Advertisement

Transforming Catacombs and the City of Paris: The Spatial Relationship Between the Home for the Living and the Dead

  • Raymond Lau
  • Mariela Bellido
  • Alexandra Reichert
  • Ellen Y. C. Leung
Chapter
  • 316 Downloads

Abstract

The architecture of a place can be accessed for a multitude of uses. In specific instances architectural structures may be geared towards places for the living and places for the dead. Whether they are meant to make an impact on the society, these buildings, along with the people who made these spaces available, shape the cities and architecture around them. More specifically, the spaces for the living and the dead have an impact on the societies revolving within the same place and vice versa which also emphasizes how such structures transform into iconic spaces. The city of Paris and the catacombs underneath are used as a case study.

References

  1. Archer, C. (2013). Paris Underground: The Missing Memory of the City. Critical Quarterly, 55(4), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arkaraprasertkul, N., & Williams, M. (2015). The Death and Life of Shanghai’s Alleyway Houses: Re-thinking Community and Historic Preservation. Revista de Cultura, 50, 138–152.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, C. (2014, March 27). Forbidden Paris | The Secret World of the Parisian Catacombs. Culture Trip. https://theculturetrip.com/europe/france/paris/articles/forbidden-paris-the-secret-world-of-the-parisian-catacombs/. Accessed 6 April 2017.
  4. Blunt, A., & Dowling, R. (2006). Home. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bracken, G. B. (2013) The Shanghai Alleyway House: A Vanishing Urban Vernacular. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Chiang, S.Y., & Leung, H. H. (2011). Making A Home in US Rural Towns: The Significations of Home for Chinese Immigrants’ Work, Family, and Settlement in Local Communities. Community Work & Family, 14(4), 469–486.Google Scholar
  7. Glowczewski, B., Matteudi, J.-F., Carrère-Leconte, V., Viré, M., & Guattari, F. (1983). La Cité des cataphiles: mission anthropologique dans les souterrains deParis. Paris: Librairie des Méridiens.Google Scholar
  8. Goldberger, P. (2005). Shanghai Surprise: The Radical Quaintness of the XintiandiDistrict. New Yorker, 81(42), 144.Google Scholar
  9. Gup, T. (2000). Empire of the Dead. Smithsonian, 31(1), 10.Google Scholar
  10. Leung, H.H. and Lau R. (2009) ‘Making of the Pacific Mall: Chinese Identity and Architecture in Toronto’ in HH Leung, M Hendley, RW Compton & BD Haley (ed). Imagining Globalization: Language, Identities, and Boundaries. NY: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  11. Leung, H. H., & Lau, R. (2015, September 22). Chaos & Order: Architecture, Planning, and Sociology. Shanghai: A Lecture at Tongji University.Google Scholar
  12. Maddrell, A., & Sidaway, J. (2010). Deathscapes: Spaces for Death, Dying, Mourning and Remembrance. Farnham/Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  13. Mee, C., & Spawforth, A. (2001). Greece: An Oxford Archaeological Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Noble, A. G. (2007). Traditional Buildings: A Global Survey of Structural Forms and Cultural Functions. London: I.B. Tauris.Google Scholar
  15. O Hare, M. (2015, October 16). Would You Dare Spend Halloween in the Paris Catacombs? CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/16/hotels/paris-catacombs-irbnb/. Accessed 10 March 2017.
  16. Philippides, D. (1983). Greek Traditional Architecture, Two Volumes. Athens: ‘MELISSA’ Publishing House.Google Scholar
  17. Renaud, A. (2010). Going Underground. Faces: People, Places, and Cultures, 26(4), 18–21.Google Scholar
  18. Robin, S., Gély J.P. and Viré M. (2014) An Underground World: The Catacombs of Paris. Paris: Pairs Musées.Google Scholar
  19. Schultz, R. Short Description (ICOMOS-IAU Case Study Format): The Pyramids of Giza and Related Buildings, Egypt. UNESCO Astronomy and World Heritage Webportal –Show Entity. http://www2.astronomicalheritage.net/index.php/showentity?identity=24&idsubentity=1. Accessed 02 April 2017.
  20. Shaoting, F. (2009). Shikumen: Experiencing Civil Residence and Alleys of Shanghai Style. Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House.Google Scholar
  21. Smith, R., & Bugni, V. (2006). Symbolic Interaction Theory and Architecture. Symbolic Interaction, 29(2), 123–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Staiger, U., Steiner, H., & Webber, A. (2009). Memory Culture and the Contemporary City: Building Sites. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Theocharopoulou, I. (2010). Nature and the People: The Vernacular and the Search for a True Greek Architecture. In J. F. Lejeune & M. Sabatino (Eds.), Modern Architecture and the Mediterranean: Vernacular Dialogues and Contested Identities. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Zhang, Y. 2013. The fragmented politics of urban preservation: Beijing, Chicago, and Paris. MN: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  25. Zhong, X. (2016). Tianzifang Shi Ru He Ke Neng De? [How could Tianzifang be possible?]. Shanghai: Fudan University Press. [in Chinese].Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond Lau
    • 1
  • Mariela Bellido
    • 2
  • Alexandra Reichert
    • 3
  • Ellen Y. C. Leung
    • 4
  1. 1.GAP ArchitectsHong Kong and BeijingChina
  2. 2.Department of SociologyState University of New York at OneontaOneontaUSA
  3. 3.Department of GeographyState University of New York at OneontaOneontaUSA
  4. 4.Faculty of Community ServicesRyerson UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations