Brutalist Paris, a map by Blue Crow Media, charts 42 Brutalist structures in Paris, illustrating the city’s complex relationship with this architectural style. Key examples include Les Choux de Créteil, designed by Gérard Grandval in the 1970s. The map highlights how Paris, traditionally known for Haussman-era architecture, embraced Brutalism in the 1960s and 1970s as part of a utopian vision. Historian Robin Wilson explains that Brutalist buildings in Paris mostly served residential and governmental purposes, coinciding with the city’s expansion into new suburbs under President Charles de Gaulle’s modernization plan. These buildings, like Bobigny’s town hall and Les Étoiles, were meant to symbolize new urban identities. Parisian Brutalism is noted for its architectural diversity, as seen in Marcel Breuer’s UNESCO headquarters and Jacques Kalisz’s Administrative Center of Pantin. While some structures remain well-regarded, others, such as Les Étoiles and Claude Parent’s 1974 office building, have deteriorated, highlighting the style’s challenges. Despite these issues, the map offers a fresh perspective on Paris’s architectural evolution.
In Créteil, a southeastern suburb of Paris, ten towers resembling brussels sprout stalks dominate the cityscape. Architect Gérard Grandval designed these cylindrical apartment buildings in the mid-1970s, with concrete balconies that appear to barely cling to the facade. Locals have dubbed the futuristic development “Les Choux de Créteil,” or “the cabbages.”
Grandval’s buildings are among 42 sites highlighted in Brutalist Paris, the newest addition to Blue Crow Media’s expanding collection of maps for architecture enthusiasts who appreciate the raw aesthetic of Brutalism.
Paris, particularly its core, remains a time capsule of Haussman-era grand boulevards, ornate Beaux Arts structures, and sculptural Art Nouveau elements. Despite being architecturally conservative for much of the 20th century, the city saw a surge of Brutalist architecture in the 1960s and 1970s. Experimental designs by renowned architects like Oscar Niemeyer, Marcel Breuer, Claude Parent, Harry Seidler, and Le Corbusier emerged in select areas within Paris and its metropolitan region. Unlike London, which used Brutalism for post-World War II reconstruction, or Washington, D.C., where the style conveyed governmental authority, Paris’s adoption of Brutalism was more intricate, reflecting Modernism’s utopian aspirations and the eventual disillusionment with those ideals.
Historian Robin Wilson, one of the map’s editors alongside photographer Nigel Green, notes in an accompanying essay that, unlike other European capitals, Paris built few Brutalist cultural institutions. Instead, Brutalism in Paris is primarily represented in housing, government buildings, and university campuses. The rise of these structures occurred during a period of expansion beyond Paris’s historic core.
In the 1960s, France experienced significant population growth due to natural increases and immigration from former colonies. To address this, President Charles de Gaulle initiated a plan to modernize Paris and accommodate the expanding population. He appointed economist Paul Delouvrier to develop a regional strategy that led to the creation of five independent satellite suburbs, each equipped with its own transportation systems, downtown areas, parks, educational institutions, and cultural amenities. The goal was to decentralize Paris, as the city center was not expected to manage the anticipated population growth, leading to the city’s outward sprawl rather than increased density.
New developments followed, many reflecting Modernism’s utopian ideals and organizational principles: tall, single-function towers set within park-like environments and a mix of varied land uses.
The Brutalist buildings featured in Wilson and Green’s map were designed as symbolic centerpieces for the new cities. Examples include the Bobigny town hall, designed in 1974 by Marius Depont and Michel Holley, a wedge-shaped structure with a concrete brise soleil rising from an opaque base. Another is Les Étoiles in Ivry-sur-Seine, a 1970 building by Jean Renaudie and Renée Gailhoustet, which resembles a jigsaw puzzle of saw-tooth shaped terraces.
In the essay accompanying the map, Wilson notes that the most striking examples of Parisian Brutalism are located beyond the Périphérique, in areas developed during the second half of the 20th century. Here, a new generation of progressive architects experimented with architectural forms and social programs. Paris’s Brutalism, according to Wilson, significantly impacted urban history by shaping the architecture of new towns, helping to create new municipal identities and postwar communities. These architects tackled the challenge of large-scale, system-built mass housing while also striving to develop new sculptural and spatial languages.
Brutalist designs from this era manifest in various forms, such as Marcel Breuer’s trefoil-shaped UNESCO headquarters and Pierre Vivien’s saucer-like Murat Telecommunications building. Wilson particularly admires Jacques Kalisz’s 1973 design for the Administrative Center of Pantin, noting its striking use of raw concrete combined with aluminum and a dramatic interior concrete ramp that enhances the experience of moving through the space.
Wilson observes that the defining feature of Parisian Brutalism is its eclecticism, characterized by a diverse range of materials and forms. He notes that Parisian Brutalism has a more experimental quality compared to London’s, possibly due to a conscious effort by that generation of architects to avoid being overly influenced by Le Corbusier. Although Le Corbusier’s mid-1950s works, like the Maison du Brésil at la Cité Universitaire, are considered early examples of postwar Brutalism, Parisian architects sought to carve out their own distinct path rather than simply pay homage to him.
While some buildings from this period have aged well—Les Choux de Créteil remains a cherished and well-maintained development—others, such as Les Étoiles, have not fared as well.
Wilson describes Les Étoiles as a vast, terraced structure with a complex interrelationship between public and private spaces, extending from the exterior to the interior. He notes that the commercial center, now largely deserted with abandoned triangular shops and homeless people seeking shelter, gives the impression that the building’s complexity has rendered it almost unusable and difficult to navigate as a public space.
Wilson considers Claude Parent’s 1974 office building in the 19th arrondissement a failure. He describes it as “Gothic Brutalism,” likening the architecture to “scar tissue of historical, urban trauma,” with parts of its masonry appearing to have been peeled away. Despite its abandonment, the building’s solid, massive structure resembles a concrete bunker, making it difficult to demolish. Wilson notes that Parent, particularly in his collaborations with Paul Virilio, was directly influenced by the Todt company bunkers used in Nazi defensive systems.
While designers and historians may admire the ambition behind these Brutalist structures and the new cities they were intended to serve, there were significant social failures. Delouvrier’s vision for fully independent, robust satellite cities often fell short. Many of these areas, known as the banlieues, have become impoverished and isolated, becoming focal points for income inequality and racism issues in Paris. This reflects a broader challenge faced by neighborhoods and cities built from the ground up, regardless of architectural style.
Wilson notes that many areas with prominent Brutalist architecture have experienced social unrest. He points out that Bobigny, for instance, recently saw serious riots triggered by police brutality. Despite these issues, Wilson suggests that public opinion on Brutalist environments likely varies widely, ranging from pride to disgust.
Whether viewed as symbols of utopian promise or as remnants of Paris’s efforts to create thriving urban spaces, these buildings provide a unique opportunity to explore Paris’s spatial evolution and gain deeper insights into the city’s overall development.
Wilson highlights that visiting these Brutalist sites, from the outskirts to the city center, offers a completely different perspective of Paris. He and Nigel Green found this aspect of the project particularly revealing, discovering a Paris unlike the one they had previously known. For them, the journey between the buildings was as significant as the destinations themselves.
Gallery
