No. 2: out of place?! Socialist?

I had not even read Cat'*s post yet...

La Defense looks exactly like any HLM/buildings planned by the socialist regimes. There is this vastness of useless squares/alleys, a penchant for buildings which are really dense on the other hand - with some glass to make it more modern. I swear those pics I've seen of dorms friends of mine stayed at while studying in France often didn't look too different from that peak of modern architecture La Defense is supposed to be.

You and Cat = hysterical. No. 1 - who goes to shop in La Défense?!

No. 2: out of place?! Socialist?

I must've been to another planet called Paris...

When you step out of the subway at La Défense, you are right on the concourse of this 1970s mall. It is awful.

My godmother used to work at Total in La Défense, that's why I went there. It was a big, glossy building and all but now it looks a bit 90s. I think France wanted to be all "Hey, look at us! We have a financial sector, too!" back in the 80s. Hence, the expansion of La Défense. But their hearts weren't really in it because deep down I don't think the majority of French subscribe to Darwinian, anglo saxon-style capitalism. Hence why it is all a bit "meh."

Most of the big fancy banks have their HQs in the 7th and 8th arrondissements anyway. Near the nicest restaurants so that they can take their clients out to lunch. They're not stupid.

I had not even read Cat'*s post yet...

La Defense looks exactly like any HLM/buildings planned by the socialist regimes. There is this vastness of useless squares/alleys, a penchant for buildings which are really dense on the other hand - with some glass to make it more modern. I swear those pics I've seen of dorms friends of mine stayed at while studying in France often didn't look too different from that peak of modern architecture La Defense is supposed to be.

While I love the 1970s for other, progressive reasons, the way the politicians squandered their urban planning remits with nasty-ass concrete bunkers during that era makes me SO MAD. It's a step beyond Socialistic -- it is Stalinistic. Because those buildings and alleyways to nowhere were conceived by architects who assumed that working class human beings are not human beings at all, merely rats who needed to be housed in airless little boxes, cut off from roads and shops and the centre of town.

Because working people don't have the brain capacity to care about aesthetics or natural beauty or going out and having fun from time to time? They are just workhorses, right?

I remember visiting some family member who had been moved to one of these "cités" by his engineering company -- a brave new world! Away from crowded Paris! He found himself just beyond the périphérique highway system (and therefore unable to walk into Paris which was just minutes away) in a concrete maze of buildings. Everytime it rained, the concrete parking lot flooded because some idiot forgot to install proper drainage. Oh, and when the residents complained about not having any gardens or green spaces, the state planners stuck a patch of grass in one of those alleyways going to the subway which no one ever dared visit for fear of getting mugged.

The place is not as bad as some gang-infested, racially segregated HLMs out there and I never really felt hugely unsafe but... on a rainy, grey day, it is dark and depressing.

I know the mall. I actually laughed when I read your reply (because it true), but I was kind of surprised by the shopping thing & Shanghai comparison. Of all cities – why Shanghai (apart from some pretty obvious reasons)?

I agree that it doesn't look as this glossy, shiny supermodern spectacular quarter, something it wants to be, but construction began there in 1931. There are buildings from 1967, 1975 and 2008 (Tour T1) – various decades. But somehow and to me, it fits. It creates a weird kind of 'forest', changes the panorama, there's something intriguing and attractive, which draws the eye and the faux-symmetry (left vs. right builgins when seen from the Étoile, e.g.) only helps to enhance that feeling. Grande Arche, however, is awful. Awful.

12 new towers will be completed by 2016.

And it is Europe's largest business district.

Most of the big fancy banks have their HQs in the 7th and 8th arrondissements anyway. Near the nicest restaurants so that they can take their clients out to lunch. They're not stupid.

Have you two seen the awful Grand Paris projects?

I know the mall. I actually laughed when I read your reply (because it true), but I was kind of surprised by the shopping thing & Shanghai comparison. Of all cities – why Shanghai (apart from some pretty obvious reasons)?

Futuristic, modernistic is what I was trying to get at. Perhaps in a few years, Shanghai will look as dated to us as some of the 1960s and 70s buildings in La Défense.

I agree that it doesn't look as this glossy, shiny supermodern spectacular quarter, something it wants to be, but construction began there in 1931. There are buildings from 1967, 1975 and 2008 (Tour T1) – various decades. But somehow and to me, it fits. It creates a weird kind of 'forest', changes the panorama, there's something intriguing and attractive, which draws the eye and the faux-symmetry (left vs. right builgins when seen from the Étoile, e.g.) only helps to enhance that feeling. Grande Arche, however, is awful. Awful.

12 new towers will be completed by 2016.

And it is Europe's largest business district.

So what you are saying is, it looks great from Place de la Concorde or the Champs Elysées? In other words, from far away? I agree!

I do like that whole vista stretching from the centre of Paris right to La Défense. The French love that mix of glossy modern juxtaposed with historic, ancient monuments.

Have you two seen the awful Grand Paris projects?

Not sure what to make of it. Their heart is in the right place -- trying to make the banlieues difficiles more habitable, linking them to the city -- but some of those designs look dodgy. You can tell one of the architects had been watching the director's cut of Blade Runner a few too many times.

Vanity Fair has a story:

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2010/11/bettencourt-part-2-201011

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2010/11/bettencourt-201011

She wanted to give him the island, that was revealed by Le Point.

So what you are saying is, it looks great from Place de la Concorde or the Champs Elysées? In other words, from far away? I agree!

Well, yes! That's exactly it!

What did you think of her mansion, Cat?

Je m'appelle SFK, mais, je ne l'aime pas. I see windows where I'd like to see balconies, Juliet balconise at least. Needs a grander terrace or at least some more landscaping, a damn topiary or something. But I love how she looks like she's doing a jig, points for playtime with the dachshund.

Yeah. I don't know what to think. I don't hate it, but I sure don't like it. It's too small, too low, dryly pedantic, lifeless (that's mainly because of the lawn; the courtyard does have a garden with trees near the fence). The style is arte moderne.

I have a frozen-in-time vibe. The proportions are the main reason why I find it... just bizarre and impossible to love. But I'm not really a fan of the style either.

I wonder where Arnault lives... Or any other French billionaire, the photos seem impossible to find. And I would sure love to see the interiors of Carla's 16th arrondissement place.

Edited October 13, 201015 yr by Sylph

Le salon rond:

Well, she *is* frozen in time. One thing I've noticed about elderly, wealthy Europeans: once they decorate their places a certain way, they rarely, if ever, change that style. They are not like the wealthy from the Gulf states who tear everything out and redecorate every two years -- or better yet, just buy a new pad to redecorate.

The outside of the building looks bunker-like, but I do like a few of her pieces in the salon rond. But quite honestly, the most beautiful thing in there are the wildflowers and sunflowers on the low table.

I suspect her decorating style stems from the time when she had the most fun in her youth -- late 50s, early-to-mid 60s. Because before that, the rich aped Nadine de Rothschild and Jacqueline de Noailles and went for the full-on Louis XIV treatment. Oh, and I also suspect that Banier, who is a self-described cultural icon and terrible contemporary art snob, prob gave her tips on what pieces to buy.

Sylph, I would love to know what the inside of Carla's Cap Nègre home looks like. Have already seen the interiors of her Piedmonte childhood home when they were being sold off at Sotheby's (and where I also saw Carla herself -- super tall, décontractée, very white foundation on her face, almost like a geisha -- with her little boy Aurelian and her partner at the time Raphael Einthoven who looked like he was coming down from a drug binge, BTW). Back when she first married Sarkozy, Paris Match did a spread of her in her XVIe arrondisement hotel particulier. The staircase was a gorgeous spiral of cream marble. Her bedroom, while enormous, looked pretty normal, though (the photo had her strumming her guitar, LOL).

Well I'm glad I wasn't the only one with the impression: it all kind of looks awfully... old. And I like old, but in this particular instance I'm still baffled even though, as you point out, the wealthy elderly Europeans rarely re-decorate.

This might come as a shock for you, but who on earth is Jacqueline de Noailles?! I mean, of course I've heard about the Maison de Noilles, all those dukes & princes, and Marie-Laure de Noailles, Vicomtesse de Noailles, whose hôtel particulier is now a museum redecorated by Philippe Starck. But I have no idea who this Jacqueline might be. And yes, there is that famous modernist Villa Noailles too.

My Lord! Do I envy you or what?! I missed that numéro of Paris Match!!! With Carla's hôtel! Do you happen to have it, perhaps if you check the date of publication I might track it down. I too am on the look out for the interiors of the château Faraghi, but I don't think they were published anywhere yet. If I bump onto something, I'll sure let you know.

Gosh, it was 2-3 years ago and I threw out my copy way back. I honestly cannot remember the date of the issue either, and whether it was taken before or after her marriage to the President.

As for her palace near Turin, Sothebys catalogues might stll have those photos posted on the web somewhere.

Gah! I mixed up Jacqueline de Ribes and Marie-Laure de Noailles! Of course I meant the latter. Here is a great Vanity Fair article I read in August about the fantabulous MLdN:

http://www.vanityfair.com/style/features/2006/12/enfant-terrible-200612

Oh, too bad. But I'll try to dig that place up. I know the street where it's in, but not the number.

If the Turin place is that castle a sheikh bought not so long ago and then sold again some months back (actually, I'm not sure it was sold, I think it's still on the market), then I think I saw the interior. Not sure.

BTW, François-Marie Banier has a nice piece of real estate in the Gard department, in the commune of Brouzet-lès-Quissac.