Two years ago, 20 minutes questioned his readers from Nice about the buildings in the city that they considered “the ugliest”. And the answers had been many. Some architectures developed in recent years do not leave anyone indifferent. Were there any excesses? Bad choices? “The urbanization of the Côte d’Azur is rich in lessons, for better and for worse”, comments Giovanni Fusco, director of the Space laboratory of the CNRS and the University of the Côte d’Azur.
Was it framed incorrectly? A “Azure Urban Planning Agency” has just been created and “it was about time”, according to the researcher. This structure, of which the university is one of the partners, was designed to support communities according to “societal, economic, health, technological developments” and “new environmental requirements”, explains Christian Estrosi. And, to date, 25 municipalities of the metropolis have already deliberated to solicit their membership. Will it help to avoid new pitfalls? Explanations with the urban planner Giovanni Fusco.
Is the opening of this agency good news?
Yes, this is very good news. It was the only big city in France, with Montpellier, which did not have one. While there are fifty such structures in the country. So there is an awareness and that’s good. It is the place where, naturally, all the actors of the territory, that is to say the local authorities, the consular chambers, the academics, the associations, converge to discuss urban questions, to have a watch on the city and its challenges. It is not an organization that will make plans, but that produces knowledge. It is an essential element. I don’t see how we could do without it today with the complexity of the “big city”, of metropolisation.
Will it help prevent disasters?
It’s not sure ! There are territories in which there were agencies and where, however, not very pleasant things were done. But it will provide necessary knowledge. Already in history. We live in a territory that has had a very important role in French town planning. You have to realize that. Already in the 19th century, when we were still in the Kingdom of Sardinia, with the experience of regulatory plans. But also in the 20th century, with the Cornudet law of 1919 [les villes de plus de 10.000 habitants, toutes celles du département de la Seine, les stations balnéaires, les villes artistiques et les villes sinistrées devaient se doter d’un “plan d’aménagement, d’embellissement et d’extension”]which was promoted by Robert de Sousa, who came to settle in Nice.
What has been done on the Côte d’Azur?
The urbanization of the Côte d’Azur is varied, rich in teaching, in the best as in the worst, and structured by a plurality of centers. And if we take a little historical perspective, it was quick. It was organized over the course of a century, even a century and a half, which is not much. It sometimes went very, even too quickly. You only have to compare the city of Nice to the city of Cagnes-sur-Mer, and you realize that you are dealing with two realities. They didn’t have the same story. There has been much less urban thinking in Cagnes-sur-Mer, where development has taken place much more quickly.
And in recent years?
We have a scarcity of space, a scarcity of land, which meant that the modern movement, modernism, during the Glorious Thirties, did less damage than elsewhere. You will not find, on the Côte d’Azur, large complexes like those you find in Marseilles or Lyons. So much the better. On the other hand, on the Côte d’Azur, as in Marseille in particular, there has been a relative inability to design an urbanization model for the hills and for the peri-urban area. Hence certain problems of mobility, artificialization of the territory, or even natural risks. From the 1960s and 1970s, there was also a certain tendency to confuse town planning and property development. You mustn’t wage war on it, it is part of the mechanisms that produce the city, but when you’re in charge of town planning, you have to be able to compel developers so that they can contribute to providing solutions to problems that arise. From public space to the control of land, from the “city of short distances”, which we talk a lot about today, to the forms of peri-urbanization, from the protection of landscapes to that of ecosystems.
That is to say that we must impose more rules on real estate development?
Rather than rules, negotiations, and on condition that we know what we want. You have to have a vision of the city, know what you want to do in each district, how to configure its public spaces, its green spaces, its mobility system… The British do it very well. They have far fewer rules than in France, negotiate and know very well what the common good is and where to bring the promoter. The community must be clear in its vision, on the qualities it expects.
What are the pitfalls to avoid for the future?
I see several. There is of course the question of the energy transition, this famous “city of short distances”, a sober, economical city that uses simple, low-tech solutions. With the requalification of public space, the tramway and a little attention to shops, our town centers can achieve this. The situation is much more difficult in peri-urban areas, which are more scattered, car-dependent and with greater functional segmentation. We have to find a way to stitch together these territories, a different organization of services and shops, while ensuring proximity. Something has to be redesigned… and the question remains open. Then there is the question of the protection of environments and landscapes, the green and blue networks within our cities, but also the heritage diffused in all our districts. And there is, of course, the question of “total quality of life”, developed by several researchers in Europe: quality of life must exist for everyone, children, young people, families, seniors, for school affluent, average, popular, the homeless, residents and tourists. Fourthly, there is the fact of living with the risks, with the constraints of our territory. Prepare, anticipate, even what is not easily predictable or not predictable at all. We need a proactive approach to ensure the resilience of our territories in the face of natural and technological hazards, but also to avoid the fragility of the economic fabric or the rapid obsolescence of urban projects. Finally, there is one last issue, where the Agency will have its full role, and the University with it: we have a lack of knowledge about our urban territories and we must fill it, in order to intervene consciously on the problems and not make us overtake by the course of events.