Napoleon and the Rebuilding of Paris by Pinkney - Book Report/Review Example

?Napoleon III and the Rebuilding of Paris In this book, Pinkney tries to paint a picture of Paris, and he shows us that this great was once a humble place, and that Napoleon made a significant effort of rebuilding it. He tells the story of how Napoleon envied the glory of the Caesar’s of Rome. He admired how they were able to build a glorious kingdom, as Napoleon describes it, “a city of marble” (p. 3). Rome was indeed a glorious jewel, the center of the then civilized world. Napoleon wanted to rebuild France and make it resemble the glory that was Rome. It will be seen that, “a few years later, he did restore the empire, styling himself Napoleon the third, and in the two decades after 1850, he rebuilt much of Paris” (p. 3). His desire for glory and honor was what drove him all the way. He wanted to leave a name for himself, so that posterity may remember him. Pinkney endeavours to propose that the present beauty of Paris owes its gratitude to Napoleon, and this he does well in his book. He defends his proposal by elaborating in great detail the efforts that Napoleon put in order for us to be able to enjoy present day Paris. Louis Napoleon Bonaparte had been sent to life imprisonment for charges of trying to overthrow the nation. However, he managed to escape from his prison, and two years later came back to Paris to run for Presidency, which he won. His presidency lasted from 1852 to1870. During his term as President he seriously modified the face of Paris to the beauty that it now is. Many of the beautiful structures that the French people enjoy in Paris owe their gratitude to Napoleon the third. These changes did not come without some resistance, but as President, his vote counted big and he was able to set in motion the building of these beautiful edifices. He made Paris one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Pinkney seems to agree that Napoleon did a good thing in rebuilding Paris, this sentiment is seen in his efforts to elaborates the condition of Paris before Napoleon initiated his changes. He says that, “alley-like streets without issue, slams without light and air, houses without water, boulevards without trees, crowding unrelieved by parks, and sewers spreading noxious odors” (p. 24). This was the condition of Paris before the rebuilding was initiated. This type of condition gave birth to a lot of problems, both physically and psychologically. With the lack of good sanitation, diseases flourished all over the city. A city looking like a peasants abode, is also sure to cause depression and laziness in the minds of the people, because the surrounding can also have a psychological effect to the citizens of the land. Another problem that added to this effect was the fact that many people were migrating from the rural areas to the urban. Therefore the urban became a concentrated place with people striving to own a place to live. This is quite common because most people have a common ideology that the city has more opportunities for income. Which if clearly analysed will prove to be an exaggeration. Napoleon understood that the popular uprisings that were taking place at that time would interfere with his plans in one way or another. Therefore with this problem, he reasoned that, the jobs created by such a program would be so numerous that uprising’s will not only stay clear from his program, but they will also diminish because the people that participated I those uprisings would have job opportunities in this massive citywide program. Therefore, instead of attacking it, they will be the first ones to defend it. Furthermore, if this strategy failed to keep back the uprisings from interfering with his program, he would easily send out an army to the streets and crash out the rebels. With these plans in his mind he rejoiced at the prospect of his program. Whatever problem may choose to arise, he had an answer to it. Napoleon was a man that would do anything in order to accomplish his goals. As the project would commence, it would be realized that, Napoleon was not offered an opportunity to send an army to suppress any unrest. His first plan, jobs being very beneficial to the people that it would lead them to shun protests, proved to be the case. As the people saw a big door of jobs opened, they were joyful, and they all ran to apply for these jobs that had opened. In fact, they were willing to defend the program against any protesters because they knew that it provided bread on their table every day. The author reveals how Napoleon undertook it upon himself to come up with an architectural plan for the new face of Paris. It was noted that, “his visitors often found him surrounded by sketches of landscaping in the Bois de Bologne, or pencil in hand working over a street plan of Paris” (p. 25). He was possessed with the idea of changing the face of Paris and making it the most beautiful city in the world. With this motivation, few people could deter him from carrying out his plans. “On the day when Haussmann took the oath of office as the prefect of the Seine, Napoleon handed to him a map of Paris on which he had drawn in four contrasting colors (the colors indicating the relative urgency he attached to each of project) the streets that he proposed to build” (p. 25). It was said that this design was what was used to rebuild the famed city. Although modifications were made to it as time progressed, its basic concepts were held intact, and the outcome, what we see now, is greatly the concepts of Napoleon. He saw that the city’s roads were narrow, houses were cramped together, therefore in his design he established wider roads, spaces between major buildings, he even proposed the establish of city parks to help cut the monotony of buildings and help bring peace of mind to the daily travellers. The people could go to these public parks, sit or lie down and just behold the beauty of the city all around them. It could also be a great opportunity for them to meet more people and get acquainted with more of their fellow Parisian citizens. Despite the fact that Napoleon laid the design for the new Paris, his term as President ended before the work of rebuilding was finished. He left the work in the hands of Haussmann and other people to carry out the work to completion. Since the work was left in Haussmann’s hands, he felt the need of appointing somebody to help him with the work. For it would not be wise to undertake such a great task if one did not have all the skill needed to accomplish it. Pinkney describes as follows, “the service was fairly infested with opportunities for graft and fraud, and Haussmann wanted at the head of it a man who was not only technically competent but also inaccessible to outside influences and a stern example of integrity for his subordinates” (p. 48). With the presence of another man at his side, he would be sure that his draft plans could be evaluated before he reveals it to the construction team. One of the main areas that needed rebuilding was the water supply. The water system of the city was very poor. Most houses did not get enough water, and those that got water, its quality was not very good. This is why Pinkney says, “the improvement of the water supply stood high among Haussmann’s aims from the first months of his career as prefect of the Seine” (p. 105). This urgency of water supply improvement was not only realized by Haussmann, but, many people around the city shared the same thought. As the design for the water system was being carried out a number of water companies realized the benefits they could get from connecting themselves with this project. Private business saw that they could get money by selling the water, so they joined the project. In his book, Pinkney mentions that, “in 1853, five different companies presented plans to the city for taking over all or part of the municipal water system, and they all proposed to make heavy expenditure on expanding it” (p. 105). One of his water projects was centred on the Loire River, for this was a fairly big source of reliable water. Furthermore, it would not make good sense to go other far places while there was a genuine water source nearby. He negotiated with a private company that proposed to build a derivation canal from the Loire to Paris, to sell the city some 100,000,000 gallons of water daily, but nothing came of the water. In 1850, the total water supply of the city amounted to only 27,000,000 gallon of water a day. If it could have been distributed, the average supply for each of the city’s inhabitants would have been but 26 gallons daily. When Hausmann left the prefecture in 1870, he had raised the average to 50 gallons and the completion of the derivation of the Vanne added as significant amount.” (125) The project of rebuilding Paris was not always smooth. There were instances where miscommunication between the project leaders and the people residing in the area to be reconstructed took place. One instance of this was when they were rebuilding the wall. There was two roadways adjoining the wall, one was inside, while the other was outside. Pinkney himself explains better this situation. “Despite their earnest efforts to inform everyone, affected by the measure and to hear all objections, the government and Haussmann had neglected one interested group. No one had told the city’s horses of the change. They continued to stop unbidden for the Octroi inspection at the old gates, and their drivers had to make them move on.” (p. 173). This is one of the instances that miscommunication or negligence as some would put it lead to instances that needed clarification. As the rebuilding project continued the city started to have problems financially. This led to a halting of some of the structures that were in progress, and this affected many people. Pinkney mentions that, “builders, construction workers, property owners, and businessmen by the hundreds urged immediate revival of the generous program of earlier years, and from every corner of the city, residents protested the indispensability of completion of suspended projects in their districts” (p. 209). This citywide complaint proved to be effective because, “at the end of June, the council ministers took the initiative in proposing an additional municipal loan of 140,000,000 francs to finance completion of two of Haussmann’s major projects, the Avenue de l’Opera and the Boulevard Saint Germaine, and a few lesser projects” (p. 209). This helped suppress some of the complaints while they looked for ways to get the finances to cover the other projects whose progress was still on halt. As the proposal for the loan arrived to the legislative committee, it was immediately accepted. But though this brought joy to many, it was not to last. The events that took place are described by Pinkney as follows, “the day, in which the city’s budget came before the Legislative Body, France declared war on Prussia Committee and Ministry dropped the recommendations on loans and eliminated most of the appropriations for new public works” (p. 209). This interference greatly saddened the people that had stakes in this program. Many people had hoped to gain big from this generous public program initiated by the city leaders. This moved the Parisian leaders to take their case the government in behalf of the people. Pinkney says that, “Deputies protested that the revised budget would throw 100,000 construction workers out of jobs, and the government agreed to restore some of the cuts. But within eight weeks after the approval of the Paris budget was besieged, its energies and resources concentrated on survival” (209). It took a significant amount of time and effort both from the Paris leaders and the Parisians to be able to complete the building of that great plan that was written by Napoleon the third. Many people did not want to let the efforts of Napoleon to come to nothing so they took it upon themselves to make sure that the building was completed. It is suggested by many that people ought to thank Haussmann for what Paris is today, but the proposal of Pinkney is that the praises should go to the man that initiated the project in the first place. If it was not because of Napoleon the third, Paris would still be as it was during the medieval times. It was Napoleon that had the courage to step up and propose that a change should take place. This was very hard, because most people do not welcome change easily. They see it as a massive undertaking that requires a lot of time and effort that is why most people are contented in staying in the same conditions. Napoleon set in motion the ball, but Haussmann helped keep the ball rolling, and it will be said that other people caught the enthusiasm and helped bring the ball to its destination. Works Cited: Pinkney, David H. Napoleon III and the Rebuilding of Paris. Michigan: Textbook Publishers, 2003. Read More