A Metropolis for the 20th Century by Joyce Zhong

A Metropolis for the 20th Century

After the six Australian colonies formed a federation called the Commonwealth of Australia on 1 Jan 1901, the first Commonwealth Parliament was opened in Melbourne Exhibition Building; choosing a city to be Australia’s Capital become one of the most important things for the federation. Melbourne and Sydney were supposed to be the best choice out of all, because at the beginning of the 20th century, they already contained about 500,000 residents each and throughout the 20th century Sydney was developed extremely fast; it attracted more visitors,residents, businesses, jobs, and even introduced new advanced technologies in the 20th century such as aviation. However, some people thought Melbourne and Sydney had the most boring design: ‘no one can call it beautiful’. Some people even believed that the commonwealth parliament can be moving around the existing capital cities. There were thousands of opinions from all over the country coming to the government, which made this decision become very hard to make.

In 1900, Surveyor Alexander Oliver was appointed by the New South Wales government to look for suitable sites for the federal capital. And the ‘Battle of the site’ started.

Battle of the site

 At the start, most of the nationalistic commentators put Adelaide and Ballarat as part of the consideration list due to their unique landscape and the regional centre. Also, Charles Coulter, an architect from Sydney drew a picture for the future federal Capital (Figure 1) which is inspired by the European cities. But the most famous cities at that time, like Chicago, was not known for the great structure or the beauty of their parkland, by putting all the fancy structures together did not make them became well known; is the ‘happy-go-lucky’ environment that attracted people from all around the world. Therefore, the capital city should has a beautiful environment, with outstanding views. Also the capital should has features that are stand out from others, so that the city planner will always find it as an interested object to design.

Figure 1.

It’s never a easy task to pick a site. First, need to concern about the climate, access to resources, water availability. Also the capital has to be inland, because World War two just finished safety is one of the biggest concern, built the capital inland can avoid attack from others. Furthermore, culture and history needed to be concern as well, since Australian (aboriginal) belong to bush, In 1904, George Reid, Prime Minister, encouraged that the new capital should be a simply constructed ‘bush capital’.

The city named Dalgety became the first choice. It has the prefect tropics environment, the weather is always warm, occupying a commanding position, is not on the coast and is surrounding by mountains. In 1904 Dalgety, New South Wales, was confirmed by parliament as the first choice for the federal capital site. However many thought the site was too far from Sydney. The capital, as a new city, should stay close to Sydney and Melbourne because they have higher prestige and advantages in economic. Therefore another condition was added on: the capital should be between Sydney and Melbourne no more than one hundred miles from Sydney.

In 1908, Yass-Canberra was officially replace Dalgety as the federal capital site. It not only has a wonderful surrounding environment, it also has an port access — Jervis Bay, and it also has access to sufficient water and never been contaminated by industries or major urban development.

In 1909, Yass-Canberra had finally bee selected by the parliament for the seat of government and   

Lady Denman, wife of the Governor-General, names the federal capital 'Canberra' at the official ceremony to mark the start of building.

Battle of the Plans

After the site of capital is settle, an competition for city design is held by the Commonwealth Government. Lots of people participated but only a few ground plans were stand out from the rest. One of the great plans is from Alexander Oliver, which was based on the ‘radiation principle’ . The radial street system was not only convenience and interesting, the way the streets were designed also maximised the access to solar. Another competitor, John Sulman, his plan was very special as well. It was famous for the rectangular planning which maintain the convince of moving from places to places and beauty of the structure of the capital. This design is quite suitable for Canberra’s topographic and is really easy to access different resources with this plan. Also an inventor, Lawrence Hargrave, who introduced a ‘spider’s web’ (Figure 2) to the community were very famous during that period. He believed that this was the best distribution system for all public utilities.

Figure 2.

But the plan from the winner of the competition for a design for Canberra in 1912, Walter Burley Griffin, was even better. This unique plan is aimed to use the natural setting of Canberra to make the city became a symbol ‘of a democratic national identity’. He made the city’s hills became the centre point of the city and the main street of the city (Constitution Avenue) ran parallel to the Molonglo River. The most remarkable thing was he made a proposal that to built a civilised capital, a huge capitol building build with a globalised architectural style, should be built at the top of the Kurrajong Hill.

Although it took a really long period for Australia to settle down its capital, Nowadays, Canberra has been re-built for several times, it is still famous for its unique planning idea and its great local landscape.

References

R.Freestone , The Federal Capital of Australia: A Virtual Planning History Canberra, Urban Research Program, 1997 pp.2-30

Pamela Statham, The Origins of Australia’s Capital City,1990

Cities of Tomorrow by Eamon Dimasi

Urban planning, whilst present in some cities prior to the 20^th century, wasn’t really prominent the world over until the 1900s (Ward, 2002). Before this time, planning was achieved by a combination of three main professions - architects, public health officials, and social workers. By 1898, in the USA, these professions came together in response to the industrial revolution, which caused a need for more thoughtful, organised planning, as cities expanded. Furthermore, Harvard University established the first urban planning school in the country around the same time, and thus, in the USA at least, urban planning as a profession was born (Erickson, 2012).

Closer to home, Melbourne was one of the fastest growing cities in the world during the late 19^th century, and was home to some of the world’s most expensive real estate (Nichols, 2015). As a result, urban planning became more common. The most famous Australian example of 20^th century urban planning is the capital city of Canberra, however this is obviously not the only such case. Haberfield, in Sydney, was one of the earliest planned towns in Australia, and the garden suburb of Daceyville, in New South Wales is another example of a master-planned community that was established during the 20^th century (Ward, 2002; NSW Government, 2014).

Daceyville came about to the overcrowded and unsanitary state of Sydney in the early 20^th century. Colonial Secretary at the time, John Rowland Dacey, subsequently wanted to create a more pleasant suburb, with wider, open green spaces and gardens (NSW Government, 2014). As a result, Daceyville was established, with over 300 houses in the garden suburb by 1920. Similarly to Canberra, several competitions were also held involving the designing of gardens within the suburb (NSW Government, 2014).

Figure 1: Daceyville Garden Suburb design

(retrieved from: http://nswanzaccentenary.records.nsw.gov.au/index.php/on-the-homefront/daceyville-the-garden-suburb/) 

Government sectors were a large component of this rapid growth, unlike in certain other countries, and as a result, corruption often proved to be present in land development (Nichols, 2015). Throughout the growth of Greater Melbourne, there have been certain developments in previously ‘untouchable’ green wedges that are owned by donors to the government, which obviously arouses suspicion.

Even today, allegations of corruption within the field of planning are still present. Just recently, in Newcastle, New South Wales, there was an inquiry into allegations that members of parliament had received ‘donations’ from planners who were working on a railway development in the area. While ultimately these allegations were found to have no substantial evidence behind them, many residents and politicians still believe that government sectors are too closely connected and easily influenced by private developers (Gerarthy, 2015).

As mentioned above, the overcrowded and unsanitary nature of cities led to certain planning decisions, and another development which came about because of these undesirable attributes was that of the public parks movement (Jordan, 1994). The poor health that resulted from crowded streets, with people constantly in contact with each other, led urban residents to appreciate open, green spaces, with the expectation that the parks would bring with them better health, as well as helping the people who visited them to become more cultured (Nichols, 2015). Unusually for this time, these parks were accessible to all people, regardless of class.

Another reaction to the extensive growth of cities and the subsequent health issues that came with it was the cemetery movement (Nichols, 2015). Before this growth, corpses were either not buried at all, which obviously created substantial health issues, or were buried on church grounds (Nichols, 2015; Finney, 2012). However, as population increased, church grounds could no longer accommodate the large number of bodies and instead, cemeteries were developed.

Interestingly, these cemeteries were not only designed for sanitary and sentimental reasons, but also as a pleasant place to visit. It has been noted that families would go to cemeteries for picnics, or that people would take walks through cemeteries to appreciate the beauty and peacefulness, something that is not so common today (Finney, 2012). Often park planners within the USA were prominent in the designing of cemeteries, because the two were so interrelated. In fact, in his journal article The “Rural” Cemetery Movement: Urban Travail and the Appeal of Nature, Thomas Bender states “cemeteries were…designed for both the living and the dead” (Bender, 1974).

The idea of these more pleasure, open, green spaces was further expanded upon by a very important figure in urban planning throughout the 20^th century - Ebenezer Howard, who pioneered the idea of the Garden City. Howard’s vision of the Garden City - an idyllic, attractive and user-friendly city, which would forever discourage people from wanting to live in ‘standard’ urban centres, first came to life in the form of Letchworth in 1903 (Ward, 2002). Howard believed that towns should be ‘limited in size…and self sufficient’, making them more comfortable and convenient to live in than bigger cities, such as London, for example (Smith, 2007).

Figure 2: Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City

(retrieved from: http://www.myoops.org/ans7870/11/11.001j/f01/lectureimages/6/06003.JPG)

Unfortunately for Howard, this vision was challenged when social reformers instead began to extend existing cities, rather than create new ones. One of the original, and arguably the most famous example of this is that of Hampstead Heath (Nichols, 2015). Henrietta Barnett, a social reformist who lived in Hampstead Heath, collaborated with Barry Parker and Raymond Unwin to create the ‘garden suburb’ – an attractive residential area which suddenly made London a great place to live, rendering the idea of the garden city almost obsolete (Smith, 2007). Perhaps this is one of the reasons why cities like Melbourne or London still remain popular today.

It is therefore evident that the 20^th century was a truly productive time for urban planning, and one in which the profession of planning started to become recognised all over the world. As a result of the work done throughout this century, we now has several great pioneers and precedents from which we can learn and build on, such as Ebenezer Howard and his Garden City. During this time, planning became revolutionised and it is because of this era that planning is as important as it is today, and can therefore be improved upon for the future so the best possible outcome can be achieved.

Bibliography

Bender, T. (1974) ‘The “Rural” Cemetery Movement: Urban Travail and the Appeal of Nature’, The New England Quarterly, 47(2) pp. 196-211.

Erickson, A. (2012) ‘A Brief History of the Birth of Urban Planning’. CityLab. Available at: http://www.citylab.com/work/2012/08/brief-history-birth-urban-planning/2365/ (Accessed: 16 April 2015).

Finney, P.J. (2012) ‘Landscape Architecture and the “Rural” Cemetery Movement’, Focus on Global Resources, 31(4)

Gerarthy, S. (2015) No evidence of corruption in Newcastle planning decisions, inquiry finds. ABC News. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-03/no-evidence-of-corruption-in-newcastle-planning-decisions/6276546 (Accessed: 16 April 2015).

Jordan, H. (1994) ‘Public Parks, 1885-1914’, Garden History, 22(1) pp.85-113

Nichols, D. (2015). Urban History Lecture Eleven: Cities of Tomorrow: the rise of town planning [Power Point slides] Retrieved from: https://app.lms.unimelb.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-4774739-dt-content-rid-16780631_2/courses/ABPL20034_2015_SM1/urban%20history%20cities%20of%20tomorrow%202015.pdf

NSW Government (2014). ‘Daceyville - the Garden Suburb’. New South Wales Anzac Centenary - State Records NSW. Available at: http://nswanzaccentenary.records.nsw.gov.au/index.php/on-the-homefront/daceyville-the-garden-suburb (Accessed: 16 April 2015).

Smith, M. K. (2007) ‘Henrietta Barnett, social reform and community building’. infed.org. Available at: http://infed.org/mobi/henrietta-barnett-social-reform-and-community-building (Accessed: 16 April 2015).

Stephen V. Ward (2002) ‘The Emergence of Modern Planning’ in Planning the Twentieth Century. Chichester, John Wiley, pp. 45-80

Life, Death and Disease in the City by Qingning Chen

It is interesting that the reading about the relationship between town planning and public health was titled “A City in Good Shape”. It somewhat gives a hint that public health is one of the most important aspects that the planners need to consider when planning a city. When trying to follow the stories of cities from nineteenth century to nowadays, it seems that the process of the city planners and the governments tried to achieve the model of a “good-shaped city” is the process of finding problems and solving problems, but in a macro and long-term way. It was a remarkable development of the changed in emphasis of the city planning. Planners used to have detailed consideration about the commercial and economical aspects to city’s growth but rarely to public health. As the importance of the public health rising through all those different problems they were facing in the history of developments of cities, “public health” become a word that binds up with urban planning.

Problems started to be found in earlier nineteenth century when people realized that the headache was observed “in the lower and inner apartments of house ... Surrounded on every side by lofty buildings, and narrow entrance (Case 14)” (Hebbert, 1999,435). Health of Town Association explained the importance of fresh air to people and saying that fresh air is even more important than fresh food. Later on, in late nineteenth century, the knowledge for sanitary pointed out that the concerned with water and sewage is as much important as ventilation.

Fig. 1 “Perspective View of Bridgewater Crescent, Piccadilly, Manchester ... With the adjacent Streets and

Buildings as proposed to be altered to admit the statues of Francis...” (Source: Fairbairn, 1936, frontispiece; by kind permission of John Rylands University Library)

When problems appeared, planners came up with various ways to solve it. They introduced the concepts of “Open Street” which opens at both ends to allow fresh air to pass through which was a significant development in sanitarian. An interesting action which mentioned in Parliamentary

Papers (1845, 141) is that questionnaire was sent out in mid nineteenth century asked people about their living environments and their healthy conditions. It was surprising because it seemed that governments started to care about the personal welfare of their citizens rather than focus on benefit of economic development and etc. Sir Christopher Wren became a hero of public health movement because his proposed “to straighten up the crooked mediaeval street” after the Great fire of 1666 (It seems that there is a movement of urban planning towards the “grid plan” at that time) and this decision would cut the mortality rate of London by one-third in calculation because this scheme could help to improve the ventilation as well as the drainage system. At the same time, as mentioned in both lecture and reading, the development of bath had developed the city in both healthy and elegant way. The decision that local governments made to increase the expenditure on infrastructure including drainage and sewerage and etc. had improved the life expectancy for British citizens as recorded (Wohl, 1983, 329).

Fig 2. Green belt town (source: Sir Raymond Unwin’s lantern slide of the plan; by kind permission of John

Rylands University Library)

Time pass by, the development of the city will never stop. The debate on public health was no longer focus on those basic statistics on mortality rate, they are then challenged more indicators on human welfare and that was when the concepts of “garden city” and “green space” appeared in the agenda of the city planners in twentieth century . The result of sacrificing part of the limited and treasured area in urban space to creating park, gardens and open space surprised lots of people. The natural vegetation contributed more than fresh air to the cities at that time. They also control the density of the city and formed protection against noise and vibration. However, as mentioned earlier, those green space cannot been built in the air therefore the urban renewal became a problem because the new plan of city challenged old conventions. Trystan

Edward, mentioned in Hebbert’s reading, who champion the street terrace was under lots of pressure because he challenges the conventional corridor streets which were the symbol of old city.

World War II was a disaster but it somewhat provide an opportunity for British to start from something new. They had a chance to reconstruct the existing urban space. The planner create a brand new city with more efficient infrastructures as well as green space. In addition, in 1941, they speculate that “the public health of the future must be not only an engineering science and a medical science; it must also be a social science” which is a proactive thought for urban planning at that time. The “social science” theory is absolutely true. The life, death and disease in city were found closely linked to the social problems like racism, sexism, poverty, unemployment and etc.

It is good to see that when cities became more developed, the public health is not only a case for city planners who trying to solve the problems by planning the city in physical way but also lots of health organizations like National Health Service (NHS) and World Health Organizations (WHO).

They either help the individuals or care about public health in a more macro way. In addition, governments who care the public health then were trying to use ways like sending family allowance, offering community facilities like swimming pool, gym, theatre and etc. in order to improve the welfare of people in both physical and psychological ways. When moving to the third paradigm, as Hebbert’s reading said, the cities will emphasis even more on “delivery system, financial and educational mechanics” and all this actions are attempting to achieve the aim of lower mortality rate, higher life expectancy and more welfare for people.

The urban history is so touching when we went through it because although it took so long and so hard to transfer the urban area from messy cities to a “good” city, but planners never gave up the aim that they wanted to make city better and gave the citizens better lives. Their efforts were so obvious and they showed that they cared about the individuals all the time.

References

Michael Hebbert, ‘A City in Good Shape: Town Planning and Public Health’ Town Planning

Review 70 (1999), pp. 433-453

Haussmann, Sitte and Streetscapes by Matt Britten

The mid nineteenth Century in Europe was a very dynamic and innovative time during which many technological advances were being made thanks to the Industrial Revolution. Cast-iron, as a building material, had made its very successful debut and was being used extensively throughout Europe and North America, an example of this is French architect Victor Baltard’s, Les Halles market place in Paris (Van Zanten, D. 1994. Pp. 203).  The locomotive had been invented and was greatly reshaping not only our methods of transport, but also our urban and rural city planning and zoning.  Unfortunately, however, with all this innovation generated largely by coal consumption; sanitation, living conditions and public health were greatly impacted on – a large majority of Europe’s urban fabric had become unhealthy, overcrowded, dirty and grimy (Engels, F. 1971. Pp. 753). These wide spread problems eventually led to large-scale urban renewal projects commissioned by Europe’s (then) monarchs, which saw many of the continent’s large centres, such as Paris and Vienna, completely transformed with new boulevards, sanitary public infrastructure, increased ventilation and permeability (Van Zanten, D. 1994. Pp. 198-199).  This paper will seek to investigate the contributions made in the field of urban design and architecture by Baron Georges-Eugene Haussmann and Austrian architect Camillo Sitte through their work and publications on urban renewal and the city form.

In 1853, Baron Georges-Eugene Haussmann was instated by Emperor Louis Napoleon Bonaparte III of France as the Prefect of the Seine; a position which was responsible for the governance, design and urban renewal of Greater Paris and its Arrondissements (administrative districts) (Van Zanten, D. 1994. Pp. 198).  Haussmann’s task was one of extremely high public importance. He was going to be placed in charge of an extensive urban renewal project which would involve three large-scale phases of urban redevelopment centred largely around the construction and extension of many of Paris’ (now famous and highly regarded) boulevards and public spaces (Van Zanten, D. 1994. Pp. 199). Napoleon III was well aware of the Cholera epidemic which plagued the city’s water supplies in the 1830s and led to the death of thousands of the city’s inhabitants in a very short period of time. Thus, generally poor public sanitation, overcrowding, dirty and grimy living conditions, high death rates, high traffic congestion and the uncontrollable spread of Cholera became pivotal determinants for Napoleon III’s decision to transform medieval Paris into a newer and cleaner city through the rebuilding of the city’s sewerage and water systems (Van Zanten, D. 1994. Pp. 204). He was going to establish healthy living conditions once again, construct and extend numerous boulevards, public spaces and squares, double the city’s size, clear out the impoverished slums, erect vast amounts of new buildings and give the urban space ventilation and sanitation (Van Zanten, D. 1994. Pp. 213). After all, Paris was Napoleon III’s, and it was supposed to be glorious – especially after the French victory in Crimea.

Haussmann’s large-scale urban renewal of Paris occurred in three distinct phases:

·      Phase One; which concerned the planning out and extension of wide-set north-south and east-west thoroughfare boulevards increasing permeability and ventilation in the city - the extension of Rue de Rivoli, Boulevard Saint-Germain (East-west), and the Boulevard de Strasbourg, Boulevard de Sebastapol and Boulevard Saint-Denis (North-south) (Van Zanten, D. 1994. Pp. 200).

·      Phase Two; which concerned the construction of many more thoroughfares and boulevards, saw the establishment of new civil infrastructure, sewers and water systems, and the laying out of new Parisian arrondissements (local municipalities) and their associated municipal buildings in the city’s fringes (Van Zanten, D. 1994. Pp. 204).

·      And, Phase Three; the expansion of the city limits to the fortifications and further establishment of Parisian arrondissements from eleven to twenty, which effectively doubled Paris in size. Thoroughfare boulevards and public spaces were finalised, interconnected and inaugurated (See figure 1.1).  Across all three phases, hundreds of million of francs were spent on this astronomical redevelopment of Paris, much of which contributed to the government’s financial problems (Van Zanten, D. 1994. Pp. 213).

Figure 1.1: Haussmann’s Recreation of Boulevard Henri IV [Image]. (2015).

Haussmann and Napoleon III’s vision for creating a grand boulevard-orientated streetscape with a uniform Parisian architectural style quite possibly contributes to our modern-day romantic image Paris; almost all of Haussmann’s new boulevards were lined elegantly with trees (except the Avenue de l’Opera which remained treeless in order to preserve a grand view of the Palais Garnier Opera house).

In stark contrast to Haussmann’s calculated, ordered and structured urban philosophy imposed on Paris during the mid nineteenth Century, Austrian architect Camillo Sitte was well-known for his admiration of the organic and unstructured nature of medieval European towns; he viewed the planning and construction process of cities as a form of art (Collins, G., & Collins, C. 1965. Pp. 14). According to Purdom’s publication ‘The Building of Satellite Towns’ in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Purdom, C. 1925.), Sitte’s philosophy surrounding urban design was centred largely around the following principles (Purdom, C. 1925. Pp. 102);

·      Direct Informality and irregularity

·      Grouping of buildings in accordance with the informality

·      And, recognising parts of towns as ‘units’

Although Sitte did not necessarily have unrestricted access to large-scale urban redevelopment projects, like Haussmann, he was however involved in the development of some Austrian industrial cities and was also highly academic and did publish vast amounts of scholarly content on the subject of urban design and the arts’ critical and inseparable role in it. According to Collins’ publication Sitte and the Birth of Modern City Planning, Camillo Sitte was somewhat frustrated by the formal restructuring and redesigning of medieval towns, as he believed the new urban form would often lose its organic and artistic quality, and would therefore become very difficult to understand (Collins, G., & Collins, C. 1965. Pp. 15). This frustration is well documented in Sitte’s condemnation of the proposed (and subsequently built) Vienna Ringstrasse in Vienna, Austria. It is understood that the construction of this boulevard-like street required the removal of Vienna’s old medieval city wall – therefore it is understandable that Sitte was directly opposed given his love for Germanic, teutonic, and unstructured medieval architecture (Collins, G., & Collins, C. 1965. Pp. 15).

In the contemporary era, we may suggest that there are many examples of Haussmannisation occurring in urban environments throughout the world. Many arterial boulevards created within modern-day cities mimic George-Eugene Haussmann’s heavily boulevard-orientated redevelopment of Paris. Just to name some examples of Haussmannisation and Sitte-inspired design (Nichols, D. 2015.);

Haussmannisation:

·      The Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

·      Royal Parade, Melbourne, Victoria.

·      L’enfant’s design for Washington, DC. (Nichols, D. 2015).

 Camillo Sitte inspired design:

·      Raymond Unwin’s design of New Earswick, UK.

·      Free Church, Hampstead Garden, UK.

·      The Forest Hills Garden, Brooklyn, NY. (Nichols, D. 2015.)

The extensive redevelopment of Europe’s capital cities from enclosed and walled-in organic (and somewhat dirty) medieval towns to much larger and cleaner boulevard-orientated cities in the mid nineteenth Century was a pivotal time in Europe’s history. It was a time when large-scale advances occurred in public and civil infrastructure, public health and sanitation, city permeability and ventilation, and congestion management. One may conclude that this era revolutionised the way we, as urban planners, think about our urban fabric and the methods in which we seek to revitalise, improve and breathe new energy and life into our public spaces.

 References

Barnett, J. (1986). The Elusive City. New York: Harper & Row. Pp. 24-25.

Collins, G., & Collins, C. (1965). Camilo Sitte’s Background, Life and Interests in Collins and Collins Camilo Sitte and the Birth of Modern City Planning. New York: Random House Publishing. Pp. 5-15.

Engels, F. (1971). The Condition of the Working Class in England. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford. In Benevolo, L. History of the City. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: MIT Press. Pp. 753.

Haussmann’s Recreation of Boulevard Henri IV [Image]. (2015).  Image retrieved from: http://www.iub.edu/~paris10/ParisOSS/D3Haussmann/d3index.html

Mumford, L. (1991). The City in History. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Pp. 522.

Nichols, D. (2015). Urban History Lecture Ten: Sitte, Haussmann and Streetscapes [Power Point slides] Retrieved from: https://app.lms.unimelb.edu.au/bbcswebdav/pid-4767886-dt-content-rid-16734818_2/courses/ABPL20034_2015_SM1/urban%20history%202015%20sitte%20haussmann.ppt.pdf

Purdom, C. (1925). The Building of Satellite Towns. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 88(4). Pp. 102.  

Van Zanten, D. (1994). ‘Haussmann, Baltard and Municipal Architecture’. in Building Paris: Architectural Institutions and the Transformation of the French Capital, 1830-1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 198-213.