At the end of this month, the last tenants will vacate the Tour Montparnasse in Paris to make way for its renovation. Nouvelle AOM, a collective of architects formed to respond to the project's international design competition, first won the commission back in 2017. And initially, the plan was to complete the renovation in time for the Paris Olympics in 2024.
But that time came and went, as it does, and now construction is starting this year. Nouvelle AOM, which includes Franklin Azzi Architecture, ChartierDalix Architectes, and Hardel Le Bihan Architectes, is in charge of the tower. And Renzo Piano Building Workshop is in charge of redesigning the commercial podium at the tower's base.
We've spoken about the Tour Montparnasse many times over the years on the blog (here, here, and here). Parisians customarily hate it, and after visiting it in 2023, I can confirm that it's desperately in need of a renovation, and that the ground plane experience is abysmal at best. It is of that era where grandiose "slab-based planning" was going to elevate us beyond the pathologies of fine-grained urbanism.
Here's a Google image from atop the site's enormous podium:
What's interesting about the design from Renzo Piano is that it will reuse a lot of the structure that's already in place. The plan is to carefully open up the site, stitch it back together with the surrounding urban context, and then build up from there. Importantly, at the centre of the project will be a large, planted piazza that is intended to become a new civic space for the community.
The project renovations are expected to last until "at least 2030." So, we have several years until we'll know if it's an urban and financial success. But my prediction is that this project will positively transform how Parisians think about the Tour Montparnasse, and maybe how they think about tall buildings.
The tower itself will, of course, need to be beautiful. It's a highly visible object. There's only a trifecta of buildings and structures inside Paris proper that exceed 150 meters in height: the Eiffel Tower, Tour Montparnasse, and the Tour Triangle (Herzog & de Meuron), which is currently under construction and expected to finish this year. In this case, architecture is not irrelevant.
But it is the ground plane experience that will ultimately revitalize the area and demonstrate that tall buildings can be good urban neighbours, even in a sea of Haussmannian mid-rise buildings. I've said before that the reconfiguration of the podium is arguably the project's most crucial design move.
Get it right and you'll see what happens.
Cover photo by Luxigon via Nouvelle AOM
Aerial and street view photos from Google
Model photos from Renzo Piano Building Workshop
Last week, we spoke about one of Toronto's failures when it comes to new "missing middle" housing, namely our inability to look forward to the Toronto of tomorrow, as opposed to only thinking about the Toronto of today. But let's not forget that there are greater biases at play here influencing these outcomes.
Beneath our concerns about not enough parking (how dare you wage a war on the car?) and congruency with neighbourhood character is a deeply rooted aversion toward higher-density apartment living; one that is arguably most prevalent in the English-speaking world.
Consider Toronto's response to the handsome Spadina Gardens apartment building at the start of the 20th century. We were certain that only people of questionable moral fibre would ever want to live in a four-storey apartment block!
Since then, we've become far more open-minded, but survey people in the Anglosphere about whether they'd like to live in an elegant Parisian block, and you'll often discover a stark preference for detached housing. In contrast, survey people on the European continent, or in Asia, and you'll often see different preferences.
Combine these preferences with the common law system prevalent throughout English-speaking countries — where individuals can more easily object to and block projects if, you know, the "vibe" is off — and the broad result is very different housing outcomes. There's data to suggest that civil law countries tend to build more housing.
London has an ambitious housing target of 88,000 new homes per year — yes, per year — over the next decade. This is part of a broader national goal to create upwards of 1.5 million homes in the UK. It's an admirable goal, but the city appears destined to fail. According to a recent FT article by John Burn-Murdoch (their chief data reporter), London saw just 5,891 housing starts last year, which is 94% below its annual target and which represents a 75% year-over-year decline. When compared to many other global cities, London now ranks at or near the bottom when it comes to new homes per 1,000 residents:
At the end of this month, the last tenants will vacate the Tour Montparnasse in Paris to make way for its renovation. Nouvelle AOM, a collective of architects formed to respond to the project's international design competition, first won the commission back in 2017. And initially, the plan was to complete the renovation in time for the Paris Olympics in 2024.
But that time came and went, as it does, and now construction is starting this year. Nouvelle AOM, which includes Franklin Azzi Architecture, ChartierDalix Architectes, and Hardel Le Bihan Architectes, is in charge of the tower. And Renzo Piano Building Workshop is in charge of redesigning the commercial podium at the tower's base.
We've spoken about the Tour Montparnasse many times over the years on the blog (here, here, and here). Parisians customarily hate it, and after visiting it in 2023, I can confirm that it's desperately in need of a renovation, and that the ground plane experience is abysmal at best. It is of that era where grandiose "slab-based planning" was going to elevate us beyond the pathologies of fine-grained urbanism.
Here's a Google image from atop the site's enormous podium:
What's interesting about the design from Renzo Piano is that it will reuse a lot of the structure that's already in place. The plan is to carefully open up the site, stitch it back together with the surrounding urban context, and then build up from there. Importantly, at the centre of the project will be a large, planted piazza that is intended to become a new civic space for the community.
The project renovations are expected to last until "at least 2030." So, we have several years until we'll know if it's an urban and financial success. But my prediction is that this project will positively transform how Parisians think about the Tour Montparnasse, and maybe how they think about tall buildings.
The tower itself will, of course, need to be beautiful. It's a highly visible object. There's only a trifecta of buildings and structures inside Paris proper that exceed 150 meters in height: the Eiffel Tower, Tour Montparnasse, and the Tour Triangle (Herzog & de Meuron), which is currently under construction and expected to finish this year. In this case, architecture is not irrelevant.
But it is the ground plane experience that will ultimately revitalize the area and demonstrate that tall buildings can be good urban neighbours, even in a sea of Haussmannian mid-rise buildings. I've said before that the reconfiguration of the podium is arguably the project's most crucial design move.
Get it right and you'll see what happens.
Cover photo by Luxigon via Nouvelle AOM
Aerial and street view photos from Google
Model photos from Renzo Piano Building Workshop
Last week, we spoke about one of Toronto's failures when it comes to new "missing middle" housing, namely our inability to look forward to the Toronto of tomorrow, as opposed to only thinking about the Toronto of today. But let's not forget that there are greater biases at play here influencing these outcomes.
Beneath our concerns about not enough parking (how dare you wage a war on the car?) and congruency with neighbourhood character is a deeply rooted aversion toward higher-density apartment living; one that is arguably most prevalent in the English-speaking world.
Consider Toronto's response to the handsome Spadina Gardens apartment building at the start of the 20th century. We were certain that only people of questionable moral fibre would ever want to live in a four-storey apartment block!
Since then, we've become far more open-minded, but survey people in the Anglosphere about whether they'd like to live in an elegant Parisian block, and you'll often discover a stark preference for detached housing. In contrast, survey people on the European continent, or in Asia, and you'll often see different preferences.
Combine these preferences with the common law system prevalent throughout English-speaking countries — where individuals can more easily object to and block projects if, you know, the "vibe" is off — and the broad result is very different housing outcomes. There's data to suggest that civil law countries tend to build more housing.
London has an ambitious housing target of 88,000 new homes per year — yes, per year — over the next decade. This is part of a broader national goal to create upwards of 1.5 million homes in the UK. It's an admirable goal, but the city appears destined to fail. According to a recent FT article by John Burn-Murdoch (their chief data reporter), London saw just 5,891 housing starts last year, which is 94% below its annual target and which represents a 75% year-over-year decline. When compared to many other global cities, London now ranks at or near the bottom when it comes to new homes per 1,000 residents:
Cover photo by Clarisse Croset on Unsplash
Burn-Murdoch cites a multitude of factors responsible for this suboptimal performance: onerous new safety standards following the horrific 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, more stringent environmental regulations (compared to other European countries), the disappearance of international buyers in the residential buy-to-let market, and increased demand for non-residential uses. What is obvious is that building safety is paramount and nothing like what happened with the Grenfell Tower should ever happen again. But with ~281,000 new homes approved but financially unviable, there does appear to be a desire to balance safety with supply.
His third point is an interesting one in that parallels have played out in Toronto's new condominium market. The pejorative narrative of "foreigners taking homes away from locals" is commonplace in cities all around the world, which is why Canada ultimately moved to temporarily ban foreign buyers. But what we start to see here is the impact on overall housing supply. Indeed, a 2017 study from LSE (cited in the above FT article) found that international capital and residential pre-sales are essential ingredients in de-risking high-density projects and promoting greater housing supply.
Tying this all together, what has happened is the creation of an interdependency: we have made new housing developments so complicated and onerous to construct that the only financially feasible way to build them is to amortize all of the required time and money across bigger projects. Then, given the scale and cost of these projects, they have become dependent on investors and international capital to provide financing. Raise interest rates, remove the capital source, and then all of a sudden you have far less housing than 88,000 new homes per year.
It is for reasons like these that I get frustrated when critics simply blame developers or investors for shortcomings in a housing market. Finding villains is a lot easier than doing the difficult work of unpacking what's really going on and coming up with solutions.
Cover photo by Gonzalo Sanchez on Unsplash
Chart from the Financial Times
Cover photo by Clarisse Croset on Unsplash
Burn-Murdoch cites a multitude of factors responsible for this suboptimal performance: onerous new safety standards following the horrific 2017 Grenfell Tower fire, more stringent environmental regulations (compared to other European countries), the disappearance of international buyers in the residential buy-to-let market, and increased demand for non-residential uses. What is obvious is that building safety is paramount and nothing like what happened with the Grenfell Tower should ever happen again. But with ~281,000 new homes approved but financially unviable, there does appear to be a desire to balance safety with supply.
His third point is an interesting one in that parallels have played out in Toronto's new condominium market. The pejorative narrative of "foreigners taking homes away from locals" is commonplace in cities all around the world, which is why Canada ultimately moved to temporarily ban foreign buyers. But what we start to see here is the impact on overall housing supply. Indeed, a 2017 study from LSE (cited in the above FT article) found that international capital and residential pre-sales are essential ingredients in de-risking high-density projects and promoting greater housing supply.
Tying this all together, what has happened is the creation of an interdependency: we have made new housing developments so complicated and onerous to construct that the only financially feasible way to build them is to amortize all of the required time and money across bigger projects. Then, given the scale and cost of these projects, they have become dependent on investors and international capital to provide financing. Raise interest rates, remove the capital source, and then all of a sudden you have far less housing than 88,000 new homes per year.
It is for reasons like these that I get frustrated when critics simply blame developers or investors for shortcomings in a housing market. Finding villains is a lot easier than doing the difficult work of unpacking what's really going on and coming up with solutions.
Cover photo by Gonzalo Sanchez on Unsplash
Chart from the Financial Times
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
