I am reading about Napoleon's nephew, Napoleon III, who was President of the Second French Republic from 1848-1852 and then Emperor from 1852-1870, under what is called "The Second Empire." He is most remembered for re-building the city of Paris, thus making it the most beautiful city on earth.

What many modern folk forget, though, is that Paris was principally redesigned not for aesthetic, but for authoritarian purposes, namely, crowd control. As such, studying the 19th century redesign of the "City of Lights" affords important lessons applicable to modern day urban-renewal and gentrification programs and also informs ongoing discussions about the relationship between urban, suburban and inner-city spaces in the United States.

What follows is a brief discussion of Napoleon III and his "Second Empire," as well as an in-depth analysis of his redesign of Paris.

I. Summary of Napoleon III

We are all familiar with the name of Napoleon, the French general who came to power by way of coup d' etat and overthrew the First Republic, thus ending the French Revolution and the ostensibly egalitarian democratic republic it gave birth to. Napoleon is best known for his classic, bicorn hat, posing for paintings with his hand over his stomach, and conquering most of Europe during a 20 year-long conflict named after him, the Napoleonic Wars. After his defeat by the British and Prussians at Waterloo in 1815, he was exiled to a lonely island in the south Atlantic named St. Helena, where he died in 1821. What most people don't know is that the Bonaparte Dynasty didn't end with him. It was revived in the mid 19th century by his nephew, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, later known as Napoleon III. 

Napoleon III was not a military genius like his famous uncle, but he did initiate many sweeping social, legal, political and foreign policy reforms in France, undoing the republican reversals and foreign policy setbacks suffered under the Bourbon and Orleanist Restorations of 1815-1851.

Under his watch, France was no longer in a state of constant geopolitical conflict with Britain, which led to decreased military spending, a balancing of the national debt and finances and increased efforts for national economic greatness. The rising threat of Prussia/Germany in the east caused France and Britain to become close, albeit still suspicious, allies (memories of Napoleon I always lurked beneath the surface). During this time, France experienced rapid industrialization (with the help of British investment) as well as revitalized efforts to acquire colonies abroad, particularly in Algeria and sub-Saharan Africa, as well as in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, particularly in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Polynesia.

Although Napoleon I conquered most of Europe, his reign simultaneously experienced the complete divestment of French colonial territory in the New World (namely, the highly lucrative territories of Louisiana and Haiti), thus robbing its access to cheap North American commodities like fur and timber as well as Carribean sugar and slave-labor. Because France still retained lingering feelings of national resentment over these losses, as well as the fact that he wanted to undo this blot upon the reputation of his uncle, Napoleon III was committed to restoring a strong French imperial presence in the Western Hemisphere.

As such, Napoleon III created the penal colony of Devil's Island, off the coast of French Guiana in South America. Here, rather than spend money on jails and protecting the civil rights of imprisoned French citizens, they were sent thousands of miles away to a cheap place where they could be brutalized and used as slave labor on sugar cane plantations. The outpost would also serve as a military base of sorts, where agents and operatives could co-ordinate actions with naval installations in the Lesser Antilles, from which Napoleon III hoped to launch various planned conquests in the region.

These policies led to Napoleon III's successful invasion and occupation of Mexico, organized under the pretext of protecting French investors, due to the fact that Mexico defaulted on its enormous national debt to France. Because the United States was experiencing severe domestic turmoul during this time, due to rising political instability and the Civil War, it could not enforce the Monroe Doctrine, rendering it unable to intervene. As such, Napoleon III installed a puppet Emperor in Mexico by the name of Maximillian. Through Maximillian, (an Austrian Hapsburg and Archduke) Napoleon III provided the Confederate States of America with countless forms of covert military and financial assistance. He even went so far as to build numerous blockade-running vessels for the CSA in France, because he was promised exclusive shipping rights for southern cotton, if the CSA was able to win.

In any event,  Maximillian's rule in Mexico was a total failure, aside from bringing accordian music and numerous Vienese-style lager beers to the region, the most famous of which became known as "Corona." In any event, the Mexicans eventually revolted and overthrew Maximillian, an event celebrated in Mexico during the holiday of Cinco de Mayo.  

In Europe, Napoleon III gave enormous military and financial assistance to Garibaldi and Louis Cavour, King of Sardinia (of the House of Savoy) in their attempt to remove Austrian influence from Italy (Austria owned much of the Italian Piedmont as well as Venice, Florence and various other artistically endowed cities in the region) and unify the entire peninsula under a single government. Resulting French tensions with Austria and its fellow German ally, Prussia (which had been building), led to the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. This led to the widespread destruction of much of Paris (particularly the poorer areas), the collapse of the Second Empire, the short-lived Paris Commune of 1871, the establishment of a unified German Empire under Prussian leadership (the so-called "Second Reich"), and Napoleon III's exile to Great Britain. From this period up until the Vichy Regime of 1940-1944, France would be democratic and governed by the Constitution of the so-called "Third Republic."

Despite Napoleon III's enormous impact on 19th century international affairs, he will perhaps most famously be remembered for totally redesigning the ugly, crowded and congested city of Paris and turning it into the most beautiful city on earth.

What follows is an analysis of the class-bias and authoritarian intentions underlying this massive policy. It is a story that provides us with many lessons today, as we grapple with issues of declining democratic mores, increasing socio-economic divisions and the role played by urban renewal, urban redesign and gentrification upon the same.

II. Urban Reform, Renewal and Redesign in Second Empire Paris 

Historically, the crowded, dense medieval city streets of Paris were always spatially and geographically conducive to rebellion. They could be barricaded, turning entire sectors of the city into veritable fortresses from which large mobs could gather, organize and mobilize for assaults upon monarchist/authoritarian strongholds within Paris, such as the Bastille in 1789.

_{A narrow, medieval street in Paris. These streets were the norm, rather than the exception, in the Paris that existed prior to the Second Empire. The ease with which the working-classes could barricade such streets wasn't lost on the governing elites.}

Throughout the Bourbon Restoration, numerous mini-revolutions, rebellions and insurrections took place in Paris, due to the Bourbon and later, Orleanist attempts to rescind various rights won by the people during the First French Revolution and regime of Napoleon I. There was further rebellion under the Orleanist regime of Charles X, because he was in thrall to big bankers, who were destroying the French economy and causing its industry, agriculture and manufacturing to spiral downwards into an irreparable decline.

Although these later, post-Napoleonic rebellions, most famously illustrated in Victor Hugo's book, Les Miserables (later a famous musical), were always suppressed, they were still able to take advantage of the narrow corridors and winding streets of Paris, with secret alleyways, tunnels and approaches. Turned over carts, barrels, stones from semi-demolished buildings were sufficient to totally blockade streets and prevent government infantry, cavalry and artillery from successfully being brought-to-bear upon pro-democratic patriots. Although subsequent revolutions and revolts were never as successful as the one in 1789 (elites learned their lesson fast, especially in regard to the need to infiltrate working-class organizations, acquire intelligence about the same and used armed force at the initial outbreak of street violence), these narrow, medieval streets always posed a great challenge to authorities, even if they did, in the end, win the ultimate victory.

_{This pre-Second Empire map of Paris shows its narrow streets and lack of broad, central avenues and boulevards. This prevented troops and police from responding to various, often simultaneous civil insurrections and emergencies in various parts of the city. The geographical/spatial difficulty faced by elites in navigating the Parisian streets was a strong factor aiding the republican, pro-democracy patriots during the French Revolution of 1789.}

When Napoleon III became Emperor, one of his big domestic projects was to make Paris a bastion for order and stability and eliminate, for all time, its geographical and spatial susceptibility to barricades, urban fortresses, rebellion and armed mobs. To do this, he hired a famous French architect and engineer, Baron Georges-Eugene Haussmann. A keystone in this concept consisted of renovating the entire design of the city, removing many of the narrow medieval streets and making them much, much broader. Further, the houses were set back even further from the sidewalks than previously, which would not only provide sufficient space for pleasant sidewalk cafes and scenic vistas, but would also allow sufficiently wide angles for state artillery and rifle fire to be directed through, without being subject to enfilade ambush attacks, perpetrated by armed mobs hiding from troops around a corner, located at a 90 degree angle from oncoming state forces (this tactic was used to great effect during the Revolution of 1789).

_{This map shows the initial broad boulevards imagined by Haussmann, to afford the military rapid transit throughout the urban center, so as to put-down insurrections with greater speed and ease. Notice how they serve as spokes radiating outward, from the police and commerce departments. Here, police and financial powers were planned to occupy the strategic "center" of the city, where they would be well protected. According to strategic opportunities, the police would thus be able to be sent-out, to the periphery, to attack rebels and would-be revolutionaries, while affording constant protection to the financial and economic elites located in the well-protected, island center of the city. This island, too, could be barricaded and poor people prevented from accessing it, through the construction of efficient bridges.}  

Further benefits would be accrued through the annihilation of local, close-knit neighborhood communities in Paris, many of which had their own culture, dialect and “insider customs.” Here, each little area, cut-off as it was from the rest of Paris except through a few crucial winding streets, could become an island-onto-itself. Local economies thrived, neighborhood youth clubs (that would fistfight or compete athletically with other rival, adjacent neighborhood clubs) and the ability of police to centrally control such areas was necessarily limited. Local neighborhood leaders acted like “godfathers” and were responsible for law and order, garbage pickup and social welfare. Since many of these towns could only be accessed through a handful of narrow streets, lookouts could be posted atop dilapidated medieval buildings, who could give the local “godfather” sufficient prior notice of oncoming police or military forces, such that they would have enough time to stop an illegal gambling activity, robbery of an aristocrat or mini-riot.

Total result of Haussmann's reforms. The new arterial avenues and boulevards are marked in red.

It is very hard for us to understand the inherent unruliness of Paris prior to the Haussmann reforms. Most modern cities have followed the Second Empire reforms of Napoleon III, which put an emphasis on broad, sweeping boulevards, grids and the like. Although these things make transportation through the urban-area more efficient, especially in terms of commercial, military and police traffic, and while they also make directions and “finding-one’s-way” more easier, as it is more conducive to using a map in such an environment, a good degree of local, neighborhood social, political and economic independence is lost.

After the Haussmann reforms, local fruit/vegetable sellers were forced to purchase a license. Previously there were talks about doing this, but the crowded, narrow, labyrinthine Parisian streets always posed an effective detriment to efficient enforcement. After the re-design of the city, occupational licenses and rules regarding the regulation of these working-class occupations proliferated a hundred-fold. No longer would inspectors be afraid of going into “bad areas” or “closed-off areas” to enforce regulations, but could travel to such areas with great speed, with sufficiently numerous police escort to ensure security (previously, you were lucky if 4 people walking abreast could squeeze through the narrow streetsà very easy to block them and hold them off).

Haussmann used the pretext of “sanitation” as a means by which to clear many of the working-class folks from the most densely populated, medievally constructed areas of the city. Saying he was “re-locating” them for his own good, thousands were evicted and forced to live in the outskirts of the city, far away from aristocratic, upper-middle class and middle class areas of the city. Prior to the reforms, the wealthy, working and middle classes and students lived in close proximity to each other and had to find a way to navigate social intercourse in a mutually beneficial manner. When the wealthy were obnoxiously intransigent about this, there were often rebellions.

 _{This is the Boulevard Haussmann, in the Ninth Arrondissement in Paris. This road is typical of the new-model streets designed by Napoleon III and Baron Haussmann. Aside from the uniform building styles, tree-lined sidewalks and lovely mansard roofs, notice the breadth of the road, and how easily this can be utilized to facilitate rapid troop/police movements, as well as afford limited opportunities for barricading.}

After the reforms, the majority of the poor were simply pushed to the outskirts of Paris, on the periphery, where they would be far away from the crucial state buildings, government facilities, armories and homes of the aristocracy. The western portion of Paris began to be the most wealthy area and the eastern area, the outskirts of the city, one relatively untouched by the reforms, became increasingly poor and impoverished, as many of the poor from other parts of the city were forced to relocate there, either through physical force, or the non-physical, yet no less coercive nature of strategic pricing and policing.

_{Cimetier des Innocents, circa 1750. The graves are slowly being moved away and working class dwellings and agricultural/merchant stands are being established. The space is slowly becoming a public space, albeit one subject to minimal state control.}

At the end of the day, Paris benefited from a widespread decrease in tuberculosis, crime and rioting. On the other hand, thousands of poor folks were uprooted and they would forever be unable to exert upon the wealthy and powerful the most basic of their democratic rights: the political specter and drama afforded by mass-demonstrations and protests in areas closely proximate to the working and living areas of society’s most influential members. By pushing these folks off to the periphery, they were both “out of sight and out of mind.”

Considering the crucial role Parisian insurrections played in the various pro-democracy revolts in France, it could be said that the increasing stability of the French state, rather than being a result of government’s growing responsiveness to the people, is instead, perhaps, at least to a degree, the result of government’s increasing ability to remove, relocate and effectively silence those whom they do not wish to deal with. Rather than being effected through harsh, oppressive laws impacting free speech and association, these can be done through policies which impact the geographical and spatial aspects of the social/political/economic landscape, such that the same result is achieved, albeit through a less politically provocative manner.      

_{What remains of the Cimetiere des Innocents today. This is the same square, presented above, but as you can see, it has been totally sanitized of working-class people and their disorderly, uncontrollable, raw and vulgar outdoor meeting-place and market. It is paved and accessible to pedestrian and motor traffic from four basic directions. There is a major Paris subway station nearby as well as a large, expensive shopping mall catering to the tastes of the affluent. All that remains is the "La Fontaine des Innocent," which has existed in this spot, in some form or another, for almost 500 years. It can be located in what is currently called the La Halles district of the First Arrondissment, in Paris.}

The issue for us today is how do we analyze current attempts at urban renewal, urban development and neighborhood redesign, in light of the abovementioned history of Paris? Attempts to reconstruct and modify neighborhoods, while often being done under the pretext of sanitation, hygeine, transportation efficiency, economic revitalization and the like, are often code-words for a socio-economic revision of such areas and the desire to remove working-class and lower-middle class people from said areas, so as to make way for middle and upper middle class professionals. In the United States, we have termed this process "gentrification."

By sanitizing urban spaces for the exclusive utilization of the upper middle classes (and occaisional working-class consumer, who must travel via public transportation to get there, and when he arrives, only stays for a limited period of time), do we do a disservice to democracy? By keeping poor people "out of sight and out of mind" are we less able and less willing to negotiate social space, political space and economic space with them? Does this minimization of shared contact and shared proximity lead to laws and priorities that are not representative of overall societal need?

Do we wind up, in effect, causing the detrimental social and economic isolation of our political, social, intellectual and economic elites, as well as the so-called lower orders? Without constant interaction, do all classes of society suffer? Ideas from the top do not percolate down and culturally diffuse to the masses. By that same token, the suffering and concerns of the masses to not percolate up and diffuse to the governing, Establishment classes.

The primary critique of Louis XIV and Marie Antoinette was that their isolated, sanitized fantasy world at Versailles prevented them from addressing the everyday concerns of their nation prior to the Revolution. Without these concerns being known by the monarchy, they had no way of addressing them. The resulting chaos of 1789 was a necessary consequence of such geographically-imposed ignorance.

Are we, perhaps, committing the same mistakes here, by sanitizing our public spaces and removing/relocating our less privileged and wealthy citizens? In so doing, are we further ruining our already fragile democracy?