Plenty of time, right?
Wrong. One day a few months ago, I rolled into FDR and, to my horror, it had been stripped. It sat there cold and naked and shivering. The station had been betrayed and violated. I felt betrayed and violated. Those bastards.
Fortunately, other people did take pictures…
Love that font. (We’re into fonts.) Love the orange with the semi-opaque glass and the shiny metal. Love the seat separators. Love the design.
Now, I’m sure plenty of people thought the FDR station was an abomination when it was created because of its incongruity with the older stations. (Many, including me, thought that of the pyramid at the Louvre and the Beaubourg, although I’ve changed my tune on the pyramid.) The FDR station was done in the distinct style of a specific era. I know enough to recognize its specialness, and guess that it’s from the post WWII era, but I don’t know enough design history to say more than that. Maybe you do? In any case, I love that look. (It would make a fabulous kitchen, wouldn’t it?)
Ever since I got here, two and a half years ago, journalists and talking heads have been whining about how Paris has become “a museum city.” (No shit, Sherlock. Why do you think you get more tourists here than any other city in the world?) And your point is?
Over the last few months, I’ve been taking the métro more than usual and noticing more and more naked stations… Then, not long ago, I started seeing these posters appear in the stations…
…promising a métro that is “simpler, brighter, more beautiful, and new.”
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Do you think tourists come here for spiffy, shiny, generic new métro stations? Non, merci. Shiny and new and generic we have plenty of (at least where I come from).
The city of Paris is like Jeanne Moreau. Old. Yes, old. To use a euphemism would be an insult. Paris and Jeanne don’t need to worry about their wrinkles because they are both still gorgeous. Mesmerizing. They exude a powerful, irresistible, animal sexual/sensual attraction. Paris is more than a moveable feast. It’s an orgy.
I say leave it alone.
Maybe the city government thinks they’re doing Parisians a favor. After all, a responsible government should put the needs and wants of its citizenry before those of tourists… (But then again, when tourism accounts for a massive chunk of your GDP, you gotta keep that in mind too.) I do actually see lots of advertising for a company called IMMONEUF. Evidently there is quite a market for the Paris equivalent of tract homes and brand-spanking new apartment buildings. I can’t imagine who in their right mind would choose that over the delectable parquet-moulures-cheminée (wood floors, crown molding, fireplace).
I’m afraid what’s happening here is that the City of Paris is tossing all the vintage Chanel out of the Parisian closet and replacing it with Isaac Mizrahi for Target… I’m honestly worried that the renovations they are undertaking today might end up as generic, artistically insignificant and lacking in personality as most of today’s websites are. Coming from a place where lowered standards, homogenization and expediency are the norm, I dread seeing it happen here.
I still have hope, however, that the French flair for style and design, their attention to the tiniest aesthetic detail, their pride in their unique and extraordinary capital will prevail. Will the new métro stations be a pure delight to behold? Or will they simply be utilitarian public transport spaces…
I’ll keep you posted.
I recommend global moxie’s great post on the same, sad topic. I stumbled across it when I was looking for some info on the design of the FDR station. Nice to know I’m not alone.
I’m sorry to say your post is full of inaccuracies, false assumptions and misinterpretations.
Really old subway stations from the early 20th century have been and are being restored to their original splendor. Hideous stations from the 70s are mercifully being redesigned.
When Paris is derided as being a “Ville Musée”, it is to denounce the fact that it is dying or dead. Many (like Martine Aubry yesterday) think Paris is “bourgeois et donc chiant (boring)”.
Building codes are very strict in the city and you can’t build modern stuff in the middle of Hausmannien buildings without approval. Building hight is limited, etc.
Outside of the city, new buildings are, well, new… People often don’t have the means to live in nice old buildings within the city and have to settle for modern apartments in the suburbs.
So the point is, you can relax. Paris isn’t going to change much if at all within the 20 arrondissements. Some would say, unfortunately. I for one, as a Parisian, am a huge fan of both Beaubourg and the Pyramide du Louvre.
So FDR was not really old, but it was not hideous. How do you explain that they have not restored it? It was worth saving.
As for the museum city definition, I may not know what they mean exactly. How can they think it’s dead or dying? I see a vibrant city that is one of the intellectual/philosophical capitals of the world. There’s more going on here than practically anywhere else. What criteria are they using? Economic? The only thing I see that is museum-like about Paris is that the city structures are preserved like museum pieces, down to the last doorknob. Inside those old buildings are lively modern businesses…
I disagree that the FDR station was worth saving. I lump it into the “hideous” 70s category.
As for the museum city, many would disagree with what you said in your comment, especially when you say “There’s more going on here than practically anywhere else”. Compared to other European cities, Paris is small, and rests on its architectural laurels, and past intellectual glory, and is much less culturally vibrant than cities like London or Berlin. In other words, for better or for worse, it is a city that lives in the past, compared to many other European cities that are home to the avant-garde…
It looks older than 70s to me, but you know a lot more about design than I do. And I don’t know what Paris 70s looked like, just what California 70s looked like. Anyway, I like 70s kitsch. Would totally dig a kitchen like that.
As for the other cities you mention, I have no idea. Again, I only know what I know. There’s more thinking going on in Paris’s pinkie than in America’s brain…
It’s not 70s:
The station was renovated after the Second World War and the work introduced a new artistic technique known as “gemmail,” which is often called “block glass” or “glass brick” in English. Sometimes it is also called a “station musée” (station-museum). While one can find some of the glass brick along the platform for Line 9, more of it can be found in along the platform serving Line 1. The inauguration of the finished station involved a large ceremony on the night of March 1, 1957, with two ramps equipped with tables of food for the invited guests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt_(Paris_M%C3%A9tro)
I said I lumped it in with the 70s stations as not worth saving, in my opinion.
Personally, I don’t mind things changing a bit. Then again, it used to be possible to eat half-decent food in your average Parisian café. No more. Now prefab crap is served at exorbitant prices to clueless tourists who don’t know better.
Could you hand me the USB key?
Get it yourself. :-)
It is the mistake that is made over and over in the states, tear down the old and bring in the new that is not as good as the old. Tourists come to Paris to see Jean Moureau, not Isaac from Target. I have Isaac from Target all around me and it costs me nothing to see it and no planes and passports are required.
Hi Belette.
I hope Vincent is right and that only the drab and plain stations (because there were plenty of those) will get a whole new look, while others will be preserved. But I really can’t fathom why they didn’t save FDR!
I hope they put some of the FDR station back together in a museum somewhere…
Lorsque j’était enfant, je prenais le métro à la Porte de la Chapelle. Je quittais définitivement la grisaille de la banlieue nord. La station Franklin D. Roosevelt représentait alors l’inaccessible, le monde du bonheur et du luxe. Je n’y descendais jamais. Je préférais sortir à Champs Elysées Clémenceau… puis je remontais à pieds les Champs… en rêvant. A cette époque le Metro sentait très bon et on vous faisait un petit trou dans le ticket pour prouver que vous l’aviez bien acheté.
Bonjour Marc. Les souvenirs d’une enfance parisienne (ou presque)… Vous avez de la chance. Vous avez sans doute vu la station FDR toute neuve et brillante. J’aurais aimé voir cela.
Merci d’avoir partagé ces souvenirs ! Vous devriez avoir un blog…