The concept of the progression of society is timeless and it often is crucial for innovation and growth. Paris, one of the most iconic and well-known cities in the world today, went through a complex and drastic change in the 19th century. In a city consumed by economic and social issues, there were great possibilities of future crisis and destruction, yet still some had hope and an opportunist point of view. In the book, Paris, ‘Capital of Modernity’, author David Harvey, argues that some of the reasons for the re-planning Paris include the surplus of capital and labor power, the need for improvement of infrastructure, and due to the political climate.
In the mid-19th century, Paris was going through a rough situation. Harvey states that the population increased from 786,000 to 1,000,000 from 1831 to 1846 (Harvey, 93). The crisis of overpopulation led to underemployment and a surplus of capital and labor power which was simply not profitable. There were harvest failures in 1847 which resulted in people desperate for employment. The surplus of labor and capital power resulted in many tangible effects such as; crime, disease, overpopulation as well as mental and emotional effects of human misery and degradation. However, the crisis was viewed in various ways by the various groups of people as it affected groups of people differently. For example, craft workers saw this as a loss of respect and were insecure about future employment opportunities due to the capitalist control of production and distribution (Harvey, 97). The economy was clearly at a low point and was directly affecting the people.
Despite overpopulation being an issue, the surplus of capital became of use as it was used in the long-term investment of the city through construction, mining, railroad work, etc. The concept of space relations does not only reflect the physical changes but also have complex social effects. Many other European countries began improving infrastructure and manufacturing in an efficient manner, and this only further showed the importance of how Paris needed to as well. Despite having enhanced labor in the 1830’s revolution, Paris has been adapting to previous methods rather than having a strong and concrete plan for new, innovative change. The need for improvement of infrastructure was clear not just for Paris but for many European countries for the chance to truly move forward in the long term.
In 1852, Louis Napoleon declared: “We have immense uncultivated lands to clear, roads to open, harbors to excavate, rivers to make navigable, canals to finish, our railway network to complete” (Harvey, 107). In 1853, Haussmann became prefect of the Seine and was given the task of replanning the city. Paris became the hub of the new rail network as it was the main market and manufacturing center. As Paris was suffering economically, the fact that Paris was centralized made Paris for accessible for international markets and made it gain access to export markets as well. There were railroads and construction sites to organize the transport and communication systems which were previously very unorganized and chaotic filled with crowds and discomfort. In addition, separating people by class in railway stations also allowed for more privacy which led to a better social dynamic with the overpopulation conflicts. There were also improvements and restructuring in churches, schools, hotels, and other interior spaces as there more investments in these areas. Haussmann even built a city hall for administrative reasons and this helped establish a more concrete and authoritative platform which helped with the political atmosphere. One of the key realizations during all this was just because work was not profitable does not mean it is not productive. When seeking a long-term view and improving infrastructure for the future, the surplus labor and capital were put to use with the circulation of capital. As Harvey states, “The orientation of new transport systems reemphasized, for example, the tendency toward centralization of administration, finance, economy, and population in Paris” (Harvey, 114).
The change in infrastructure also affected the gender stereotypes affecting women in the 19th century. The retail revolution sparked an evolution as department stores were a big hit especially among women who became more comfortable going to stores where they were still ‘indoors’ but experiencing the outside world without judgement about their character especially from men. This also played a role in the shift of ‘gender roles’ of women and gave them the freedom and normality of going outside, which they had not had much of before. Women gaining this new freedom also affected the long-term outlook of the workforce and the economic aspects in relation to labor power. In addition, there were more tourists because of the improvement of the infrastructure and this has positively impacted the growth of the economy as well.
The political climate also played a significant role in the change in the 19th century. Paris workers began losing their rights to work as the government became more conservative in the beginning of 1848. The people rebelled against this idea against the government in the February Revolution, until Napoleon was elected at the end of 1848. The fact that Napoleon was elected meant that the socialist and democratic views were indeed popular among Parisians. Napoleon accomplished a lot for France in the time when he ruled. He encouraged modernity and the empire was a crucial shift in French politics which helped bring together the institutions of nations. He helped improve traffic circulation between rail stations and into the civic center, slim clearance around the city center, and improved access to the central market of Les Halles.
Haussmann always wanted the idea of evolution and breaking away from the past and it was through his ideologies and determination, that inspired the replanning of Paris. Through his understanding of the economic significance to his great attention to detail, he was able to replan Paris in a way that was not only visually appealing but economically feasible. Haussmann was so influential that the term ‘Haussmannization’ actually refers to the continuation of the urban transformation which he initiated. Under Napoleon's rule, Haussmann created a strategy for ensuring that the investments would not be an extra cost to taxpayers since they were productive for society and by using tax called ‘octroi’ on goods imported from Paris. However, the investments in the infrastructures did result in a large increase of debt, from 163 million francs to 2500 million francs from 1853 to 1870. Haussmann relied on the employment of citizens to ensure the prosperity of Paris rather than welfare, school systems, and other means. The concept or surveillance became a big movement in the Second Empire.
In conclusion, Harvey has shown how the factors of surplus labor and capital, the need for infrastructure improvement, and the political climate have helped reshape and restructure Paris. Harvey shows how the economic, social, and political factors all played a role in the reasons as to why the restructuring of Paris was necessary. A city is not changed in a day, and the change can never truly be anticipated, but slowly and steadily, it can be looked back upon as we see how those changes have resulted in the improvement of Paris.