Chapter 5: The Future of the Bièvre in Paris

Restoration efforts outside Paris and studies within the city testify to the challenge of restoring ecological functions to the Bièvre. Chapter Four demonstrates the technical feasibility of achieving this in Paris in a manner compatible with the measures of success outlined in Chapter One. While technical feasibility has been revealed, several other elements are fundamental to the project’s realization. Based on the components explored in the preceding chapters, this final chapter will discuss the criteria for the implementation of the Bièvre’s restoration in Paris. These criteria concern the project’s political context, economic rationale, and community support. The long-term nature of the project, its anticipated benefits, and its consistency with recent restoration efforts upstream will be examined as well. Both the APUR and IAURIF plans will be considered.

A Long-Term Project

A time frame suitable to the objectives, constraints and available resources of the Bièvre’s restoration is crucial to success. IAURIF’s technically feasible ecological restoration is attributable to the long term nature of its approach. Compatible with recent efforts taken by the Union of the Associations, the Intercommunal Sanitation Syndicate of the Bièvre Valley (SIAVB) and the 1991 study by Alexandre Chemetoff, the IAURIF approach envisions the Bièvre’s restoration over several decades. Its chief author, Pierre Tricaud, emphasizes that "sustainable development now obliges the anticipation of a project’s consequences over an undetermined duration. A stream restoration project such as this one can only be envisioned in the long term". He explains that more than forty years was necessary to completely cover the Bièvre in Paris (from 1868 to 1912), so the inverse should take just as long. The project should begin today and be spread out over the next 40 years, which is a way to dilute the project’s costs. Spread out over forty years, the annual cost of a complete restoration would be no greater than that of reopening the three sites proposed by APUR in one term or what was spent for the last two Parisian parks (André Citroen and Bercy). "It would be regrettable to declare too quickly that an option is unrealistic when it is only not realizable in the short or medium-term."

Part of the long term plan involves coordinating projects with others, especially those on public property. On private property, new projects could help finance the cost of the restoration. The plan calls for the creation of a new stream bed on the site of the old Rungis market. The importance of this project should prevent the city from initiating works that would render it difficult to achieve in the future. The principle of sustainability---to respond to the needs of present generations without compromising the capacity of future generations to respond to their needs---must lead to avoid such works and to weigh their consequences. Tricaud calls for protective arrangements right away so as to not compromise the future. He states that the Plan Local d’Urbanisme is the occasion to make these arrangements, as it will permit better visualization of the future form of the city. IAURIF’s plan also considers the possibility of only the sections identified by APUR (namely Park Kellermann, Square René-Le-Gall, etc.) being realized. In this case, Tricaud insists that the potential gravitational flow still be kept in mind so as to keep open the option of a complete restoration in the future. "It would be unfortunate to begin the renaissance of the Bièvre by works that would have to be redone later in pursuit of complete restoration." In the end, the IAURIF study presents a best-case scenario showing the feasibility of an ecological approach. The APUR plan could draw inspiration from this plan in applying ecological functions, including the long-term potential to open the stream outside the three sites selected along its course and to plan for the continuous and gravitational flow of Bièvre water from source to mouth.

In light of long term, the nature of short term projects must be carefully considered. Opening segments of the stream such as those proposed in APUR’s plan are not acceptable unless they are part of a long-term goal that involves connecting them. The same challenge is seen upstream: will the Park des Prés one day be linked to other segments? Such segments are most precarious with regards to their supply of Bièvre water. The installation of a water treatment plant beneath Park Kellermann would provide treated water to opened Parisian sections, but at high cost. One alternative would be to delay work in Paris until upstream flow has been rid of polluted runoff.

Potential Benefits

The benefits of a Bièvre restoration in Paris vary depending on the scope of the project. While the APUR plan is limited, it still guarantees symbolic value, enhanced recreational opportunities, and the potential to catalyze upstream projects by showing the Bièvre’s importance to the city. The IAURIF study, however, greatly expands on these benefits by creating habitat for wildlife, increased appreciation for nature among city-dwellers, improved air quality, natural filtration of runoff and conservation of resources. Most of all, its approach creates a new environment that improves rather than degrades over time. The more the natural environment is restored, the less it will require maintenance. As the stream flow is reestablished and wildlife returns, the importance of keeping up the built environment will diminish.

In consistency with recent restoration efforts upstream, restoring the Bièvre in Paris may catalyze greater support for reworking the complex suburban hydrological system. The Bièvre has a course to run and should be given an appropriate termination. Leaving its water in pressurized underground tubes does not do justice the restoration efforts further upstream and is not a sustainable long-term solution. In addition, the city is in need of natural open space (Paris is one of the European capitals that offers the least amount of square meters of green space per habitant: Paris: 13m²: London 45m², which the Bièvre restoration could change.

While these benefits are related to the achievement of some form of ecological integrity, others are equally rewarding in other ways. The investment in the neighborhoods traversed by the project is likely to spawn increased property values and thus attract greater investment. Some additional benefits of daylighting urban streams include beautifying neighborhoods, perhaps serving as a focal point of a new park or neighborhood revitalization project; benefiting nearby businesses by creating a new amenity that attracts people to the area; reconnecting people to nature through the look, feel, and smell of open water and riparian vegetation and through contact with aquatic and streamside creatures; and giving people a sense of "setting right something we messed up." As shown in Chapter One, daylighting practices are increasingly common as their benefits become recognized.

Examining Incentives

Examining other urban stream restoration projects reveals that the incentives for carrying out a project are often vital to their success. While the benefits of revalorizing an urban stream in an ecological way were important for the three following projects, other elements were also crucial. Consideration of these elements may provide the justification for realizing a project or abandoning it altogether.

Several triggers were crucial to the restoration of Cheonggyecheon Stream in Seoul that has been underway since 2003, but the economic incentives were the most influential. Above all else, the economic development potential alongside a restored stream was anticipated to be significant. This potential was due to the poor condition of the elevated highway covering the stream (and pressing need to dismantle it) and easy displacement of neighborhood residents (among Seoul’s most economically disadvantaged) facilitated the project’s execution. With the highway gone and a stream in its place, historic neighborhoods will be replaced with financial centers. Evidently, the ability to greatly increase the area’s economic potential provides the financial means for funding the stream restoration. Also important to consider is the city’s recent commitment to environmental quality, which provided further rational for daylighting the stream. Ultimately, however, other incentives were in place to make this economically viable.

The Swiss Brook Concept was developed in response to flooding problems resulting from increased urbanization. Heavy rains and snow melt from the adjacent Alps necessitated a new approach to water direction in Zurich that did not risk pipe rupture and building damage. The combined ease of uncovering many streams and progressive approach to nature reclamation were fundamental to the concept’s development. While covered streams can be found in many countries, Switzerland’s approach to the problem is part of its progressive eco-consciousness, related to all forms of sustainable development.

Interest in daylighting the Vieille Mer began in the 1990s and has progressed to a contemporary restoration plan scheduled for execution in 2005. Among the incentives that have prompted the Department of Water and Sanitation of Seine-Saint Denis to pursue the project are its potential to unite disparate disadvantaged suburbs of Paris, to daylight water that has already been treated and to provide an opportunity for collaboration between urban designers, hydrologists and engineers. The combined benefits of the project on the neighborhoods traversed and feasibility resulting from the presence of unembanked water flow close to the surface greatly contributes to the project’s realization.

The three previous cases present a combination of extenuating circumstances and feasible solutions made possible by economic, political, or environmental incentives. In light of this, the restoration of the Bièvre in Paris could be perceived as less critical and less realizable than all three of these cases. While Paris, like Zurich, could benefit from uncovering its stream for water filtration purposes, it does not have the flooding problems that Zurich had. Similarly, the economic potential along the Cheonggyecheon Stream in Seoul is neither present nor sought for the Bièvre or for Paris. Further, the social cohesion potential of the Vieille Mer in Seine-Saint Denis does not appear necessary in the 5^th and 13^th arrondissements. Alternatively, examination of the APUR plan elucidates the city’s sole interest in exploiting the stream for its aesthetic value. Though the environmental history illuminates the extent of the Bièvre’s destruction and exploitation, it does not alone justify restoration. An ecologically functional Bièvre may be feasible and desirable in Paris, but at this time no adequate rationale justifies the reinsertion of a stream that has been erased from the city’s fabric for decades. There are many other less expensive, less intrusive ways to integrate ecological functions in the city. Other parts of the Bièvre upstream are more appropriate targets for restoration, where the stream’s restoration could provoke economic development, beautify a neighborhood, or become a uniting thread for several communes.

Political context

Political support for the Parisian project has fluctuated since it was first introduced. In 2000, former Paris Mayor Tiberi (UMP) supported the project and requested the APUR study, attributable to heavy lobbying from the Union Renaissance of the Bievre and support from the Regional Council of Ile-de-France. Current mayor Bertrand Delanoë’s (PS) subsequently supported the project at his inauguration in 2001, but his administration’s commitment to it waned within the first two years in office. After a two year period of public consultation, the plan has yet to be finalized and a design competition scheduled for 2003 has yet to take place. Nevertheless, the city still expects work to begin in 2007 to realize the project outlined in APUR’s study. According to the Office of the Deputy Mayor of the 13^th Arrondissement, the City views the IAURIF plan as a study of what the ideal form for the Bièvre could be, but is not seriously considering its implementation, in part because it requires consultation with too many stakeholders outside of city property. The City recognizes the need to restore the Bièvre for its symbolic value, but is not prepared to invest in a long-term project. It argues that the project’s most important components-providing an outlet for the Bièvre into the Seine and a symbolic trace of its history-constitute an adequate approach in light of substantial constraints.

Community support for the Bièvre’s renaissance was engaged with the widespread dispersal of a brochure highlighting the project in 2002. Created by the city and APUR, the brochure was presented at town hall and distributed to every household in the 5^th and 13^th arrondissements. It reads:

A tally of the suggestions and organization of a European competition was previewed for early 2003. The competition aimed to permit the establishment of a master plan of public spaces and produce sketches of plans for sites for reopening the Bièvre from Park Kellermann to the Seine. It called for work starting in 2005, but the competition has yet to be initiated. The results of the suggestions have yet to be made public, contrary to the exposition’s descriptive.

The Union Renaissance de la Bièvre views the APUR plan as the city paying false piety to its cause. After agreeing to carry out the project, it now wants to invest as little as possible to please those supporting it. In a letter to Mayor Delanoë, Union President Alain Cadiou reminds the mayor of his support for the Bièvre project during municipal elections, which resulted in a major increase in the Union’s membership from residents of neighborhoods where the Bièvre would first be uncovered. Two years later, however, during the inauguration for Exposition Bièvre at the 13^th arrondissement town hall, Deputy Mayor Myriam Constantin indicated that the Bièvre’s reopening was no longer on the agenda. Instead, the Bièvre would be evoked by a landscaped path of some sort. Mr. Cadiou suspects that the city decided to abandon the Bièvre’s reopening due to poor water quality upstream. As a former technician of the Water Agency Seine Normandy, he determined that 98% of the pollution of the Bièvre upstream comes from only 5 of the 667 secondary streams feeding into it. He confirmed with the Parisian Sanitation Syndicate (SIAAP) that eliminating these polluting factors is feasible. In a letter to the mayor, he concluded that "the reopening [of the Bièvre in Paris] has therefore nothing to do with insurmountable technical or financial constraints; it depends only on the will to do it or not". He subsequently requested a meeting of all concerned, which he was not granted.

Addition resistance to the Bièvre restoration exists. One of the authors of the most recent publication on the Bièvre, Sur Les Traces de La Bièvre Parisienne, stated in a widely-read newspaper that "the Bièvre is dead and buried, leave it peace." Many others believe that because the stream has not only been buried but embanked and built upon, it should not be uncovered. The difficulty in recreating the stream is seen as too substantial and the extent of the work far too costly. According to Alain Cadiou, the Green Party and its numerous elected officials in the mayor’s office are also against the project, favoring investment elsewhere in the city over the reopening of the Bièvre. This political party has had considerable influence on the mayor since his election in 2001.

The need for an economic rationale to pursue such an ambitious project as the Bièvre’s restoration is altogether reasonable. The projected cost of APUR’s plan, as of 2001, was roughly 40 million euros. The cost of IAURIF’s plan was not made but planned to be spread over a long period of time, as detailed earlier. The IAURIF study states that urban planning often has a hard time anticipating the long term due to the speed of changes, the instability of the economy, and public politics which hesitate to engage actions whose results are not felt before long periods of time. Union founder Marc Amboise Rendu confirmed that projects depend on the fiscal year budget and the political will at the time. An administration is therefore less likely to invest in a project whose results will not be felt during its term. This is plausible but uncertain, especially given Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoë’s aspirations to remain mayor or become President of the Republic.

Conflict between APUR and IAURIF is one issue at the core of the argument over the Bièvre’s Parisian restoration. According to several sources, APUR and IAURIF are in competition with each other; APUR being the city’s research department for planning projects and IAURIF the region’s. IAURIF’s regional approach to planning is more appropriate for certain projects within the city. Involved with the Regional Council along the Bièvre upstream, IAURIF has a greater understanding of the global scale of the Bièvre and its watershed. APUR, on the other hand, concerns itself strictly with Paris proper. For this reason, it has very little experience with projects dealing with the challenges of urban sprawl in Paris’s rural and semi-rural outskirts, where natural and protected areas are prevalent. IAURIF’s study showing the technical feasibility of an ecological approach in the long term has not been taken seriously by the city. Its two suggestions for adapting APUR’s plan—restricting construction on the Bièvre’s former traces and providing for future gravitational flow—were ignored. Despite the city’s intention to increase green spaces in the city, it does not favor a return of an ecologically functional Bièvre stream in Paris.

According to the Union, the restoration of the Bièvre is worthwhile if the APUR plan is modified to include ecological functions and to plan for the continuous, non-pressurized flow of Bièvre water from source to mouth. This would involve including it in long-term plans to prevent future development along its course. The Bièvre’s restoration is could also be seen as worthwhile because it would provide enhanced recreational and learning opportunities while being symbolic of the importance of nature and the ability of associations to act. This vision got the project initiated by the mayor and the Atelier Parisien d’Urbanisme, but its execution remains uncertain.

Ecological functions alone do not justify urban stream restoration

While the presence of ecological functions may measure the success of urban stream restoration, it does not necessarily justify investment in such a project. The potential benefits of daylighting an urban stream, the incentives of similar urban stream restoration projects in the world, the political context surrounding the Bièvre’s restoration and the numerous advocates supporting it are all pertinent to the project’s realization. All of these factors must be weighed when considering whether this project is worthwhile. Ultimately, debate over the project’s fate will continue until the Parisian political climate is ripe enough to make a decision. This does not appear possible until the next mayoral term.