This thesis is designed to demonstrate that the partnership between socialists and environmentalists contributed to the fact that Paris fortification walls torn down in 1920’s and their surrounding land were transformed for public uses, not for speculative development. To provide such an analysis, this study explores these main themes: how different the positions of socialist and environmentalist were regarding the uses of the fortification walls and their vacant lots, what kinds of shared interest the two groups had, and more specifically, how the walls and their surroundings were refurbished and utilized. The fortification walls were built 10km away from the city center for military defenses. With the neighboring small communes being annexed to Paris, the walls became the border encircling the city in 1860. At the turn of 20th century, the removal of the walls became a controversial issue because they proved ineffective in the defense of the city. Socialists in Paris municipal council argued that the walls needed to be destroyed and Social Housing should be built for working class. On the other hand, the bourgeois environmentalists argued that the walls should be replaced by public parks, serving as an open space to beautify the city and improve the urban hygiene conditions. The two competing opinions were reconciled as Musee Social functioning as a think tank of conservative social reform and socialists embraced the ideas of open space. The partnership between environmentalists and socialists was attributable to their common recognition that transferring the lot to private sectors would encourage speculative development and that public properties should be rehabilitated for public interest. The fortification walls and their surrounding land demolished in 1920’s were transformed into a complex of social housing, public parks, and sports facilities, and university dormitories. The public development of the Peripherie as a boundary between Paris and its suburban towns has many meaningful implications for social discussions over the urban development.

This thesis is designed to demonstrate that the partnership between socialists and environmentalists contributed to the fact that Paris fortification walls torn down in 1920’s and their surrounding land were transformed for public uses, not for speculative development. To provide such an analysis, this study explores these main themes: how different the positions of socialist and environmentalist were regarding the uses of the fortification walls and their vacant lots, what kinds of shared interest the two groups had, and more specifically, how the walls and their surroundings were refurbished and utilized. The fortification walls were built 10km away from the city center for military defenses. With the neighboring small communes being annexed to Paris, the walls became the border encircling the city in 1860. At the turn of 20th century, the removal of the walls became a controversial issue because they proved ineffective in the defense of the city. Socialists in Paris municipal council argued that the walls needed to be destroyed and Social Housing should be built for working class. On the other hand, the bourgeois environmentalists argued that the walls should be replaced by public parks, serving as an open space to beautify the city and improve the urban hygiene conditions. The two competing opinions were reconciled as Musee Social functioning as a think tank of conservative social reform and socialists embraced the ideas of open space. The partnership between environmentalists and socialists was attributable to their common recognition that transferring the lot to private sectors would encourage speculative development and that public properties should be rehabilitated for public interest. The fortification walls and their surrounding land demolished in 1920’s were transformed into a complex of social housing, public parks, and sports facilities, and university dormitories. The public development of the Peripherie as a boundary between Paris and its suburban towns has many meaningful implications for social discussions over the urban development.

Paris fortification, Urban Public Development, Social Housing, open space, urban hygiene