A number of recent events, which entailed the government canceling architecture rather than stimulating it, demonstrate that a fundamental change has come about in the approach to present-day architecture in France. In order to understand how the ‘Grands Travaux’ (1981-1995) could result in a period of architectural sabotage, one should consider the exercise of power in the current political system, the Fifth Republic. This constitution, tailor-made for General de Gaulle in 1958, restricts the role of parliament, but strengthens the power of the president. As a polity, the Fifth Republic traces a kind of arc: its birth under de Gaulle, rise and flourishing under Georges Pompidou and Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, decline during Mitterrand’s ‘regal reign’ and the collapse of the constitution under Jacques Chirac, an implosion of the political system.1

This movement is followed by a line in architecture, ending at the insignificant place innovative projects are currently accorded. Here, architecture is linked to the authorities, by way of state commissions, regulations and all manner of interference. The greedy state has stopped a flourishing liberal economy from coming about, meaning that firms do not actively feature in public space and little of what is built is contemporary. French society, saddled with an outdated political system, cannot adjust to new developments and, as a reaction, focuses on the past, with historicizing buildings forming a fitting backcloth for that attitude.

It is impossible to meet the reforms required by European liberalization and globalized competition with the inefficient apparatus that the Fifth Republic represents. French politicians are aware of that and so offer the electorate impossible protectionist promises, vague ecological plans and cycle paths. The crisis in architecture can be understood when seen in a political context: bound as it is to the inefficient state machinery, it is also incapable of meeting present-day demands of the multicultural metropolis and citizens’ expectations. Moreover, the influence of the strict hierarchy within the Republic explains the aversion to true democracy and participation, in architecture as well.

Architecture is spellbound by power, hopefully awaiting the next overwhelming monument, the quality of housing or urban planning is the least of its worries. In other words: symbolizing façade architecture (treatment of the symptoms) is preferred to liveable spatial architecture (urban ‘healing’).

The authorities are also in charge of communication on architecture by means of exhibitions; it is either made for an elite – Beaubourg – or directed in propaganda terms by the city council – Pavillon de l’Arsenal2: no effort is made to acquaint the general public with contemporary projects. The outcome is that the French house-owner, a hundred years after Le Corbusier raised the matter3, still parks that piece of contemporary design, his car, in front of a home that looks as if it had been built in 1850. Contemporary architecture – monopolized by the state, as an art form reserved for insiders, and not promoted – does not even exist for the majority of the population.

For the complete article, get VOLUME #5 2005 !