Tampere University of Technology

DATUTOP 25

Karine Dupré

CARIBBEANURBAN

MODERNIZATIONA Typomorphological Study of Two Towns in Guadeloupe (1928-2003)

i

Karine Dupré

CARIBBEAN URBAN MODERNIZATION

A TYPOMORPHOLOGICAL STUDY OF TWO TOWNS INGUADELOUPE (1928-2003)

DATUTOP 25

ii

DATUTOPDepartment of ArchitectureTampere University of TechnologyOccasional Papers

Publisher:Department of ArchitectureTampere University of Technology,P.O. Box 600,FIN - 33101 TAMPERE,Finland.architecture@tut.fiwww.tut.fi/units/arc

Distributor:Juvenes Bookstore,P.O. Box 527,FIN - 33101 TAMPERE,Finland.juvenes@tut.fi

Series Editor: Jorma MäntyEditor: Gareth Griffiths

Series International Editorial Board:Martin H. Krieger, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA.Kimmo Lapintie, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland.Raine Mäntysalo, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.Tarkko Oksala, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland.Terttu Pakarinen, Tampere University of Technology, Tampere, Finland.Necdet Teymur, London, UK.Ola Wetterberg, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Opinions expressed in Datutop 25 are those of the author.Copyright © the author by arrangement with Datutop.

Datutop 25 - 2004.

UDC 72.01ISBN 952-15-1162-1ISSN 0359-7105

Printed in Finland by Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, Vammala, 2004.

iii

To Pasi,Nao & Sahelwho followed mein this Guadeloupean adventure.Hoping one part of the islandremains in their heart.

To Mamie and the other “grand persons” who read with me somepages of their lives.

To Erika and her little brother/sister to be born: because, finally,Guadeloupe is that for me,A book that never ends.

A Pasi,Nao & Sahelqui m’ont suiviedans cette aventure guadeloupéenne.Espérant qu’un bout de cette île restedéfinitivement accroché dans leurs cœurs.

A Mamie et ces autres «grandes personnes» qui ont bien voulufeuilleter avec moi quelques pages de leur vie.

A Erika et son petit frère/sa petite sœur à naître: car finalementGuadeloupe c’est cela pour moi,Un livre qui ne se referme jamais.

iv

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT viRÉSUMÉ viiACKNOWLEDGMENTS viii

PART I: Theoretical framework1. INTRODUCTION 13

1.1 The subject 131.2 The object 16

1.2.1 Site 161.2.2 Time-span 21

2. METHODOLOGY: How to study a bourg in Guadeloupe? 232.1 Typomorphological and historical approaches: how to combine both? 232.2 Methodology 29

2.2.1 Empirical material 302.2.2-Framework of analysis 32

PART II: Historical context3. BEFORE 1928 37

3.1 A glimpse of architectural and urban features 373.2 Historical context 48

4. IMPACT OF THE HURRICANE OF 1928 524.1 Financial support 534.2 Material support 554.3 The sending of specialists 564.4 Questioning building methods 574.5 Assessment of the reconstruction in 1935 60

PART III: Forms taken by the extension of the bourgs (1928-2003)5. MORPHOLOGICAL CONTEXT 64

6. MORPHOLOGICAL CASE STUDIES 706.1 Gosier 706.2.Trois-Rivières 99

7. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 137

v

PART IV: Analysis of the processes of modernization8. FROM DISCOURSE TO REALITY 140

8.1 Preamble: on the choice of discourse 1408.2 Colonial discourses 1418.3 Realities after 1946

9. TYPOMORPHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS 1619.1 Gosier 162

9.1.1 The pre-1955 period 1639.1.2 The 1955-1988 period 172

9.1.2.1 The coastal area 1749.1.2.2 The central block 1779.1.2.3 The inland area 190

9.1.3 The 1989-2003 period 1989.1.3.1 The coastal area 1989.1.3.2 The central block 1989.1.3.3 The inland area 202

9.1.4 Typomorphological conclusions on Gosier 2139.2 Trois-Rivières 217

9.2.1 The pre-1950 period 2199.2.2 The 1950-2003 period 232

9.2.2.1 From 1950 to 1976 2329.2.2.2 From 1977 to 2003 245

9.2.3 Typomorphological conclusions on Trois-Rivières 258

10. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 261

PART V11. CONCLUSION 262

COLOUR PLATES 267LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS & TABLES 296SOURCES 303BIBLIOGRAPHY 307

vi

ABSTRACT

Guadeloupe is a French Overseas Department and European regionwhich is located in the Caribbean Region. The legacy of its specifichistory as a tropical colony with an economy based on slavery andlarge-scale export crops (sugar cane, coffee, etc.), can be seen in theway urban forms have been created and developed. The urbangrowth (the early signs of which became apparent after emancipa-tion in 1848, with tremendous changes taking place in the mid-twen-tieth century), considerably modified the “traditional” landscapeand generated new forms. A more recent issue is how new ways oflife have begun to touch not only the main cities of the island but alsoits smaller towns.

The aim of this work is to describe and analyze the urban mod-ernization processes of two town centers (Gosier & Trois-Rivières)in light of their historical context. The changes in urban forms andbuilding types from 1928 to 2003 are considered here against thebackground of the emergence of modernism. Using one of the ma-jor concepts developed by Conzen for general morphologicalanalysis (the concept of the burgage cycle), as well as Caniggia’sconcept of typological process, this study assumes that spatial andsocial entities are nourished by a back-and-forth relationship.

After a presentation of the theoretical approach and the empiri-cal object in Part I, the work is divided into three parts. In Part II, ahistorical background provides a glimpse of the social context inGuadeloupe shortly before its devastation by the 1928 hurricane.The impact of the hurricane and the assessment of the reconstruc-tion in 1935 are also discussed. In Part III, the two case studies arepresented in their local context and then analyzed as morphologicalcase studies. Finally, Part IV presents the analysis of the understand-ing of modernization by colonial and post-colonial authorities priorto the analysis of the modernization process in the two towns froma typological perspective.

vii

RÉSUMÉ

La Guadeloupe est un Département Français d’Outre Mer, île situéedans la Caraïbe. Ses formes urbaines ont été fortement modeléespar un passé colonial reposant sur le système esclavagiste etl’exportation de monocultures. Aujourd’hui, la croissance urbaineest à la source d’un débat crucial qui touche non seulement les villesprincipales de l’île mais aussi ses plus petites unités urbaines.

L’objectif de ce travail est de décrire et d’analyser les processusde modernisation urbaine de deux bourgs (Gosier et Trois-Rivières)à la lumière de leur contexte historique. Les transformations desformes urbaines et des types urbains entre 1928 et 2003 sontappréhendées ici en parallèle de l’émergence du modernisme. Baséesur l’un des concepts majeurs développés par Conzen dans sesétudes morphologiques, celui de «burgage-cycle», et sur laméthodologie du processus typologique développée par Caniggia,cette étude suppose qu’entités sociales et spatiales se nourrissentmutuellement d’une relation continue.

Après une présentation de l’approche théorique et de l’objetempirique, l’étude est divisée en trois parties. La première décrit laGuadeloupe juste avant son ravage par le cyclone de 1928. L’impactde ce cyclone et un bilan de la reconstruction en 1935 y sont aussiexposés. La seconde partie présente les deux cas d’études dans leurcontexte local et propose leur analyse en tant qu’objets historiqueset morphologiques. Enfin, la troisième partie commence par unexamen du discours colonial et post-colonial concernant lesprincipes de modernisation à appliquer en Guadeloupe, pour finirsur une analyse des processus de modernisation urbaine relatifs auxdeux bourgs d’un point de vue typologique.

viii

Admittedly, writing a dissertation on Guadeloupe while living inFinland may seem farfetched. Yet, my own background and person-ality, perhaps “too southern” to enter the essence of Finnishness, ortoo “incomplete” to understand fully the Nordic societies (due to,among other things, the language barrier), indirectly brought me tostudy a French case.

As architect, I have always been attracted to scrutinizing thebonds linking people and their homes, between ways of life andspatial production. Through its “different” position in the Frenchlandscape and history, Guadeloupe has faced an obvious dilemmawhen confronting the reality of urban growth. The seemingly es-tablished dichotomy between architectures, as well as the lack ofinterest generated on this matter, presented all the elements to com-mence research. Today, when the moment comes to present someresults, the fact is that this choice has kept its promises.

From an initial demarche, which certainly resulted much morefrom a specific sensibility rather than a true scientific approach, itappears that this work owes a lot to various but very particularpersons. Their contribution shaped my brain little by little, clearedpreconceived ideas from it and ultimately gave me the opportunityto experience this type of work at very different and deep levels.Definitely, it is now time to thank them in detail: only those whopreferred to remain anonymous will not be named.

For their incommensurable contribution to my jump into theresearch world, Professor Terttu Pakarinen, Head of the UrbanPlanning and Design Institute at the Tampere University of Technol-ogy, and Professor Danielle Bégot, Head of the Industrial Archeol-ogy, History and Heritage at the University of Antilles-Guyaneshould be thanked.

In addition to helping me obtain financial support, ProfessorPakarinen has been a strong moral support (despite occasional“north-south” misunderstandings), as well as contributed greatly tomy intellectual enlightenment in the field of architecture and urbanplanning. Her guidance gave meaning to my past architectural stud-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ix

ies, for it permitted me to gather my knowledge into an understand-able whole. In many ways, her advice is visible in the frameworkshaping this dissertation.

Similarly, Professor Bégot has been an invaluable person, alwaysreliable, despite an all-year-round fully booked agenda and sorelytried health. She is the Historian who initiated me to start historicalresearch, opening my eyes to gaining another understanding of oursocieties. She was also a key person in Guadeloupe who facilitatedmy work by introducing me to others. Wherever I was living, inGuadeloupe or in Finland, her interest in my work has neverflagged and many extracts of our conversations found their wayinto my work. I deeply thank her for the personal “French touch”she brought along my works, more than once relieving me frompersonal and domestic troubles.

For their benevolent attitude towards my work, the followingpeople ought to be mentioned: Albert Flagie, Doctor in Anthropol-ogy, who first introduced me to Guadeloupe’s intellectual world andwas a jury member for my DEA. Professor Alain Yacou(Guadeloupe) immediately accepted me as an affiliated researcher athis Institute. Professor Harri Melin, of the University of Tampere,should also to be mentioned for the time he dedicated to the earlyphases of my work.

Because they greatly facilitated my general archival research, Ialso wish to thank the director of the Saint-John-Perse Museum inPointe-à-Pitre, Madam Tersen, who allowed me to dig into the mu-seum’s invaluable postcard collection; Robert Hamparian, who lentme some precious pictures and maps; the director of the Depart-mental Archives of Guadeloupe in Gourbeyre, Madam Servant,who made available to me the little researcher accommodation, aswell as the staff of the same archive center (specifically Jacqueline)who kindly and repeatedly kept me apprised of arrival of the foodseller ’s car, so as not to forget to eat. In the last phase of my researchwork, the anonymous postcard collector who allowed ProfessorBégot to dig in his collection and allowed me to use the copied docu-ments in my work (more than 20 postcards!) contributed greatly tobeginning my analysis on a firm basis; whereas one specific personat the Guadeloupean INSEE (the French Statistic Center) greatlycontributed to fill in all of the missing gaps.

On more technical matters, I wish to warmly thank all the differ-ent people and institutions that have contributed to the realizationand final shape of this work.

Regarding the financial aspect of this work, I would like to thankthe Industrial Research Fund at TUT (through Professor TerttuPakarinen), which was the first institution to provide me a grant formy research. By twice providing me with a grant, the Scientific Fund

x

of the City of Tampere must now be thanked twice: each time, it wasa very big and nice surprise to receive this money. But most of all,even if at the late stage of my work, I express my gratitude to theDoctoral School of the Tampere University of Technology, for bygaining the status of researcher and a monthly salary which relievedme from financial worries. I also thank the Institute of Urban Plan-ning and Design at TUT, which through its director, TerttuPakarinen, financially took care of the proofreading and printingcosts.

Concerning the final layout of this dissertation, Janine Leclerc, aretired French professor of English language must be specificallymentioned for all the early proofreading which she voluntarily per-formed, as well as for the year-round moral support. Similarly, the“Haitian team”, Nadeve Ménard and her mother Evelyne Trouillot,must also be thanked for the attentive work they gave in the finalproofreading stage. I offer Ana, the newborn girl of Nadeve, myapologizes in keeping her mother so busy. I shall also thank KrisClarke for her contribution as the final proofreader.

Concerning the illustrations, architects Maria Yunquera andMaito Rufa did a huge job in drawing more than half of the pre-sented plans (originally indecipherable sketches from my site sur-vey), as well as in providing me concise lectures on how tomanipulate a computer: I now send them overseas kisses becausethey came all the way from Spain to answer my “SOS” call. In thesame way, architect Mari Virtanen of Finland, and architect TiniNetz, from Germany, should be mentioned. Finally, Gareth Griffithis to be thanked for the final layout he freely carried out with all themeticulous qualities it involves.

However, there is one fact: without the cooperation of both in-habitants and civil servants of Gosier and Trois-Rivières this workcould have never been accomplished. My gratitude has no limit to-wards them. This work represents more than an intellectual jour-ney; it was literally a human adventure. Although each person thatopened her/his house and office to me should be deeply thanked, Ispecifically wish to express my gratitude to the following peoplebecause our relationship has often turned into real friendships.

In Gosier, the L. and C. families have done far more than pa-tiently explaining the stories of their town, their districts and theirhouses: they opened their homes to my family. Let Mamie,Christelle, Agnès, Micheline, and Papi be particularly thanked, aswell as Fred and Betty, Fred’s mother and brothers, Mrs FarnouxBernard and her daughter, Mounia and her six children. I also wishto express my gratitude to the inhabitants of Mangot, which is thedistrict where my family and I lived for 9 months.

xi

As they proved to be indispensable to my research on Gosier, Iwish to thank Gilda Gonfier, head of the multimedia municipal li-brary of Gosier, as well as the staff (specifically Chantal), for theiravailability and their support in finding scientific information. GildaGonfier not only “opened” the municipal archives of Gosier for myinvestigations but also gave me the chance to display a picture exhi-bition (June 2002), made in the early stage of my work and aimed atshowing the bonds of the inhabitants to their town. In the same way,the contribution of Philippe Guyon, urban planner, formerly inSEMAG, must be acknowledged because he made available almostall of the contemporary urban documents concerning Gosier thatare displayed in this work. Pascal Gane, from the municipality ofGosier, should also be mentioned for his help and keen interest inarchitecture.

In Trois-Rivières, the immediate enthusiasm of the municipalitytowards my research is worth mentioning and I would like to spe-cifically express my gratitude to Georges Siarras, head of municipalworks, and Mr Siméon, head of the municipal archives, because ofthe time they spent with me to describe their town and its past. Untilthe last stage of my writing, Georges Siarras has proved to be anindispensable person.

Denise Bride, Sister Elisabeth from the Notre-Dame Convent,one anonymous street cleaner and many families of Trois-Rivièresshould be thanked to have introduced me to their houses and/or totheir life stories. In the same way, Mr. Sainte Luce Théolade, formerhead of the primary school, and his remarkable memory needs tobe mentioned for his significant contribution.

Yet, in addition to the people I initially met in the course of mywork, there are all the others, who, even if not directly concernedwith my work, contributed to its well-being by their moral supportand their understanding.

In this regard, I bow in front of Claire Boissy, my friend, and herfamily (Emmanuel, Jeanne and Tom), for they were present at eachstage of this work: not only mentally but also physically, becausethey followed my family and me until Guadeloupe more than once.Kirsi Ikuli, my sauna mate, holds an equally significant place for allthe talk-and-listening moments shared together.

For all the manifold logistics they provided during all these yearsand their incommensurable love towards my children, I thank Seijaand Martti Virtamo, the grandparents of my children.

Because they daily broke the social isolation met at my workplace, I thank Kimmo Kurunmäki and Minna Chudoba for thelunchtime spent together.

For his insatiable curiosity and for being the only one of myrelatives to have read meticulously any French versions of my work

xii

(e.g. my DEA) and discussing them with me, I thank my grandfa-ther, PereJo, for being what he is.

Finally, I also want to mention Geneviève Pomet, fromGuadeloupe. Her friendship has been a precious moral support. Ialso thank Sylvie Rossetto, Gaelle Alain, Nadeve and Chenzo, theLabrador, Roussel & Erbs families because I know their house isalways open for a new journey in the West Indies.

But for all the seas crossed together, sometimes on a differentboat and finally with the same wind, I dedicate this work to PasiVirtamo, the father of my children, the man at my side.

13

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The subject

The first attempts to define building types and to use them as anarchitectural methodology were made in the 19th century. TheFrenchmen A-C Quatremère de Quincy (1755-1849) and J. N. L.Durand (1760-1834) both pioneered the theorization of the conceptof the typological approach, respectively in EncyclopédieMéthodique1 and Recueil et parallèle des édifices de tout genre anciens etmodernes,2 where classification is based on function, period andcountry.3 More recently, N. Pevsner confirmed the tradition of ty-pology in A History of Building Types,4 where a building type isdefined by its function, material and style. When comparing theseworks, one finds that although the characteristics of a type mightslightly differ in respect to era, the principle of categorizing abuilding by its formal properties remains unquestioned.

In the 1950s however, this typological approach was criticized,and its detractors, such as the Italian S. Muratori, pointed out thatinteractions with society, through its history, cultural dimensions,social values, etc., were not acknowledged in this approach. In-stead, critics proposed a typology based on the back-and-forth rela-tionship between a building type and its urban fabric. Thisperspective opened a wide field of conceptualizations, developedby architects (like the Italians C. Aymonino and A. Rossi), geogra-phers, and sociologists (such as the Frenchmen H. Raymond, P.Bourdieu),5 and provided a new focus: the analysis of urban forms.

Since then, typology and morphology have continued to de-velop. The debate remains relevant: it is sufficient to look at thedichotomy between current architectural journals, which mostlypresent the building as an object, proposing few thoughts on thebuildings’ surroundings and its integration in an urban whole; andurban planning journals which dissect the town and its infrastruc-ture, while frequently leaving aside the detailed architecturalqualities. The same issue is visible in the way architecture and ur-ban planning are too often considered to be different fields,6 al-though recently, there have been efforts to combine them inpractice.

1 Quatremère de Quincy,Encyclopédie Méthodique,Volume I, Paris :Panckoucke, 1788 ; VolumeII & III, Edition VeuveAgasse, 1801-1825. Source:Bibliothèque Nationale deFrance (Paris).2 Durand, J.N.L. Recueil etparallèle des édifices de toutgenre anciens et modernes,Paris : imp. de Gillé fils,1799-1801. Source :Bibliothèque Nationale deFrance (Paris).3 Castex, J. Une typologie àusages multiples, Ver-sailles: LDRHAUS, 2001,pp. 25-38.4 Pevsner, N. A History ofBuilding Types, Princeton,N.J.: Princeton UniversityPress, 1986 (1st ed. 1976).5 Panerai, Castex &Depaule Formes urbaines,de l’îlot à la barre, Ed.Parenthèses, 1997, p. 12.6 See R.Koolhaas’ defenceof this position in “Archi-tecture against urbanism”in Verwijnen, J. andLehtovuori, P., (eds.)Managing Urban Change,Helsinki: UIAH, 1996, pp.119-132.

PART I: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

14

The use of words is also important. Indeed, through their se-mantic connotations and their use, urban typology and morphol-ogy give the impression of privileging the link with the city orwith a defined urban area.7 Nonetheless, the urban phenomenon ofthe last fifty years is clearly not just connected with the city, but isinscribed within a much wider context. The systematic urbaniza-tion of cities’ peripheries or the mutilation of the countryside, inorder to establish housing estates here and there, is accepted. Yet,in a period that appears to denounce such over-urbanization, itseems that little consideration has been given to the remainingmiddle and small sized towns or even villages from a contempo-rary viewpoint.

In a world marked by rampant globalization, it seems less andless coherent to neglect these places because transforming workprocesses, improving technologies and greater accessibility facili-tates both physical transportation and interconnections even forthe person who stays at home; which ultimately contributes toshaping the urbanization of today and its forms.

Paradoxically, when observing closely, divisions remainwhich even recent globalization processes can not erase,8 becausethe shift from production/productivity to consumption/competi-tion produces unequal changes among societies. Today, the multi-plicity of societies is acknowledged in proportion to thedevelopment of studies that focus on the interrelation of factorsproducing these societies.

Interrelations between space and society have already beenstudied by many scholars, with some concluding that “space is asocial product”,9 while others have tried to uncover what is it thatmakes a society modern, sometimes through the lens of its urbanphenomenon. 10 Yet, while the concept of modernity cannot simplybe avoided, because it is such a central concept in the description ofcontemporary societies, the analysis of the process of moderniza-tion seems equally unavoidable as it raises crucial questionswithin one’s own society: why modernize, how to modernize, andshould modernization even be a model? As such, it not only relatesto a society’s self-image of but also to its worldview.

Guadeloupe, a French Region, with the attribute of not beingphysically attached to the mainland, since it is located in the Carib-bean, provides many of the elements relevant to a typomorpho-logical study on urban modernization with its increasing pace ofurbanization and small amount of large cities. This is due not onlyto its present but also because of its specific history as a tropicalcolony with an economy based on large-scale export crops (sugarcane, coffee, etc.) and slavery.

Indeed, the island’s past includes indigenous life (slowly but

7 See, for example, thework of Pevsner (1986).The building types listedare all part of the city.8 Eriksen, T. H. Ethnicityand Nationalism, London:Pluto Press, 1993.9 Lefebvre, H. La révolutionurbaine, Paris: Anthropos,1991.10 See, for example, theworks of M. Castells, suchas The City and theGrassroots, Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress, 1984 or TheInformational City, Oxford:Blackwell Publishers,1989.

15

surely wiped out after the discovery of the island in 1493 byChristopher Columbus), colonialism (starting with the French set-tlement in 1635) and slavery, has resulted in a contemporary soci-ety that reflects these multiethnic, forced exchanges. For example,it is difficult to find an undisputed estimate of the number of im-ported African slaves due to the lack of evidence. However, shortlybefore emancipation in Guadeloupe (1848) there were 9,926 whites,approximately 88,000 black slaves and 31,405 were free colouredpeople («libre de couleur») in a population of almost 130,000 inhab-itants.11 Later, more than 42,500 indentured workers arrived fromIndia between 1854 and 1889;12 moreover, 6,000 Africans werebrought to Guadeloupe during almost the same period (1848-1861)with the same status as that of the Indians.13

The direct heritage of such a tumultuous history can be seen inthe way urban forms have been created and developed. Urbangrowth (with the early signs apparent after emancipation and tre-mendous strides in the mid-twentieth century), has considerablymodified the “traditional” landscape and generated new forms andnew ways of life, which have become a more recent issue.

As in other countries, the urban landscape of Guadeloupe todayoffers features that are not solely restricted to the city, as tradi-tional rural lands are also becoming urbanized. Apparently, if it istrue that Guadeloupe amounts to 34 urban districts, according tothe French classification, questions remain about the meaning ofsuch a classification. This is particularly true when many contrastsappear amongst these districts in terms of population, buildingdensity or urban equipment, etc. In fact, specifically here, the quan-titative aspect is important, for only two of the urban districts canlegitimately claim the title of city: the city of Basse-Terre, one of theearliest settlements in the island and the administrative town ofthe island; and Pointe-à-Pitre, its legendary rival. Most of thethirty-two other towns of Guadeloupe oscillate between country-side and urban centre(s) that are more or less developed, betweensections and village centres, the latter being known as bourgs.

The village centre in itself symbolizes this urban duality quitewell. It remains in contact with the rural world through certainpractices of its inhabitants, even if they are not the general rule,such as having goats and chicken at street corners. Nonetheless,these centres also gather a relatively high density of populationand urban works, whereas the scale of the built space determinesits status of not yet being a city. Within the cadastral division of thecommune, like its sections, the bourg is a unique entity though theway it has been originally created (combining parish and institu-tions) and by its historical settlement. Close to the major cities, thebourg represented a counterpart to the plantation in the colonial

11 Source: Fallope, J.Esclaves et citoyens, lesNoirs à la Guadeloupe auXIXè siècle, Basse-Terre,Société d’Histoire de laGuadeloupe, 1992, pp. 75-103. Note: After 1848, itwas forbidden to take acensus based on skin color.This rule had already beenin effect since 1835 whenthe only distinction existedbetween enslaved or freepersons (without regard torace).12 Singaravelou, LesIndiens de la Guadeloupe,Bordeaux, 1975, p. 51,talks of 42,326 Indianworkers; Schnakenbourgof 42,500 in Schnaken-bourg, C. «Quelquesnouveaux éléments surl’histoire de l’émigrationindienne vers la Guade-loupe» in Bulletin de laSociété d’Histoire de laGuadeloupe, n° 110, 4e

trim., 1996, p. 55.13 Source: J. Adélaïde-Merlande (dir.) Historialantillais, tome IV, p. 143.

16

system. Subsequently, there is an urban or pre-urban historicity inthe bourg that does not exist in the sections. Today, the bourg ap-pears to have a two-speed urban practice: on one side, there is theendurance of the wooden house (la case);14 and on the other, there isthe building of private concrete villas, of row-housing of highstandard or moderate rent, the renovation of delinquent areas,sometimes suggestive of European models. Undoubtedly, thebourg represents a marker, filled with the various mutations andpermanencies, which have shaped it.

Thus, a study devoted to the local urban particularities ofGuadeloupe could be helpful in understanding the urban phenom-enon as well as its social relations. Thus, the aim is to analyze thesmall towns in Guadeloupe (and more precisely their centres)through an approach that combines historical and contemporaryviews: how has the small town evolved in terms of urbanization?What have been the urban modernization processes?

This study is based on the hypothesis that urban development,which parallels Guadeloupe’s modernization, is a process that in-volves several levels: individual and institutional, local and glo-bal.

But perhaps it is time to introduce Guadeloupe a bit more.

1.2 The object

1.2.1 The site

Located in the heart of the Lesser Antilles, Guadeloupe consists ofseveral islands, two of which form continental Guadeloupe. Itsclosest neighbours are the islands of Antigua, Barbuda, andMontserrat to the north, the islands of Dominica to the east andMartinique to the south, to name just a few (Fig. 1). With an area of1780 km2, the archipelago includes contrasting landscapes due tothe geographical relief and the resulting uneven precipices (Fig. 2).

Currently, Guadeloupe is a tourist and services-oriented islandof 444,000 inhabitants,15 a French Overseas Department since 1946,and also a European region, offering a surprising array of urbaninfrastructure compared with the nearest non-French Caribbeanislands. With its high population density rate (257 inhabitants/km2),16 its constant increasing population (+1% for 1990-99) and itsrelatively small amount of big cities (only 8 towns over 20,000inhabitants), it becomes clear that the urban question should not beneglected.

In this study, the focus is on continental Guadeloupe,17 oftencalled the butterfly due to its two wings: Grande-Terre and Basse-

14 “Cabin” or “hut”. It isdifficult to find the exacttranslation of this worldin English. Since one of itscentral functions is hou-sing, I will refer to it by“house” when appropriatethroughout this study,otherwise it will be furtherspecified.15 Source: INSEE 2003.16 Source: INSEE. Note: 110inhabitants/km2 in France,source: idem.17 The term “Guadeloupe”is used in this work tosignify “continentalGuadeloupe”.

17

Terre (Guadeloupe proper), which are separated by a maritimechannel, the Rivière Salée. There is reason to stress this featurebecause it explains to a large extent how the population settled inGuadeloupe, on which geo-physical principles the urbanizationhas been based, and finally, how the development of the island hasbeen planned. From another specific point of view, this territorialdivision is also apparent in the way each section of Guadeloupeanland resists natural disasters differently, and to varying levels; thusaffecting the extent to which they can offer protection to the urbansettlements.

Briefly, Basse-Terre is a mountainous island, with a volcano - laSoufrière - and the site of the first European settlement. Basse-Terreis the name of the main town of the island, founded in 1643, andcurrently the administrative centre of Guadeloupe (Fig. 3).

The other wing of the butterfly, Grande-Terre, has less dramaticlandscapes and has had more sugar cane cultivation. However, itslandscape, which is much less sheltered (no mountain to protect itfrom the western winds) helps to explain the damages, direct con-

Figure 1: Guadeloupe in the Caribbean region. Source: Giordani, J-P. La Guadeloupeface à son patrimoine, Karthala, 1996.

Figure 2: Relief of Guadeloupe. Source: GEO Magazine, 262, December 2000.

18

sequences of natural disasters, which are usually more significantin this part of Guadeloupe. The main city, Pointe-à-Pitre, foundedin 1759, has accumulated all of the economic attractions of Guade-loupe over the years.

Today, the city of Basse-Terre is considered to be the historicalpart of Guadeloupe whereas Pointe-à-Pitre represents its economicpulse. Such a dichotomy is also visible on a larger scale. Guade-loupean territory is indeed dominated by inequalities in develop-ment and the location of its population. Most of the Guadeloupeanpopulation (47%) is concentrated in the Grande-Terre wing, as wellas the largest agglomeration (Pointe-à-Pitre/Abymes/Gosier)which contains 28% of the population.18

Therefore, because the geophysical aspect of Guadeloupe isseparated into two distinctive islands, which economically devel-oped with different rhythms and emphases through history, I havedecided to choose one town on each island to conduct this study, atown that is representative enough of each island’s historical andsocio-economical development.

The town of Trois-Rivières has been selected for the Basse-TerreIsland. Indeed, like Basse-Terre, Trois-Rivières - 13 km from thecity of Basse-Terre (Fig. 3) - has had a period of good fortune andprosperous economy prior to a gradual socio-economic declinethat became strongly marked after the Second World War. Today,Trois-Rivières reflects the stagnation of Basse-Terre in remainingone of the most rural areas of Guadeloupe. Furthermore, the geo-graphical characteristics of Trois-Rivières are also representativeof Basse-Terre Island: it is steeply bordered by two main volcanicmountains - Monts Caraïbes (683m) and La Madeleine (963m).

The town of Gosier on Grande-Terre Island was chosen. Locatedin the direct periphery of Pointe-à-Pitre (3km), Gosier broadly fol-lowed the same development as Grande-Terre: after a period de-

18 INSEE 2000.

Figure 3: The towns of Guadeloupe. Source: Tourist Office of Guadeloupe.

19

voted to the intensive production of specific monocultures (e.g.sugar cane, coffee, etc.), Gosier became oriented towards a drasticeconomic change that was to modify its urban status. Indeed, withthe introduction of tourism and a service-oriented economy in thelate 1950s, Gosier like all the southern coast of Grande-Terre notonly modified its activities but also its town landscape. Today,Gosier is part of the most important urban area of Guadeloupe.

In conclusion, although an attempt was made to select bothtowns according to their potential similarities from one island tothe other, such as their proximity to the bigger city, land surface,and number of inhabitants; it is important to underline that, first,no perfect match could be found; and, second, that in itself the lackof a precise correspondence between criteria did not interfere withthe final analysis of the results. Indeed, in this study, what wasspecifically examined was not the regularities found while com-paring the two towns, but rather the enunciation of the growthprinciples.

One aspect that has been deliberately reconsidered in thisstudy is the physical perimeter of observations. As previously ex-plained, this work mainly focuses on the bourg, the actual centre ofthe small town (despite the fact that the word “centre” may notnecessarily cover the characteristics of a centre, as usually under-stood). But instead of closely following a site’s perimeter definedby cadastral maps, the choice here has rather consisted in limitinga perimeter according to other types of criteria, which are thepopulation’s own definition of the limits of the bourg and the ob-servation of the practices related to the bourg.

Indeed, one specific reason has motivated this choice: it relatesto the rigidity of cadastral surveys. A cadastral survey is above allan administrative document, dependent on the Tax Office inFrance (since 1948), and therefore cannot be expected to take intoaccount the historical changes and the spatial practices of the in-habitants (even if in its divisions and subdivisions this documenttries to refer to as many of them as possible). And there is obvi-ously a problem when considering the present urban configura-tion of the bourg. The cadastre, delineated at a certain time, is lessrelevant today (for this particular matter) because its divisions,definitively fixed, no longer reflect the urban reality. As the POS ofGosier noted: “the bourg may cross its traditional limits”.19

Besides, to live on a parcel considered as belonging to the bourgby the cadastre, does not automatically mean such is the case inreality. A common consensus exists, established as much by theinhabitants as by the municipal officers, that instead provides amore or less strict perimeter to the bourg. Of course, to acknowl-edge this phenomenon introduces relativity, for this perimeter

19 In POS du Gosier, Rap-port de présentation, 1990,p. 7. Note: POS stands forPlan d’Occupation des Sols:it is a municipal land-useplan, created in 1967, andused in France as a regula-tory tool. In 2000 it wasreplaced by the Plan Locald’Urbanisme (Act of 13.12.2000, loi SRU). Source:Ministry of Equipment.

20

might change from one individual to another, from one time toanother,20 but at least, it presents the advantages of considering thebourg as a lived and moving space and not as a rigidified one. Assuch, the perimeters chosen respectively for Gosier and Trois-Rivières do not correspond to the cadastral survey. Rather, thesechosen perimeters propose an interpretation of the spatial defini-tion of the bourg, at a given moment.

For Gosier, the chosen perimeter goes from the start of thecemetery in the west side of the bourg to the road intersectionnicknamed “the three-lane intersection” in its eastern side (meet-ing Amédée Clara Boulevard and Général de Gaulle Boulevard).

Figure 4: The chosen contour for the bourg of Gosier. Source: Based on the 1991Cadastre.

Figure 5: The chosen contour for the bourg of Trois-Rivières. Source: Based on the1986 Cadastre.

20 This is clearly noticeablewhen looking at thesuccessive planningstudies made for the bourgof Gosier, the contours ofthe bourg are slightlydifferent from one study toanother, for example.

21

The northern limit follows the contour of Father Coudray Street inthe district arrière-bourg, and that of the full official territory of theMangot district. The sea in the south concludes this perimeter(Fig.4)

For Trois-Rivières, the cemetery in the northeast, the post office(in the southwest) and the private hospital of Doctor Tharsis are thesymbolic borders for the studied territory (Fig.5).

1.2.2 Time span

The time span of 1928-2003 has been chosen for this study because itcovers a period marked by several key dates decisive to Guade-loupe, but also because, more broadly, it covers the emergence ofthe Modern Movement in architecture and its development sincethen. If the notion of modernization did not wait for this move-ment to exist, it nonetheless took a significant turn after theconceptualization offered by the members of the CIAM congress(Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne), and acquired a spe-cific meaning architecturally speaking. In this sense, the chosentime span is justified by the aim to study some of its influence on asmall territory like Guadeloupe, whose population almost dou-bled in less than 80 years, expanding from 243,243 inhabitants in1926 to 444,000 in 2003.21

With regard to dates relevant to Guadeloupe, 1928 represents akey year in the history of the island because on September 12th itwas devastated by a major hurricane. This hurricane remains deepin people’s memory as one of the most terrible ever experienced inGuadeloupe; having importance as much for its psychological ef-fect as well as for material damages caused because everything hadto be built again (a more contemporary example would be Hurri-cane Hugo which struck the island in 1989). But, on top of the disas-ter itself, it is its major consequence - the reconstruction - that wasto have a significant role in the built space of Guadeloupe, since itbrought about the use of new building material (e.g. metal, rein-forced concrete) and consequently new techniques like prefabrica-tion, as well as the apparition of new building forms (e.g. cube orbar-like building). Inevitably, all these new features slowly trans-formed the designing and building processes, reshaping the urbanlandscape as well as the way of life, which in turn was also influ-enced by the global political and socio-economic climate. Indeed,the Great Depression of the 1930s and, on a more national level, thebeginnings of changes in the colonial French policy22 during thesame period were also to play their part in the post-hurricane re-construction.

1946 could be considered another key date in terms of built

21 Source: Arch. Dép.Guadeloupe in AnnuaireStatisique de la Guadeloupe& INSEE.21In fact, changes were dueto the rise of the left topower, under the Cartel desGauches, which won the1924 election. Source:Carpentier, J. & Lebrun, F.Histoire de France, Seuil,1987, p. 327.

22

space, because the change of status of Guadeloupe to that of aFrench Overseas Department (DOM), strongly marked by assimila-tive aspirations on the part of the majority of Guadeloupeans aswell as by an assimilative policy from the French government,resulted in large programmes initiated by the central administra-tion, concerning social services, infrastructure and housing condi-tions.23

Almost sixty years after the implementation of such pro-grammes, their meanings and effects can still be extensively dis-cussed; yet, it remains evident that the underlying ideology(assimilation) has strongly influenced architectural production be-cause it was initially understood that models were to be found inFrance. The impact of large blocks of apartments is still evident inthe Guadeloupean urban landscape nowadays, even though theirspatial congruity is called into question more than ever. Todaylocal architects try to find their way out of stereotypes. Thus, thechosen time span offers many opportunities for considerations.

Finally, the choice to work on the contemporary period is alsojustified by the paucity of studies that exist on this period.

23 Gastmann A. &MacDonald S. «The FrenchWest Indies» in Potter, R.(ed.) Urbanization,Planning and Developmentin the Caribbean, Mansell,1989, p.245.

23

2. METHODOLOGY:How to study a bourg in Guadeloupe?

2.1 Typomorphological and historical approaches:How to combine both?

French History, as a methodological science, has faced importantchanges over the last 80 years, which has considerably modified itsrelationships to time and to its field of analysis.24

Indeed, the founding of the magazine “Les Annales d’histoireéconomiques et sociales” in 1929 by the historians L. Febvre (1878-1956) and M. Bloch (1886-1944) announced, among other features,the end of a descriptive and narrative History, devoted to the com-pilation of facts, in favor of a History that questions its object. Theirprogramme of structural history aimed at proposing a science pri-marily concerned with events (histoire événementielle) that soughtgeneral and multi-faceted interpretations, including their oppo-sites, rather than solely explanations.25 In 1958, F. Braudel (1902-1985) definitively introduced the basis of the new historicaldialectics, present/past and continuity/rupture, thus pioneeringthe methodological revolution of the regeneration of the historicalobject.

The new emphasis on the role of the historian in relation toHistory provided another opportunity to broaden the field. Hencerural history, and then urban history, opened new fields of explo-ration that were particularly interesting for the new historians.

However, the 1980s again marked a turn, for the results fromthe interdisciplinary studies appeared to be disappointing whenhegemonic ideologies were questioned. Since then, the disciplineof history remains in crisis, yet the profound mutations of the late20th century have not been fundamentally denied. This is visible inthe way historians use sources but in the way objects of study arechosen as well. Now they not only describe the document (content,origin, author, date) but are also able to take a distance from it andto reinsert it into its global context (in other words, to question thedocument).26 In fact, the micro-scale approach (founded by the Ital-ian Ginzburg & Poni in 1981), or for example the focus on anoma-lies,27 simply perpetuate the principles articulated by the foundersof the new history: a science interested in every dimension, nolonger unilinear, even if not attaining the large scale of studies (e.g.continents), suggested by Braudel.

The following study is directly inspired by this tradition ofanalyzing objects that a priori seem to be tiny or of lesser impor-tance, but nonetheless carry great meaning and significance in thegeneral context.

24 This present chapter isdirectly inspired by thelectures on History givenby Professor D. Bégot atUAG, November 2001-May 2002.25 Topolski, J. Methodologyof History, Reidel Publish-ing Company, 1976, p.145.26 For more precision, seeBégot, D. «Histoire eticonographie aux Antilles»in Abenon, Bégot, Bégot,Burac, Calmont, Hartog,Relire l’histoire et lagéographie de l’espacecaribéen, Hachette, 2001,pp. 24-32.27 For example, Ferro, M. inLes tabous de l’Histoire,Paris: NiL éditions, 2002,questions the reasons whysome particular historicalevents have often beensilenced.

24

To understand the evolution of small towns in Guadeloupe, onecertainly has to first comprehend its society and its cultural sur-roundings. Indeed, Guadeloupean society differs from France be-cause it was born out of the model of the plantation society, in placeuntil 1848 when slavery was abolished in the French possessions,and from the colonial schemes applied to this very particular typeof society.

However, unlike other colonies in the Caribbean, there neverwas any real interest by those in power in planning an urban terri-tory in Guadeloupe. Indeed, the comparison between Cuba (aSpanish colony), Jamaica (an English colony) and Guadeloupe (aFrench colony) in the same period (17th-18th century), quickly re-veals how Guadeloupe presented an undeveloped urban land-scape. With a more qualitative approach, the comparison betweenthe main cities of the three aforementioned islands (La Havana,Kingston and Basse-Terre) also shows the absence of systematicplanning in the Guadeloupean case, even though some traditionalcolonial patterns, such as the checkerboard, can be found (but to asmall extent).28 This fact can be explained by the reasons on whichFrench colonization was based and by the importance attached tothe colony by its mainland. Rather than town settlement proper asin the Spanish case, the urban phenomenon in Guadeloupe was in afirst stage essentially spontaneous,29 satisfying the interests oftraders and producers, as well as the expansion of the kingdom.Thus, urban thinking was not a priority for those in power who,almost exclusively, needed plantations and ports,30 even in themid-19th century when the population started to increase consider-ably and constantly.31

Furthermore, contrary to most of the other Caribbean islandsthat attained independence,32 Guadeloupe remained part of Franceby gaining the status of a French Overseas Department rather thanthat of colony in 1946. This event had a great impact on the island,for it symbolically and concretely signalled the acceleration of theassimilation process, which aimed at raising the Guadeloupeanway of life to that of mainland citizens. The attempt to plan theterritory of Guadeloupe as an urban territory was viewed as oneway to achieve this.

In this sense, even though the time span of this study is re-stricted to the contemporary period, it is evident that some knowl-edge of the local history is essential, for the great or factual Historyof France cannot be taken for granted. The historical basis is thenrequired to evaluate the production, practices, and uses related tothe built space.

But surprisingly, and as far as the author knows, if the historicaldevelopment of Guadeloupe’s two principal cities, the decline of

28 In Dupré, K. “Globali-sation and urbanism: Thecase of a European peri-pheral region, Guade-loupe,” InternationalSeminar, The EuropeanCity in Transition, BauhausUniversity Weimar, 2002.29 Bégot, D. “Villes eturbanisme” in Voyage auxîles d’Amérique, Directiondes Archives de France,Ministère de la Culture etde la Communication,Paris, Archives Nationales,1992, p. 259.30 The lack of a specializedoffice or administrativeservice in charge of thedevelopment of cities onthe island for a longperiod is further evidenceof the lack of interest inurban thinking.31 129,109 persons in 1845and 243,243 in 1926.Source: Arch. Dép. Gua.Annuaire Statistique de laGuadeloupe.32 For example, Haiti in1804 (the first independentnation in the Caribbean),Jamaica, Trinidad &Tobago in 1962, Dominicain 1978.

25

one and the emergence of the other, has been broadly studied33, thesmall towns of Guadeloupe have garnered little interest,34 espe-cially in the urban and architectural field.

If it is true that the collection Histoire des Communes directed byAdelaïde-Merlande,35 offers an interesting historical insight intoeach Guadeloupean commune, its aim has no other ambition thanto deliver a historical description.

The long chapter dedicated to the analysis of the bourg in LaGrande Encyclopédie de la Caraïbe also offers a serious historical back-ground. Yet in terms of urbanization, the most recent urban proc-esses have been disregarded in favour of a direct contemporaryarchitectural and rather typological analysis. The analysis omitsthe transition explaining the processes from the 19th century to the20th century urban planning and urbanization in the bourg.

Furthermore, although the geographical analysis of G.Lasserre, in La Guadeloupe, étude géographique,36 remains a referencefor every work concerning Guadeloupe, its time period (up to theend of the 1960s) cannot possibly reveal more contemporary phe-nomenon.

At the same time, other works have concentrated on very con-temporary studies and thus omitted the historical perspective. Thistends to be the case of geographers working in the urban field,37 ormore commonly official reports.38

However, the doctoral dissertation of Casimir, «L’urbanisationde la commune du Gosier: La transformation d’un bourg rural enune ville touristique»,39 is worthy of praise in many respects. First,it provides a detailed historical background concerning the city ofGosier, thus escaping from bonds of traditional interests (maincities). Second, through its broad time span (1493-1986), Casimir’sstudy covers a wide range of events and its analysis encompassesthe population’s evolution and the commune’s development asmuch as the political climate distinct to Gosier. Third, by its obvi-ously intimate knowledge of the commune, Casimir brings aunique insider perspective, rich in anecdotes and thus distant fromcold reports. Yet, despite its qualities, the clear emphasis on ex-plaining the general lines of Gosier’s urbanization keeps the workfrom analyzing smaller events or facts that could have nuanced hisstatements. In the same way, the lack of context or comparison withother communes does not give space to judge whether the casestudy is exceptional or part of wider phenomenon. Furthermore,despite the focus on urbanization, the work is totally lacking fromthe architectural point of view.

Actually, this latter comment underlines the fact that in a widercontext one could remark that Caribbean architecture has fre-quently been described and analyzed in terms of plantation archi-

33 See the work of Bégot, D.(dir) La Grande Encyclo-pédie de la Caraïbe, Ed.Sanoli, 1990 or Giordani,J-P. La Guadeloupe face àson patrimoine, Karthala,1996, and in particularPérotin-Dumon, A. La villeaux îles, la ville dans l’île,Basse-Terre et Pointe-à-Pitre, Guadeloupe, 1650-1820, Karthala, 2000.34 The work of Lafleur, G.Saint-Claude, Histoired’une commune de Guade-loupe, Paris, Karthala,1993, is the only substan-tial one found on this topic.35 Antilles-Guyane, Ed.Pressplay, 1986.36 Lasserre, G. La Guade-loupe, étude géographique,Bordeaux, Ed. Kolodziej,1978, 2 vol.37For example, Bene, J-C. &D’Arrigo, F. «L’évolutiondu tissu urbain et péri-urbain du bourg de Sainte-Anne», Mémoire de maî-trise, directeur GiacottinoJ-C, Université d’Aix-Marseille, 2001; or Luce,M. C. «La route d’argent»,DEA de Géographie, direc-teur Burac M., UAG, 2000.38 For example, a govern-mental report on urbaninfrastructure or urbandevelopment such asSchéma d’AménagementRégional de la Guadeloupe.39 Doctoral dissertationdirected by Dupeux,Bordeaux, Ed. Universitéde Lille III, 1988.

26

tecture and urban architecture (meaning architecture of the cities),or from the building heritage viewpoint, which seldom pays atten-tion to domestic architecture.40 Few attempts have been made todescribe other types of architecture, such as that of the bourg, forexample.

If the description of domestic architecture is present, it is oftenrestricted to the colonial period: the works of D. Buisseret, Histoirede l’architecture dans la Caraïbe41 or A. Gravette, Architectural Heritageof The Caribbean: An A-Z of Historic Buildings42 do not escape thistendency.

However, two books stand out, for one of their goals was spe-cifically to describe the Caribbean popular dwelling.

The first, La Grande Encyclopédie de la Caraïbe (1990)43 is dedicatedto architecture and represents one of the first attempts to propose aprecise panorama of the architecture in the French West Indies. Inthis work, thirty pages are devoted to the architecture of the bourg,including a historical analysis of the bourg’s formation, some con-siderations about its typology as well as an overview of publicbuildings. This is considerable when one looks at the paucity ofliterature on the subject. However, one can also discern the influ-ence of the second book, J. Berthelot and M. Gaume’s Kaz antiyé janmoun ka rété (1982),44 published eight years earlier, in the descrip-tion of the domestic architecture.

In their book, Berthelot and Gaume essentially focused on thewooden house (la case), proposing a fine typology in various Carib-bean countries, describing material, form and evolution, as well asa brief historical context. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that theconcept broadly applied in this work tended to reduce all localarchitecture to the case. Furthermore, it viewed the case as the start-ing point of all further housing developments, which reflects moreof an ideological perspective than anything else.45 Twenty yearsafter its first publication, interest in this work has not decreased,but its weak points have become more obvious.

Despite this, and perhaps above all else, one must acknowledgethat all the works cited above nevertheless have the merit of exist-ing. Guadeloupe’s history has certainly influenced the areas schol-ars choose to focus on: the colonial periods, as well as the timebefore and after the abolition of the slavery (1848), have been thepredominant areas of research, leaving more recent urban and ar-chitectural questions quite overlooked.

Finally, the lack of studies on architectural and planning issuesin Guadeloupe can also be seen as revealing the lack of interest inthe topic and the reluctance it might incite: isn’t architecture ulti-mately about traces of the past, which may not always be relished?But this is perhaps a matter for another debate. Within this context,

40 For example, Patrimoinedes communes de laGuadeloupe, Ed. Flohic,1998, proposes a compila-tion of valuable buildingsarchitecturally speaking(among other things), inwhich less than 4% isdevoted to domesticarchitecture.41 Ed. Caribéennes, 1980.42 Kingston: Ian RandlePublishers, 2000.43 Bégot, D. op. cit.44 Berthelot, J. & Gaume,M., L’Habitat populaire auxAntilles, Ed PerspectivesCréoles, 1982.45 Bégot, D., “CreoleArchitecture: Building aHistorical Object”, Northand South: Typomorpho-logical Studies seminar,Tampere University ofTechnology, Sept. 2003.

27

I have decided to search for a methodological approach that couldcombine more precisely historical and contemporary views in re-lation to urban forms.

One of the goals of typomorphological studies is to propose aninterpretation of the town plan as we find it today and to use plansas evidence of past conditions. Many such studies have been con-ducted in UK, Italy or France, and have revealed some basic princi-ples about the morphology of town plans.

M. R. G. Conzen (1907-2000), a German geographer whomoved to Britain, has been one of the leaders in this type of study,developing a specific method called “town plan analysis”. His pur-pose was to study the development of society through the evolu-tion of urban forms. Starting by defining the urban landscape asthe combination of a town plan, a pattern of building forms and apattern of urban land use, Conzen narrowed down the notion ofthe town plan by characterizing it as the topographical arrange-ment of a built-up urban area including three complexes of plan-ning elements: streets and their arrangement in a street-system,plots and their aggregation in the street-block and buildings andtheir block-plans.46

The concept of the burgage-cycle is one of the theorizing tools hedeveloped for his geographical analysis of the town plan. Thisconcept describes the progressive infilling of plots with buildings,resulting in a climax phase of maximum coverage, terminating inthe clearance of the plot, preparatory to redevelopment.47 Anothermajor concept is the morphological period, which identifies any cul-tural period that exerts a distinctive morphological influence uponthe whole or any part of a town.48

Moreover, Conzen also placed emphasis on the evaluation ofthe physical conditions of a site and its situation, as well as on theassessment of relevant economic and social development. In otherwords, the context is conceived as a major part of the analysis of thetown plan because it represents a bridge between morphologicaland functional approaches in urban geography.

Similarly, another scholar, the Italian architect Caniggia (1932-1987), developed urban morphology studies on the theoretical ba-sis that urban form can only be understood historically because itis continually transforming. According to the Caniggia school, thefocus is on the “typological process” in which new building types areviewed as products of a process of learning from the adaptations ofprevious building types.49 This perspective has been recognized,for it brought up a specific concern about the mechanisms leadingfrom one urban form to another, a concern that was largely forgot-ten by geographers who did not question the creation of the recog-

46 Conzen, M.R.G.Alnwick, Northumberland, astudy in town-plan analysis,Institute of BritishGeographers Publication,No. 27, London: G. Philipand Son, 1960.47 Larkham, P. J. & Jones, A.N., A Glossary of UrbanForm, HGRG 26, Editorsand Urban MorphologyResearch Group, June 1991,p.4.48 Idem, Larkham p. 55.49 Whitehand, J. W. R. &Carr, C. M. H., Twentieth-Century Suburbs. AMorphological Approach,London: Routledge, 2001.

28

nized morphological periods.In addition, the typological process can be understood as the

succession of types in a chosen cultural area (diachronic transfor-mations) or in several cultural areas but within a chosen time span(diatopic transformations). This has been particularly developed atthe scale of individual buildings, seen as a historical individualiza-tion (both spatially and temporally), whereas the geographicalideas focus more on how the forms make urban areas fit together.To be able to analyze urban forms, Caniggia conceptualized a scaleof building components, made of four entities: elements, the struc-ture of elements, systems of structure and organism of systems.50

Even though this scale served well for analyzing buildings,Caniggia had from the start emphasized the necessity of using itfor larger objects (e.g. building, tissue, district and town) and relat-ing its components with one another.

Another concept is that of building type, expressing the culture ofbuilt space in a certain area and at a certain time. The study ofbuilding type which allows the identification of basic and special-ized types, the understanding of the transformation laws, as well asthe choice of the level of analysis are the cornerstones of the typo-logical process. So, from this Italian viewpoint, the developedanalysis serves to identify a range of types at different levels ofresolution, spotting what will later be defined as rooted and analyti-cal types by other scholars.51 The rooted type is understood as atype that has emerged through the interaction and at the commonconsent of planner and user, whereas the analytic type representsan abstract idea, used for planning purposes as a basis of certainspatial orders within the city.52

Influenced by the Italian school and acknowledging it (throughthe notion of continuity in history),53 the French school, guided byarchitects Panerai and Castex,54 introduced a new way to thinkabout typomorphology. It developed a methodology that consid-ers the analysis of types and urban forms and that of social contentsof equal importance.55 Referring mostly to the work of sociologistsLefebvre and Raymond, Panerai and Castex questioned the mean-ing of the use of space as well as the social practices within space.

Perhaps one of the best reflections of this understanding oftypomorphology and closer to the case in point, is the work ofLetchimy, a geographer56 and urban planner from Martinique. In-deed, in his book De l’habitat précaire à la ville: l’exemple Martiniquais,57

in which the author proposes a methodology to integrate specificdistricts (which he calls “quartiers populaires”) into the global urbanphenomenon, it is interesting to note how, starting from the analy-sis of the parcel, his study concentrates largely on its social use andcreation. Actually, one of Letchimy’s conclusions is that a parcel

50 Direct quotation fromCaniggia, G & Maffei, G. L.Composition architecturaleet typologie du bâti, Laro-chelle P. (French transla-tion), Ville RechercheDiffusion, 2000, p. 73: “Theelements are bricks (…);structures are individualassociations of severalelements, such as the floor,wall (…); systems arethose aggregations ofstructures recognizable a sbeing relatively autono-mous: rooms, stairs, etc.which together form thesystem’s organism, or thewhole building”.51 Panerai, Castex, DepauleFormes urbaines, de l’îlot àla barre, Ed. Parenthèses,1997, p. 13.52 Pakarinen, T. & Hurme,T. Space and Urban. ATypological Approach to theIndustrial Town, Tampere:TUT, 1988, p.8.53 Ibid., p.14.54 Panerai, Castex, DepauleFormes urbaines, de l’îlot àla barre, op.cit.55 Castex, J. Une typologie àusage multiple, op. cit., p.78.56 For more about Marti-nique, see his doctoraldissertation: «Urbanismeet Urbanisation à laMartinique: le cas de Fort-de-France», Claval P. (dir.)Paris IV, unpublished, Vol.I & II, 1984.57 L’Harmattan, 1992.

29

does not exist in the sense geographers and planners understand it,as a physical perimeter readable on a plan, but rather exists interms of social relations, such as how to position the house fromone neighbor to another, how to take into account the illegal waterand electric utilities in the construction, how not to block the pas-sage from one house to another, etc.

The idea here is not to discuss this finding per se, but to showhow typomorphological studies have been developed with finertools concerning the human context “without which they remain in-comprehensible”, to quote the pioneer Conzen.58 This is even truerwhen one considers more recent works in typomorphology: theyhave created a significant shift because the historical, medievaltown is no longer considered to be of sole interest. Based on themethodological criticism within the field of typomorphologicalstudies, the study of “modern” urban landscapes combined withthe latest theorization on philosophical and socio-economic factorshas opened a new way of examining urban forms and spaces.59 Oneof these new strands of current research in urban morphology isthe concern for planning, frequently termed the “management ofthe urban landscape”, whereby processes of decision-making,agents and management procedures and policies are examined.60

The scholar Carter has challenged typomorphological studies bydeveloping a branch of studies in urban landscape management, inwhich he has gone as far as asserting that “a study of town planremains to be written based on characterizing processes rather than his-torical periods.”61

Nonetheless, even with the latest concerns on typomorpho-logical research, there is a common theoretical frame that remainsunchanged within the Conzenian tradition, which is an analysisbased on three fundamental physical elements (building/plot/street) offering several levels of resolution in a historical context.

Finally, although typomorphological studies developed in op-position to Modernism,62 external criticism towards typomor-phological methodologies were few because typomorphologicalstudies developed relatively independently.63

2.2 Methodology

In light of the theoretical background, typomorphological meth-odology is considered appropriate for this research, as it presentsboth the concern for history and the analysis of town development.Besides, as far as I know, there has never been any morphologicalstudy precisely focusing on the territory of Guadeloupe, even lesson the bourgs of Guadeloupe. Yet, this study on two bourgs ofGuadeloupe cannot be expected to display all that is known on the

58 In Alnwick, Northumber-land. A Study in Town-PlanAnalysis, op. cit.59 See, for example, theworks of Whitehand,Carter, Vilagrasa.60 Larkham & Jones, AGlossary of Urban Form, op.cit., p. 5.61 In The Built Form of Wes-tern Cities, op.cit., p. 209.62 See for example theposition of SaverioMuratori in Caniggia, G.Lecture de Florence, uneapproche morphologique dela ville et du territoire,ISASL Bruxelles, Refe-rences XVIII, 1994, pp.9-10.63 Indeed, it is only recentlythat confrontation betweenConzenian and Caniggiantradition occurred throughthe formation of the ISUFinternational scholargroup. However, the criti-cal aspect of the works ofA. Rossi and C. Aymoninowithin the frame oftypomorpho-logicalstudies needs to beacknowledged here. Seecomments on their contri-bution in Castex, J. Unetypologie à usages multi-ples, op.cit., pp. 74-76.

30

morphology of town plans. At its modest level, this case study canpropose a complementary view to what has been usually studied,by covering a different functional type of town, as well as towns ofdifferent cultural areas. Indeed, so far, few typomorphologicalstudies are concerned with non-western areas, and specificallywith the Caribbean region,64 only some have focused on non-inde-pendent countries or towns built for the needs of plantationeconomy.

2.2.1 Empirical material

As previously seen, there is no contradiction in combining histori-cal and typomorphological methodologies because archival mate-rials both nourish the study and can confirm the results of theurban form analysis. Still, it is important to bear in mind that this isthe work of an architect, and thus certainly lacks a truly historicalapproach.

Concerning the methodology, the first step consisted in collect-ing different material. It has been categorized into three groups,even though in their use they are intrinsically intermingled:

-archival material-interviews-site surveys and measurements

The archival material includes historical maps, cadastral surveys,pictures, drawings and old postcards, official reports from thetown councils and from the government (Ministry of Civil Engi-neering and Ministry of Colonies), articles from old newspapersand books that have been unearthed from the Archives Centre ofOverseas Territories (CAOM, in Aix-en-Provence, France), the De-partmental Archives in Guadeloupe, the Departmental Directionof the Equipment (DDE), the municipal archives of Gosier and Tr-ois-Rivières, the Bishopric’s Archives in Basse-Terre (Guadeloupe),as well as from various libraries such as Bibliothèque Nationale deFrance (BNF) in Paris, the university library of Guadeloupe andthat of Martinique, the INSEE’s library (French data agency) inGuadeloupe, and the municipal library of Gosier. These collectedmaterials are essential because they compose the necessary basis toset out the human context, bring out the historical context, as wellas provide the foundation for the typomorphological analysis.

A large part of this work has been dedicated to interviews. Ifthis way of collecting material is surprising in light of the topic, itnonetheless proved to be indispensable because it provided a re-markable shortcut to knowledge about the commune. Even though

64 Although the lastinternational seminar onurban forms (ISUF, Italy,2003) cannot be consi-dered as properlyreflecting the studies onprocess in non-westernareas, it can neverthelessgive some idea: out of 240published articles, lessthan 20% were concernedwith these areas, amongthem less than 2.5% dealtwith South America andthe Caribbean. Source: ThePlanned City? ISUFInternational Conference,Petruccioli, Stella, Strappa(Ed.), Bari: UniongraficaCorcelli Editrice, 2003.

31

this way of conducting research admittedly has its weaknesses(hesitating memories, mistakes in dates, history centred on per-sonal experience), interviewing the inhabitants made it possible toput a face on each building, to establish human relations with thebuilt space, and also to discover what is not necessarily written. Inthe same way, interviewing the urban actors (such as architects,urban planners, politicians and town council officers) was consid-ered important because it provided insight into fields in which theauthor is not specialized. Unfortunately, few of these interviewswill show up as such in this dissertation, yet they underlie the workas a whole, and thus need to be acknowledged.

The desire to acquire a real site familiarity meant spending oneyear walking up and down the streets of Gosier and Trois-Rivières,and personally living in Gosier over a period of 9 months. Throughthis experience, it became evident that noting the most recent fea-tures of the built space was needed because it is a serious problemto find reliable65 sources on this subject in Guadeloupe.

This can be partly understood due to the succession of naturaldisasters that have hit the island (earthquake in 1843, cyclones in1928 and 1989 to name only the most recent and destructive ones),thus provoking the disappearance of archives (if they ever existed),but unfortunately, contemporary practices do not fill the gap.

Indeed, the lack of interest towards such documents is visible inthe way officials are taking care for them: Gosier’s municipal ar-chives are at a stadium, while in Trois-Rivières one civil servantdescribes the situation as follows: “since they were old papers (ar-chives) and taking so much room, the new council decided to burn them”.

Moreover, the fact that people do not always apply for buildingpermits when constructing or expanding their houses representsanother factor that can explain the difficulty of finding reliablesources: they are either non-existent or not updated.

Thus, it was necessary to enter the houses to draw their plans(here again comes the importance of the social relations) and thisalso explains why the present analysis is restricted to a representa-tive limited perimeter: it was not possible to visit every singlehouse of Gosier and Trois-Rivières, not to mention the fact that notall owners would let me in.

Ultimately, enough data were accumulated to start the analysisprocess. The analysis itself consisted of several phases, for workingin the West Indies field is a real challenge66 and implies the elabo-ration of specific tools.

At first, the idea was to analyze the bourg from a historical pointof view. Therefore, starting from the empirical materials, the focuswas to study the evolution of its population, built space, streetnetworks and remarkable buildings, according to a historical

65 I really insist on thisword, because manydocuments proved to bepartly untruthful. TheFrench mapping agency’s(IGN) documents consti-tute one example. It isregretful that IGN has notupdated its data in itsrecent edition of Guade-loupean maps, particular-ly on Gosier: publicbuildings from 1976 arestill missing and others,long-since destroyed byHurricane Hugo in 1989,are still shown. Theseflaws were pointed out tothe IGN via letters sent in2001 and 2002, to no avail.66 The idea is not to repeathere how some fields, suchas architecture, remain«virgin» or poorly docu-mented, but rather to stresshow this is the weight ofHistory, in the West Indies,can be an obstacle toresearch. First of all, theresearcher has to under-stand the particularHistory and then to be ableto move beyond it. This isnot always obvious,furthermore in a societywhere the weight of such ahistory is daily visible, forexample, in the so-calledwhite/black dichotomy.

32

source-based methodology that would simultaneously serve as acomparative analysis. Nonetheless, very quickly, the need formore coherence within the sources as well as the need for a point ofview more centred on an urban perspective called for anothermethod.

As such, the Conzenian morphological approach fulfilled themissing interstices, for, on a historical basis, it could provide toolsto appreciate the bourg’s evolution as well as provide tools for thereconstitution of missing documents, an aspect that historians, bydefinition, rarely rely upon.

Yet, because of its global approach, the Conzenian methodol-ogy alone would have been restrictive considering the small scaleof this study (in terms of time span and site scale), for an analysislimited to urban forms would have left out some essential urbanrealities, which are only visible at the building scale. Thus, a com-plementary methodology was sought that could offer this typo-logical insight, and in this sense, the Caniggian methodologyappeared to be the most appropriate.

Finally, it became evident that the combination of the threemethodologies (historical, morphological, typological) would becrucial to conduct this analysis.

From the collected material, the aim was to question whether

- it could test the hypothesis that there is a duality in modernization, and whether the actions of various actors such as institutions and individuals can be visible on a plan;- it could reveal the factors, which produced those contemporary urban forms.

2.2.2 Framework of analysis

Using one of the major concepts developed by Conzen for the gen-eral morphological analysis (concept of the burgage-cycle), andusing the concept of typological process from Caniggia, this studymakes the assumption that, along with the French school, spatialand social entities are nourished by a back-and-forth relationship,thus referring to the work of sociologists H. Lefebvre (space as asocial production and as a social product), and P. Bourdieu (space as aneconomical instrument).67

The present study is divided into two main tasks.In the first, an attempt is proposed to set the form(s) taken by

the process of town’s extension in a detailed historical context. Todo so, the chronological comparative analysis developed byConzen is used, assuming that his burgage-cycle concept is valid

67 Bourdieu, P. Les struc-tures sociales de l’économie,Ed. Seuil, 2000; Lefebvre,H. La révolution urbaine,Anthropos, 1991.

33

for this case study.However, unlike Conzen’s studies, one has to realize that the

scale of these case studies is far from being comparable.68 This iswhy the morphological period’s concept will be cautiously ap-plied here, and why special effort was made to draw a limit at thetown level resolution of understanding urban form, which meansthat the regional level is not taken into account. Rather, a focus onbuilding/lot, street/block, and town is emphasized. WhileConzen had the great opportunity to work with available docu-ments, this has not been always the case in this study, which hasmade it necessary to produce conjectural plans, with all the rela-tivity that it entails.In practice, since a morphological methodol-ogy is used here, maps and plans constitute the major objects ofanalysis, observed at different scales as well as at different dates tobetter apprehend the existing forms (at the level here only ofstreet/district, building/lot) and their underlying shaping proc-esses. Five temporal cross-sections, that are original or recon-structed town-plans, at approximately 15 years’ intervals on a 1/5,000 and 1/2,000 scale are combined with archives, revealing thesocial structure, to conduct the investigation.

The physical particularities of a parcel (size, shape, length, lo-cation in the urban fabric), and its historical qualities (owner(s),use, transformation or not during the time period), will be evalu-ated to link them with the building. Practically, this leads to de-scribing the population (growth, occupation), as well as theinstitutions of the town. Thus, the evolution of the plan through itsprocesses (of different origins) within its context may be analyzed.A reading of the different urban forms will be proposed as well,while keeping in mind their relationship with the social aspect.

In the second task, attention is given to the decision-makersand the scales at which decisions affecting urban forms have beenmade. In short, it represents the typomorphological operation andthe street/lot/building relationship requires a deeper analysis totest the hypothesis that the modernization process is a two-foldphenomenon with regard to urban forms.

Here, Caniggia’s concept of typological process is taken as anassumption, and basic, specialized and variant types’ notion in-serted in the analysis. Once again, one has to realize however, thatthe choice of time span does not allow the definition of an original(to be understood as the first) basic type, for this study starts at aperiod which has already inherited almost 300 years of settlement.Particularly here, in this study, the basic type can only illustrate abasic predominant type at a certain and precise time. Besides, indirect line with Canniggia’s methodology, while performing thesecond task the study will intentionally avoid any kind of catego-

68 For example, in his studyof Alnwick, Conzen coversseveral centuries. In thepresent study, the timespan is restricted to 75years.

34

rization, such as functional categorization or categorization bytypes, because the spatial configuration of one specific area is con-sidered as an undivided entity, in which hybridization (to be un-derstood in the Canniggian point of view) may occur.

On the other hand, since the development of urban forms hereis considered against the emergence of modernism in amulticultural society, it seems also important to examine the re-strictions applied to the specific concepts of modernism, moder-nity and modernization in this study. Indeed, more than thetheoretical debate these concepts convey,69 the intention here is touse them through their more practical meanings and as landmarksthroughout the study. As such, if modernity can certainly be ex-plained from different perspectives and entails a wide rank of in-terpretations in this work, its meaning has been restricted to a fixed“picture” of a certain society, a picture framed by goals to achieveor already set, at a very precise time and by comparison to pastperiods and other societies. As such, since this study focuses ontypomorphological analysis, it is now important to point out thatthis research is not limited to the Modernist Movement in terms ofarchitectural and urban expression, but rather to the general crite-ria erected by the society and planning institutions to define a“modern” built space. The process to reach these specific criteriawill be called modernization in this study.

Surprisingly, those criteria, whether they be discursive or prac-tical in terms of housing and urban works, and which have beenwidely expressed by government and planning-concerned institu-tions, are still relevant today: they are almost exactly the same usedtoday to qualify a dwelling as decent or not, to consider a place asmodern or not.70 Examples are numerous: a representative one, inthe present case, is the book, 71 which was published after the Inter-national Congress on Urban Planning in the Colonies that tookplace in 1931 in Paris. The introduction sets the tone:

“There is work to do to assure the salubrity and comfort ofthe dwelling, to embellish the cities, to attract tourists (…)to give the population and the European colonizers thematerial advantages of modern civilization”

The level of resolution to select those criteria varies, depending onthe concern of the research. Here, they have been restricted to crite-ria covering the elements of typomorphological analysis, that is:access to street, electrical and water networks, the use of recenttechnologies for building (both in the building methods and in thematerial), hygiene and comfort. In practice, it means the examina-tion of documents displaying the evolution of the street layout,

69 See, for example, ShirineHamadeh, who conteststhe analytical frameworkin colonial studies aboutcities, which most oftendivides them into tradi-tional and modern ones;“Creating the traditionalcity” in Al Sayyad, N.Forms of Dominance,Avebury, 1992, pp. 241-260.70 One has only to look atthe criteria used in officialreports to describe buil-dings’ quality: “buildingmaterial, level of comfort(water and electric net-works), number of roomsper inhabitants” to quote afew of them, extract fromOPAH de Gosier, Architec-tural and Urban Diagnostic(1998).71 Royer, J. (dir.) Congrèsinternational de l’urbanismeaux colonies et dans les paysde latitude intertropicale(1931 ; Paris), Paris : Ed.d’Urbanisme, 1932-1935,tome II. «Les travaux àexécuter pour assurer lasalubrité et le confort del’habitation, pour embellirles cités, pour attirer lestouristes (…) pour procurerà leurs populations et auxcolons européens lesavantages matériels de lacivilisation moderne.»

35

then that of the form of the lot and finally that of the buildings,including floor-plans and the description of building materials. Atthe same time, this examination will be confronted with urbanplanning regulations, which should reveal the degree of institu-tional or individual implication.

Finally, the modernization processes should be discussed withregard to previously accomplished work as well as to archives thatspecifically focus on this theme. Only the comparison of the twocase studies makes it possible to draw conclusions, to test the hy-pothesis and the above-mentioned assumptions, and furthermore,allow the opportunity to reveal some typomorphological phe-nomena of general significance as well as those peculiar to itself.

Figure 6: The diagram of the methodology. (KD)

36

As previously noted, few studies of Guadeloupe have centeredaround the theme of the bourgs, which explains the lack of knowl-edge about them. This is even more flagrant when regarding theperiod preceding the hurricane of 1928: it seems that few docu-ments have survived to provide insight into the built space of thebourgs at the dawn of the twentieth century.

However, even minimal information can be indispensable intrying to understand the consequences of the hurricane of 1928 interms of reconstruction, ways of building and settling in the bourg.Similarly, the study of the evolution of the bourgs’ typomor-phology, here restricted to Gosier and Trois-Rivières, cannot becompleted without some socio-historical context.

Consequently, the aim of this first part is to provide a briefcontext concerning the architectural features and history of Guade-loupe shortly before the hurricane, followed by a presentation ofthe impact and the results of the reconstruction.

PART II: HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Figure 7: Map of Guadeloupe, 1758. Source: Edition Exbrayat, 00-D263-C29P009.

37

72 Source: CAOM, DFCGuadeloupe nº 89 A;CAOM F3 288 nº42, andthe reproduction of the1758 map in EditionsExbrayat, 00-D263-C26P009.73 Saint-Claude is the onlytown in Guadeloupe with-out direct contact with thesea, while the bourg ofMorne-à-l’Eau presents thesame specificity.74 Because it represents oneof the significant featuresof the colonial settlementin the West Indies. Moreprecisely on Guadeloupe,see Bégot, D. «Les habita-tions-sucreries du littoralguadeloupéen et leurévolution» in Caribena,Cahier d’études améri-caines de la Caraïbe, publ.de la Direction desAntiquités de la régionMartinique-Guyane, 1991,p. 149: “The colonizationshaped the littoral into anemblematic figure whileestablishing themselves,cities, towns, plantations (inthe Creole meaning: agricul-tural buildings, farmsteadand persons depending onit) transform the contour ofthe island into its veritablecore.”«C’est la colonisationqui a érigé le littoral enfigure emblématique: en s’yinstallant, villes , bourgs,habitations (au sens créoledu terme: bâtiments agri-coles, terres et hommes endépendant) ont fait du pour-tour de l’île son coeurvéritable.» For the case ofthe neighbouring island,the former French colonyof Martinique, see, e.g.,Bégot, D., Pelletier, M. &Bousquet-Bressolier, C., LaMartinique de Moreau duTemple, 1770, La carte desingénieurs géographes, Paris:CTHS, 1998; pp. 20-27.75 CAOM, cp1PL00297.76 Although first editionsin Guadeloupe do not seemto be earlier than 1901-1902. Source: Arch. Dép.Gua., Cartes postales,répertoire numérique de lasous-série 5 Fi, Gourbeyre,Conseil général de la Gua-deloupe, 2000, p. 9.

3. BEFORE 1928

3.1 A glimpse of architectural and urban features

The ancient maps of Guadeloupe, like the Plan de l’île de Grande-Terre by Sainte-Maure (1732) or those made under Berryer, statesecretary at the Naval Corps between 1758 and 1759 (Fig. 7),72 de-pict well the exact location of the bourgs on the island, closely fol-lowing the littoral.73

If the reasons explaining this setting and its permanency overthe years have already been discussed,74 the question remains con-cerning the precise shape of the bourgs, their level of development,the character of their architecture, and so forth.

Some 150 years later, the position of the bourgs is unchanged, asshown in a map of Guadeloupe from 1902,75 yet the question re-mains the same. For example, does a red square on the map mean asingle house or a row of houses; does it reflect as well the exact sizeor position of the building? The large scale (1/50,000) leads to ap-proximations. The appearance of postcards, made official in 1872 inFrance,76 is a precious thing for the researcher because it providesaccurate snapshots at a precise date, even though the difficulty to-day remains dating these documents that have been used and re-used by editors, sometimes regardless of their authors’ rights.Indeed, the details of buildings (e.g. material, façade style), those ofa street (e.g. pavement, sidewalk) or general impressions are avail-able through observation of the picture.

The study of these types of documents is nonetheless limitedbecause, first of all, the picture, as an object, possesses its own pa-rameters which are not always available (e.g. precise dating, bywhom, where) and thus limits the understanding (e.g. observingone façade gives little information on the three others or on thewhole shape of the building). It is limited, secondly, in that it pro-poses an interpretation.

Still, despite these constraints, certain characteristics of thebourg can be unveiled. In this study, these characteristics have beenseparated into three categories: the general form of the bourg, itsurban character and the high degree of building finishing.

With regard to the general form of the bourgs, some postcardsgive the image of a compact bourg with houses gathered around therelatively wide main street, sometimes ventilated by a publicsquare or a central church. This is, for example, the case of Trois-Rivières (Fig. 8), or Le Moule (Fig. 9), where the contiguity of thehouses is clear. In Le Moule, a public square is emphasized by thetrees in alignment with the street, while in Trois-Rivières, the en-

38

Figure 8: “La Guadeloupe. Trois-Rivières”, stamped 4C, 1906. Source: Musée Saint-John-Perse.Figure 9: Le Moule, Jacob Street, 1916. Source: Private collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.Figure 10: Vieux-Bourg, no date. Source: Chopin A. & H. Guadeloupe d’Antan, ed.HC, 1998, p. 39.

39

Figure 11: Saint-Claude, 1920s. Source: Musée Saint-John Perse.Figure 12: The bourg of Trois-Rivières, stamped “Collection Caillé, Pointe-à-Pitre”,1907-1908. Source: Musée Saint-John-Perse.Figure 13: The bourg of Deshaies, c.1920. Source: Desmoulin, M-E, La Côte-sous-le-vent, Guadeloupe/Inventaire général des monuments et des richesses artistiques dela France. Région Guadeloupe. Pointe-à-Pitre: Jasor, 2002, p. 32.

40

Figure 14: Port-Louis, the main street, c.1905-1925. Source: Private collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.Figure 15: Capesterre, the open market, “La Guadeloupe illustrée”, 1907-1908.Source: Private collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.Figure 16: Baillif, 1905-1925. Source: Private collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.

41

trance into the churchyard is marked by a stone fence and the sym-bolic cross.

Nonetheless, nuances need to be added, for if the alignment ofhouses on each side of the colonial road, which simultaneouslyserves as the main street, is rarely questioned, the scale of densityof those houses might vary. The postcards of Vieux-Bourg (Fig. 10)and Saint-Claude (Fig. 11) show a row of dissociated houses onboth sides of the road. In the same way, if the church of Trois-Rivières stands in the middle of the bourg (Fig. 12), not all thechurches in the bourgs can claim such a central place. This is discern-ible in Deshaies (Fig.13) where the church is clearly on one side ofthe bourg, but also in Vieux-Bourg (Fig.10) where the appreciationof the relief allows us to position the church, above and outside thebourg, although on a simple map it might appear to be in the centre.

Furthermore, a document that established the legal inventoryof the Separation77 in 1911 for the commune of Gosier, describesthis same pattern: the church is elsewhere than in the middle of thebourg. It even underlines the spatial separation between the churchand the presbytery, unlike in other cases (e.g. Trois-Rivières)where they are really close:

“The church of the commune of Gosier is located at theentrance of the bourg by the same name, on a square, at theleft of the colonial road, when coming from Pointe- à-Pitre.(…) The presbytery stands in the middle of the bourg, on theright side of the colonial road that borders it in the north.”78

(Emphasis added)

Finally, it is not possible to categorize precisely the form of thebourgs, for their internal characteristics may vary greatly from oneanother.

Concerning the urban characteristics observable in the bourgs,such as the way of organizing the buildings with regard to thestreet (alignment of the facades, homogeneity of the building size,presence of public square, etc.), the degree of finishing of the street(coating on the road, width of the road, existence of sidewalks,sewage system, pedestrian crossing, etc.) and the presence of urbanvocabulary (e.g. gas or electric posts, flag post, tamed vegetation,etc.), it seems again that it is prudent to reserve judgment.

Indeed, if the postcards of Le Moule (Fig.9), Port-Louis (Fig.14),Trois-Rivières (Fig.8) or Capesterre (Fig.15) commonly display arow of houses of quite regular height on both sides of a relativelywide street, with the presence of sidewalks (for all of them), of aroad coating (obvious in Trois-Rivières: stone and asphalt), and ofsupposedly79 electric wooden posts (not visible in this postcard of

77 Source: Bishop’sArchives in Basse-Terre,Inventory of the goodsdepending on the Fabriqueof the parish church of theCommune of Gosier, on2.6.1911.78 Source: Idem. «L’égliseparoissiale de la communedu Gosier est située àl’entrée du bourg de ce nom,sur une place à gauche de laroute coloniale quand onvient de la Pointe-à-Pitre.(…) Le presbytère est situévers le milieu du bourg àdroite de la route colonialequi le borne au nord.»79 It is not very clear whe-ther these posts are electricposts because the electriccable is rarely discernable.However, an electric firm –Société d’électricité –established in Pointe-à-Pitre, is mentioned in 1916in the newspaper LaGuadeloupéenne, Source:Arch. Dép. Gua., May1916; while the touristguide of 1913 mentions theexistence of phones andphone lines. Source: Guidedu Tourisme, Paris: I-Larose, 1913, p. 206.

42

Figure 17: Bouillante, edition 4C, c.1920. Source: La Côte-sous-le-vent, op.cit. p. 32.Figure 18: Le Moule, Le Boulevard Rougé. Collection Caillé, 1907-1908. Source:Private collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.Figure 19: Le Moule, La rue Jacob, 1914. Source: Private collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.

43

Le Moule), a closer observation also reveals a building contiguitythat is not always expressed (e.g. Capesterre, Fig. 15), single-floorhouses alternating with two-floor-and-attic houses (e.g. Trois-Rivières, Fig. 8); or basic sand -or gravel (tuff)- road (e.g. Port-Louis, Fig. 14).

In the same way, from one bourg to the other, disparities exist.Contrasting with the look of Le Moule or Capesterre, the bourgs ofLe Baillif (Fig. 16) or Bouillante (Fig. 17) illustrate how the bourgscan also be very simple. In both places, the omnipresence of veg-etation, the mango trees breaking the alignment of the outnum-bering single-storey houses and the grass growing around thebuildings give a strong feeling of the rural world. Buildings areequally simple, increasing the same impression: small rectangularshape, rough wood planking, wooden shingles (essentes) as themajor element for the roof, and some rare sheet-metal sheets, usedfor roofing or wall coating.

Yet, the presence of gas lampposts in Bouillante reveals wellhow the impression can also be contradicted within the bourg. Ex-tra postcards of Le Moule are evidence of this phenomenon on thescale of districts, where the level of urbanization obviously differs.On Boulevard Rougé (Fig. 18) for example, chickens on the road,the impression of a poorly maintained street, irregularities in thefacades and the presence of basic wooden fences are more sugges-tive of a lack of strict planning than real urban control. Jacob Street(Fig. 19), still in Le Moule and facing the sea, clearly shows theabsence of street on the shore (replaced by the wall) and the pro-gressive invasion of the vegetation. Certainly, Le Moule possessesseveral spatial specificities, which are not always in agreementwith one another.

Finally, neither general features nor a type, as far as the bourgsare concerned, can possibly be drawn from the documents due tothe wide variety displayed. Nevertheless, despite such varietycommon elements exist, and the choice of wood, as building mate-rial, seems to be one of them.

But there is wood and there is wood: indeed, the description ofits use in the bourgs of Bouillante and Baillif is far from correspond-ing to the one that could be made in Le Moule or Trois-Rivières.There, instead of raw planking or wooden shingles for the walls, itis the tongue-and-groove matching technique which is evident,producing a standardization of the pieces of wood, a transforma-tion of the way of building and finally creating the aesthetic vis-ible on the facades.

In the same way, while openings (doors and windows) arescarce for the single-storey buildings of Bouillante, for example,their number and their regularity on a single façade of Trois-

44

Figure 20: Les Abymes, «La Guadeloupe Illustrée», collection Caillé, 1907-1908.Source: Private collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.Figure 21: The church of Gosier, no date. Source: Fabre, C. De clocher en clocher,édition Grand-Terre Sud.Figure 22: The bourg of Trois-Rivières, 1906, édition Phos. Source: Musée Saint-John-Perse.

45

Rivières (Fig. 8) offers a striking contrast, as does the presence ofdormer windows on the roof. Furthermore, elaborated details inthe opening such as skirting boards around the windows, or thedistinction between outside and inside shutters,80 found in LeMoule (Fig. 9) or Les Abymes (Fig. 20) suggest an existing traditionof carpentry, though this is not obvious everywhere.

However, the use of stone and metal sheets is established byalmost all the postcards. Stone is most often employed for the foun-dation or the ground floor of at least a two-storey house, while theupper floors are made of wood (e.g. Trois-Rivières and more obvi-ously Le Moule, Fig. 9). It can also be used for the construction ofimportant buildings such as the church, perhaps reflecting thevalue attributed to the material. In this regard, the churches ofGosier (Fig.21) and Trois-Rivières (Fig.22) look the same from theoutside, while a written description confirms the masonry workfor Gosier:

“It is a construction in masonry, covered with metal sheets.The sacristy is in wood, covered with metal sheets; the bell-tower is in masonry, covered with metal sheets.”81

Thus, the restricted and focalized use of this material may suggest,contrary to wood, a lack of skills if not of material, or even both atthe same time, for Grande-Terre is not as rich in natural stone asBasse-Terre is.

At last, as suggested by the description of the church of Gosier,the metal sheet is a material used for the façade coating (e.g. leftfront house of the Port-Louis’ postcard, Fig. 14), but also for theroof, replacing the initial wooden tiles. The houses of Capesterre,Trois-Rivières and even some of Bouillante show this feature.

However, the question remains whether this material was con-sidered “noble” at this time or not. Its common use from simple tomore elaborate houses may suggest it was not.

On the other hand, the appearance of a house is not limited to itsbuilding material, for its general form (volume, shape of the roof),and its final decorations are important attributes as well. Compar-ing the bourgs from this point of view, one might finally realizewhat makes the difference between a bourg like Vieux-Bourg,Baillif and Bouillante and others like Le Moule, Trois-Rivières andPort-Louis: in the first group, it is not two-floor-and-attic houses, oflarge size and with various types of roofs (e.g. pitched, hipped ormansard roof) with dormer windows, that are dominant, butrather small single-storey houses with a pitched and two slopingsided roof. Similarly, it is not facades ornamented with iron balco-nies (Le Moule, Fig. 9) or fine gingerbread (Port-Louis, Fig.14) or

80 The first shutter, exter-nal, is made of plain-wood, offering protectionagainst rain, heavy sun,etc., while the secondregulates the air circula-tion by the moveableintegrated Venetian blind(jalousie).81 Source: Bishop’sArchives in Basse-Terre,Inventory of the goodsdepending on the Fabriqueof the parish church of theCommune of Gosier on2.6.1911; «C’est une cons-truction en mur, couverte entôle- la sacristie est en bois,couverte en tôle, le clocherest en mur, couvert en tôle.»

46

Figure 23: Pointe-à-Pitre, Rue de Nozières,c.1905-1925. Source: Private collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.Figure 24: Basse-Terre, Grand’Rue du Cours,1925. Source: Private collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.Figure 25: Pointe-à-Pitre, Le Faubourg Vatable,«La Guadeloupe illustrée», 1907-1908. Source:Private collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.

47

Figure 26: Le Hameau du “Bananier”, édition Phos, 1908. Source: Private collection,Pointe-à-Pitre.Figure 27: Case de Cultivateurs, 1912. Source: Musée Saint-John-Perse.

different shades of colour82 (the shutter in Trois-Rivières, Fig. 8)that are displayed in the “simple” bourgs, but rather, bare façades.

Thus, the conclusion from studying of all these postcards can-not be clear-cut. The specificity of the bourgs of Guadeloupe is per-haps to be found in their diversity. Indeed, synthetically, even iftheir morphology presents common characteristics (a generalform often resumed to a strip of more or less developed row-houses along the road); a certain level of spatial appropriation; theexistence of urban vocabulary (albeit sometimes basic), the typol-ogy of the bourgs reveals more variables. On the whole, the hip-roofed rectangular house, the absence of galleries (with thepresence of balconies) and wood as material are frequent features,but there seems to be no rule concerning the size of the buildings(from single-storey to two-floor and attic), the roofline (either per-pendicular or parallel to the street), nor the decoration (from barestreet façade to elaborate ones).

Furthermore, the different photographic angles do not consist-ently allow for accurate appreciation because the reality of thebourg is occasionally masked by the choice of picture to be taken,by the vegetation (Fig. 12) or by close-up (Figs. 8 & 9), as only thehighest buildings (two-floor houses and the church) are sometimesdetectable. Yet, some characteristics could also be assumed to benon-existent (for example, is it possible to believe in a more devel-oped street pattern and buildings for Baillif?)

Therefore, the hypothesis of differences among the bourgsseems quite realistic, especially when considering the economiccharacteristics of each bourg as well as the specificities concerningtheir immediate surroundings (e.g. in terms of site configuration,available natural resources, etc.). To assume a certain unity in theshape of the various bourgs of Guadeloupe (don’t the bourgs of Le

82 Because of the black andwhite picture, it is not pos-sible to talk about colours;however, a polychromicquality is visible in theshutters displaying diffe-rent shades.

48

Moule and Port-Louis strikingly step away from the linear formwith their grid configuration?), as in their constitutive elements(streets, buildings), would automatically silence the importantrole geophysical constraints and historical events have played inthe land development of each, as in that of the island in general.

Besides, the bigger towns also reflect the same diversity. In thecities of Pointe-à-Pitre and Basse-Terre, some districts are defi-nitely at a city-scale (Fig. 23 & 24),83 while others, dominated bycoco-trees and single-storey houses (Fig. 25) are strongly reminis-cent of a rural way of life.

However, the few existing postcards depicting the countryside(Fig. 26 & 27) clearly show the lack of a building organization andthe sometimes rudimentary dwelling. They thus allow one to posi-tion the bourg very well on the urban level: it is not a city, yet it isno longer the countryside.Finally, if all the previous postcards indicate the communal wealth(e.g. there can be no mistake in asserting that Le Moule, Port-Louisor Trois-Rivières are richer than Baillif or Bouillante), little infor-mation passes through the pictures about how people lived in thebourg. There is no doubt that a broader context is very needed, forlife in the bourg might not be what is expected from the pictures.From two different looking types of bourgs, one could read:

Trois-Rivières in 1901: “The bourg was not lived in by many:the church and the presbytery, one doctor for every three,the two others being in Trou-au-chien and Grande-Anse; theblacksmith, one shop or another (…) the habitations are inthe hills.”84

Gosier in 1917-18:

“Located on the side of the colonial road that goes fromPointe-à-Pitre to Sainte-Anne, the bourg of Gosier countsbarely sixty houses, most of them closed during the week.In fact, almost the entire population lives in the countryside,in the place called ‘les Grands Fonds’.”85

3.2 Historical context

The history of the colony is rich in wars, proclamations, interna-tional influences and local events. Even if many of those eventsmight be significant in the general picture, as far as the time span ofthe study is concerned, four main events stand out because theyhave been closely intertwined with each other to transform somefeatures of the Guadeloupean society and therefore produce the

83 Simultaneously, it isinteresting to note whatmakes a bourg differentfrom the city: a higherscale of the built space (e.g.three-floor and attichouses), streets that are notcolonial roads, an unli-mited built space (in theframe of the picture).84 Source: Father Balleretin 1901, De clocher enclocher, op.cit. «Le bourgétait peu habité: l’église etla cure, un médecin-chirurgien sur trois, lesdeux autres étant au Trou-au-chien et à Grande-Anse;le maréchal-ferrant, uneboutique ou l’autre (…) leshabitations sont sur leshauteurs.»85 Source: Bishop’s Arc-hives in Basse-Terre.Description of the parishof Saint Louis du Gosier(1917-1918), no author.«Situé sur le bord de laroute coloniale de Pointe-à-Pitre à Sainte-Anne, lebourg du Gosier comprend àpeine soixante maisons,fermées en semaine pour laplupart. C’est-à-dire quepresque toute la populationhabite la campagne dans ceque l’on appelle «lesGrands Fonds.»86 From the abundant bib-liography on the subject,see particularly Schnaken-bourg, C. Histoire de l’in-dustrie sucrière en Guade-loupe (XIXè-XXè siècles),Vol. I , La crise du systèmeesclavagiste (1835-1847),Paris: L’Harmattan, 1980.87 For precise literature onthe subject, see Adélaïde-Merlande, J. Historialantillais, tome IV, orFallope, J. Esclaves et cito-yens, les Noirs à la Guade-loupe au XIXè siècle, Basse-Terre: Société d’Histoirede la Guadeloupe, 1992.88 The word “agreement”might not be the best todescribe the different typesof contracts establishedafter the abolition, for theinterests of the dominatingclass may not have beenexactly concomitant withthose of the former slaves.However, since the issue isbeyond the scope of this

49

society of the 1930s. These events are the abolition of slavery inGuadeloupe in 1848, industrialization, and the emergence of a po-litical consciousness by a group which had until then silent, inparallel with a steady increase in population. All of these simulta-neously provoked social and spatial changes.

Until 1848, the Guadeloupean territory had been divided andorganized according to a spatial hierarchy established by the rul-ing plantation economy:86 on the one hand, there were the planta-tions, the core of production, with their vast surfaces; and on theother, cities and small towns scattered all around the island, placesof defensive, commercial, religious and institutional activities, de-veloped at a more or less important level.

But emancipation marked a change in ways of developing theland, for it was a matter of more than 85,000 persons87 who were setfree out of a total population of over 130,000 inhabitants. Thenewly emancipated had the possibility to stay via an “agree-ment”88 with the owner of the plantation, which little by little lostits territorial unity in favour of small and middle-sized proper-ties;89 or to leave the plantation.

Even if, as Abenon suggests, “abolition did not cause very importantmigrations, a large amount of the population remained in the place where italways lived”,90 there nonetheless exists a movement of the popula-tion to the cities and the bourgs,91 which over the years broughtabout the transformation of the bourgs in size, as well as in theirsocial functions, slowly changing them into small urban centres.

This fact was accentuated even further by the conversion of theoriginal plantation system to the industrialized system of sugarfactories, les usines centrales. Besides representing an attempt toguard against the sugar market crisis in Guadeloupe, which washeightened (among other reasons) by the lack of cheap labour andthe competition of European beet sugar, the second generation ofsugar factories,92 also played its part in the settlement choices ofpeople in search of work, for those factories were usually locatedclose to an urban centre, either in the city (as in the case ofDarboussier inaugurated in 1869 on the edge of Pointe-à-Pitre) or,more commonly, in he bourgs (e.g. Duchassaing factory in LeMoule (1862), Beauport in Port-Louis (1863), Sainte-Marthe inSaint-Francois (1868), Blanchet in Morne-à-l’Eau (1868), etc.).

Furthermore, industrialization, on the scale of the Guadelou-pean territory, amplified the phenomenon of distinction betweenthe two wings of the island. Indeed, Grande-Terre without doubtconstituted the heart of this industrialization (all fourteen of thesugar factories with the highest production were located inGrande-Terre in the 1870s), while Basse-Terre’s decline was accen-tuated by the scant augmentation of its population. The population

work it will not be discus-sed more extensively.89 Attention should begiven here to the fact thatthis situation, in compari-son with Martinique, isunique to Guadeloupe, forin Martinique the whitedominant group (les békés)managed to maintain theirpower, even until today.90 In Petite histoire de laGuadeloupe, op.cit., p. 128.«L’abolition ne donna paslieu à des mouvementsmigratoires très importants.Une partie notable de lapopulation resta sur lesdomaines où elle avaittoujours vécu.»91 See more precisely thework of, for example,Lawson-Body, who ana-lyzes the access to land-ownership from 1834 to1910. Clearly the post-emancipation period wasa time of changes. Source:Lawson-Body, G. «L’étab-lissement de la paysan-nerie en Guadeloupe: le casde l’espace vivrier desGrands Fonds» in BuracM. (dir.) La question de laterre dans les colonies etdépartements françaisd’Amérique 1848-1998,Karthala & GéodeCaraïbe,2000, pp. 37-71.92 The first sugar factorieswere erected in 1844-1845:e.g. 1844: Acomat in LeMoule and Duval in Petit-Canal; 1845: Bellevue inPort-Louis, Zévallos in LeMoule, Marly in Sainte-Anne, Grand’Anse inMarie-Galante. Source:Schnakenbourg, C. Histoirede l’industrie sucrière enGuadeloupe (XIXè-XXèsiècles), Vol. I , La crise dusystème esclavagiste (1835-1847), op.cit. For more onthis period, see: Schnaken-bourg, C. “La CompagnieMarseillaise de SucrerieColonial. Histoire del’usine Blanchet de 1860 à1933", Bulletin de la Sociétéd’Histoire de la Guadeloupen°119-120, 1er et 2e

semestres 1999.

50

of the city of Basse-Terre, its main town, grew by only 1612 inhab-itants between 1848 and 1936,93 while during the same period theentire Guadeloupean population doubled, reaching 302,659 inhab-itants in 1936.94

Finally, the gradual transformation of the society, with theemergence of a political and syndicate consciousness and of a newinfluential group (coloured people, represented by personalitieslike Gerville-Réache (1854-1906), Legitimus (1868-1947), René-Boisneuf (1873-1927), Candace (1873-1927), to name a few), was an-other element that influenced the development of the bourg.

The new laws promulgated under the Second and Third Repub-lics (and despite a break imposed by the authoritarian regime ofthe Second Empire), enacted universal suffrage, the election ofdeputies and the municipal council (1882)95, the creation of the gen-eral council, guaranteed freedom of the press and opinion. Alongwith the constant decline in salaries since the early 1900s96 and theobvious augmentation of the population, there were many factorsthat supported social change and thus transforming the status ofthe bourg, which itself became a place of power, and a place ofinterest. The following quotation, describing the political carrierof Légitimus, illustrates the situation quite simply:

“If Légitimus introduced himself as a socialist, his politicalstatements were valorized by his belonging to the blackrace (…) In 1894 Légitimus became a member of the GeneralCouncil. His party won the city halls of Sainte-Rose, Gosier,Lamentin and Anse-Bertrand.”97

Nevertheless, once again, any type of extrapolation based on thesesocial changes is difficult because, in the 1930s, the Guadeloupeanpopulation remained mostly rural and illiterate, despite the gov-ernmental emphasis on education (e.g. the opening of Carnot HighSchool in Pointe-à-Pitre in 1883, as well as 90 religious primaryschools and 49 public ones in 1900).98

Finally, and to return to the general climate of these years, theaftermath of the First World War was hard on Guadeloupe becausethere was no improvement in the economic situation. An officialreport from 1926 described the situation:

“The war has not been without influence on material livingconditions in the Colony. Here, as elsewhere, housing,clothes, and products of consumption have increased from50 up to 300% compared with pre-war prices.”99

93Source: Arch. Dép. Gua.Annuaire Statistique de laGuadeloupe.94 145,417 inhabitants in1876, 182,112 in 1901 and243,243 in 1926. Idem.95 The act of 1882-28-03gives communes of thecolonies the right to electtheir mayor and his teamvia the municipal council(law voted in France onAugust 12th, 1876, au-thor’s remark), in Histoiredes Communes, Gosier, op.cit., p.52.96 For more on the financialaspect, see, e.g. Buffon, A.Monnaie et crédit enéconomie coloniale, Basse-Terre, Société d’His-toirede la Guadeloupe, 1979.97 In Petite histoire de laGuadeloupe, op.cit., pp 159-160. For a more detailedapproach, see Sainton, J-P.Les nègres en politique,couleur, identités et stra-tégies de pouvoir en Guade-loupe au tournant du siècle,PU du Septentrion, 1998.«Si Légitimus se réclamaitdu socialisme, ses positionspolitiques étaient valoriséespar son appartenance à larace noire (…) En 1894,Légitimus devenait con-seiller général. Son partis’empara des mairies deSainte-Rose, de Gosier, duLamentin et de l’Anse-Bertrand.»98 Abenon, Petite histoire dela Guadeloupe, op.cit., p.15599 Source: CAOM; fm,agefom 100/4 in La Guade-loupe par l’Agence géné-rale des Colonies, Melun:imprimerie administra-tive, 1926, p. 49. «La guerren’a pas été sans influencesur les conditions de la viematérielle dans la Colonie.Ici, comme ailleurs, les loge-ments, les vêtements et lesobjets de consommation ontaugmenté dans une propor-tion variant de 50 à 300%sur les prix d’avant guerre»

51

Indeed, although sugar production clearly increased during thewar (as well as alcohol production),100 for the simple reason thatthere was less competition was reduced. The restrictions imposedby the post-war government to revitalize the mainland economyhad a strong impact on Guadeloupe: it is not at all certain that theeconomic situation improved during the ten years following thewar, ending exactly with the 1928 hurricane. However, on the so-cial level, the participation of Guadeloupean men in the war101

exacerbated patriotic sentiment, which was also a way to demandassimilation.102

To sum up, it becomes evident the changes in Guadeloupeansociety paralleled the constant increase of population in the bourgs,and thereby influenced the bourgs, because these factors acceleratedthe pace of their development and gave them the opportunity tosignificantly distinguish themselves from the rural world, even ifthe latter remained very close both in distance and similarity.

Then came the hurricane of 1928.

100 Schnakenbourg, C. His-toire de l’industrie sucrièreen Guadeloupe (XIXè-XXèsiècles), op. cit.101 In 1889, Guadeloupeansgained the right, aftermany demands, to per-form their military serviceand consequently to fightfor the Motherland. 11,021men were mobilized and1,470 died during the con-flict. Source: Farrugia, L.Historial Antillais, tome V,La guerre de 14-18, p. 1.102 For more on this topic,see Erbs, P. «Les monu-ments aux morts de laguerre 1914-1918», mé-moire de maitrise, Begot(dir.), UAG, unpublished,2003.

Figure 28: The ravages of the 1928 hurricane in Pointe-à-Pitre, general view. Source:CAOM, 2fi2374.Figure 29: The ravages of the 1928 hurricane in Pointe-à-Pitre. Source: CAOM,2fi2374.

52

103 In Histoire des Com-munes, op.cit., p. 268. «Lesrues de la Pointe-à-Pitre neconstituaient qu’un amas depierres, de briques, de bran-ches d’arbres, de feuilles detôle, d’ardoises, de tuiles, defils télégraphiques, de bois,de poutres, etc., infranchis-sables, d’un aspect désolantet lamentable. Les neuf dixi-èmes des maisons étaientendommagées, sans toit,sans fenêtres, délabréescomme après un bombarde-ment. D’autres, totalementdétruites, formaient un amasde décombres.104 For example, the Frenchambassador to the USA,Paul Claudel, signed hisreport on his visit to Gua-deloupe on October 18th,1928 (one month after thehurricane). Source: CAOM,fm, sg, gua240/1464;while the earliest reportsfound from M. Muller, sentas the General Supervisorof the Colonies, Head of theSupervision Mission inGuadeloupe (1928-1933),date from December 15,1928. Source: CAOM, fm,sg, gua252.1518.

4. THE IMPACT OF THE HURRICANE OF 1928

The hurricane of 1928 was in every way catastrophic (materialdamages, loss of human life, psychological trauma), but for once,many documents, either written articles or pictures, are available.The following quote, from the newspaper Le Nouvelliste103 evokesquite vividly the event in Pointe-à-Pitre, while pictures portray thefull dimension of the disaster (Fig.28 & 29):

“The streets of Pointe-à-Pitre were reduced to nothing butdepressing and pathetic piles of stones, bricks, branches,metal sheets, slates, tiles, telegraphic wires, wood, beams,etc., which were impossible to go through. Nine-tenths ofthe houses were damaged, without roofs, without windows,as dilapidated as though there had been a bombing. Others,completely destroyed, formed a pile of rubble.”

The other communes of Guadeloupe were equally damaged by thehurricane: Gosier, Sainte-Anne, Saint-Francois, Le Moule were inruins; Lamentin, Petit-Canal and Port-Louis buried their dead;three hundred houses vanished from Basse-Terre; Capesterre lostits famous royal palm tree alley (allée Dumanoir) and Trois-Rivièresits bell-tower.

However, if the ravages were many, one has to recognize thatseeking the best and fastest reconstruction was in many ways pro-portional. Although the imminent anniversary of the attachmentof Guadeloupe to France (1935) might have been one reason for aquick reconstruction, archives seldom refer to it. In fact, no one candeny the speediness with which the French government sent helpto its “Old Colony” (an affectionate nickname commonly given toGuadeloupe, Martinique, French Guyana and La Reunion).

In addition to the official visits and the various missions com-missioned right after the disaster,104 the government’s contribu-tion can be explicitly seen in its involvement in the reconstruction,mainly in terms of financial support, the sending of building mate-rials and of specialists; but also implicitly in finding new ideas andsolutions to building methods. Instead of providing assistance thatwas restricted to material details, the government, as well as otheragents such as local officials and architects, took the opportunity toquestion and revive the concept of building and planning in thecolony.

53

4.1 Financial support

There was without doubt a substantial amount of financial support.One hundred million francs were devoted to the reconstruction bythe government as an extraordinary subsidy, while various loans,with low interests, were authorized by mainly two banks, CréditFoncier National and Crédit Foncier de France, for individual and com-munal reconstructions.

By virtue of the law enforced on January 1st, 1930 inGuadeloupe,105 the Crédit Foncier de France granted a 28 millionfranc loan to 28 of Guadeloupe’s communes over a period of 20years.106

If Pointe-à-Pitre, the emerging economic city, borrowed 3 mil-lion francs, the other Guadeloupean communes also took out loansof sometimes similar amounts (e.g. Le Moule 3 million francs, LeLamentin 2,6 million francs and Morne-à-l’eau 2,5 million francs),but mostly less (e.g. Trois-Rivières 1 million francs, Gosier only400,000 francs).107 The allocated money was to be used for the re-construction, defined by the precise programme set up for the occa-sion, and rendered official in law in 1931, under the title “GreatWorks” (les Grands Travaux). Nine priorities were selected:

1-roads and paths,2-the port of Pointe-à-Pitre and secondary ports,3-hygiene and assistance,4-governmental buildings,5-the electrification of Guadeloupe,6-the drainage and water system,7-education,8-new plans of urban development and embellishment inthe communes,9-other.

And, as these priorities suggest, reconstruction was not only a mat-ter of rebuilding houses, but rather covered a large field, fromproviding infrastructure to the colony to aesthetic considerations.Thus, the communes, hence the bourgs were directly concerned bythis programme.

Yet, as V. Phalente judiciously notes “the scale of the planningpolicy started in the 1930s by the communes emphasizes the real lack in thisdomain”.108 Indeed, the debate between “reconstruction” or “newconstruction” was an open one, dividing more than one politicianand civil servant on the question, while simultaneously providingthe occasion to reveal how people thought about Guadeloupe:

105 Only 5 days after thelaw was promulgated inFrance on December 28th,1929.106 Source: CAOM, fm1tp/440. Muller’s report on thecommunal loans to theMinistry (4.29.1933).107 Idem.108 In La Grande Encyclo-pédie de la Caraïbe, op.cit.,p. 119. «L’ampleur de lapolitique d’aménagemententamée par les communesdans les années 30 tend àdémontrer la réalité deslacunes en ce domaine.»

54

“- Mr. Tellier [the governor of Guadeloupe in 1929] is in fact,not rebuilding public facilities, but rather building them.Mr. Henry considers such to be the case and finds theamounts demanded by the local government are very muchexaggerated (…) The Parliament’s intention, as that of theCouncil of Ministers, was to repair the damages to thecolony’s patrimony as well as those of the individuals, notto make everything anew thanks to the funds granted becauseof the Hurricane. Thus, we should stick to the term ofreconstruction as indicated by Mr. President, and not to thatof new planning.- Mr. Gubiand (General Inspector of the Highways & CivilEngineering Department of the Colonies): The colony shouldnot, however, be forced to rebuild everything in the state inwhich they were and which from a sanitary point of view,was a real shame for this colony.- The President: Whose fault is that? Surely the colony’s,which could have put resources employed elsewhere tobetter use.”109

The above exchange again points to a debate that is still currenttoday: the use of funds.

As far as individual financial support is concerned, a fact-find-ing mission was as quickly commissioned to evaluate the costs ofprivate loss. Four months after the tragedy, a detailed report con-cerning 26,084 properties in the 34 communes of Guadeloupe waswritten, assessing at FF 200,886,796 the amount of individual loss(Table 1). The same document drew a distinction between estatesunder and over FF 30,000, thus truly referring to an existing di-chotomy in land ownership.

Beyond its precision in numbers, it documented some of thespatial quality of each bourg, as previously evoked. For example,the comparison of Gosier and Trois-Rivières speaks for itself. InTrois-Rivières, where fewer evaluations were registered than inGosier, the estimated costs of loss remained however superiorboth quantitatively and qualitatively. In the same way, whereas inGosier the highest claims represented only 14% of the total cost ofprivate loss, they represented 52% in Trois-Rivières: this mostlikely reflected the higher economic status of Trois-Rivières.

Finally, to conclude with the last sentence of the previousquote, how effective was the reconstruction? Almost two years af-ter the hurricane, 3,815 houses were rebuilt as of June 30, 1930,states a cable from Mr. Piétri to the Deputy Candance:110 this is verylittle in light of the 26,084 assessments.

109 Source: CAOM, fm, sg,gua249/1506. Extract ofthe July 12, 1929 meetingof the Committee in chargeof dispatching subsidiesand help to the victims inGuadeloupe. PV analy-tique de la séance du 12juillet 1929 du Comitéchargé de repartir les sub-ventions et secours auxsinistrés de la Guadeloupe«- M. Tellier, en fait, ne faitplus du rééquipement maisbien de l’équipement. M.Henry estime que c’est bienen effet cela et que lessommes demandées par legouvernement local sontvraiment exagérées (…)L’intention du Parlement,comme celle du Conseil desministres a été de réparerles dommages subis par lepatrimoine de la colonie etde particuliers et non defaire du neuf grâce au créditalloué à l’occasion duCyclone. On doit s’en tenirdonc comme l’indique M. lePrésident au terme derééquipement et non d’amé-nagement à neuf.-M. Gubiand (inspecteurgénéral des ponts et chaus-sées et des tp des colonies):encore ne faudrait-il pas quela colonie soit obligée dereconstruire les choses dansl’état ou elles étaient et qui,au point de vue sanitaire,étaient une véritable hontepour cette colonie.- Le président: A qui lafaute? A la colonie trèscertainement, qui aurait puemployer à d’autres finsplus utiles des ressourcesemployées autre part.»110 Source: CAOM, fm, sg,gua244/1487 “Nombre demaisons reconstruitesdepuis le cyclone: 3815 au30 juin 1930”, câble dePiétri au député Candace.111 Source: CAOM, bib,som, d/br/8728. «Lerégime des prestations ennature venant d’Allemagnepermettant d’escompterl’envoi de matériaux de grosœuvre : fers ronds et ciment,et de matériaux ouvrés telsque : portes, fenêtres, appa-reils sanitaires, le bétonarmé fut adopté pour laconstruction des ossatures,

55

4.2 Material support

The building material sent to the colony constituted yet anotheraspect of governmental support. As a direct consequence of losingthe First World War, Germany had to furnish manufactured prod-ucts as war reparations to the Allies (“regime des prestations en na-ture”). Mostly basic building materials (e.g. bags of cement, steelframework) were involved, but also fixtures and fittings (e.g.doors, windows, toilet bowls, and faucets). The French govern-ment allowed the colony to take advantage of this with a reim-bursement over 30 years. The proposition was accepted and thusmarked Guadeloupe’s entrance into a new building period, for theabundance of this type of building material increased the pace ofdevelopment of the associated methods of building and designing.This simple cause and effect relationship is summarized by one ofits most famous agents, the architect Ali Tur:

“The provision of goods coming from Germany permittedthe anticipation of certain materials for the structure ofbuildings: re-bar and cement, and on finished materials suchas: doors, windows, toilet/bathroom equipment; reinforcedconcrete was adopted for the construction of the buildingskeleton, cement agglomerates as filling materials andstandardized types of doors and slatted-shutter windowswere designed to fit local demand.”111

However, once again, a rapid conclusion cannot be drawn: if itseems proper to say that until 1928 the use of reinforced concretewas almost non-existent, such does not seem to be the case forcement, as the Governor explains in December 1928 (even if hisassertion is nuanced):112

“Non-reinforced concrete buildings are rare in Guadeloupe,thus we cannot attest to their resistance capacity due to thelack of experience. The situation is different for reinforcedcement, abundantly present in the colony and which has

Communes Total amount Total cost of Number of evaluations Cost of the evaluations

of evaluations private loss above FF 30,000 above FF 30,000

Gosier 1,322 6,404,715 17 895,290

Trois-Rivières 985 7,606,827 38 3,965,695

Total 26,084 200,861,796 628 100,717,854

Table 1: Statement of the loss, estimated according to the communal commissions,whose files have already been centralized in the main town of the colony, January19th, 1929. Source: CAOM, fm, sg, gua252.1518.

les agglomérés creux deciment comme matériaux deremplissage et des typesstandards de portes et defenêtres à persiennes furentétablis conformément auxbesoins locaux.»112 Indeed, Muller’s report(1.12.1929) is in greatcontrast to what theGovernor writes: “Woodenconstruction is frequent inGuadeloupe and the housein masonry, or in reinforcedconcrete, is the exception,especially in the ruralagglomerations.” Source:CAOM ; fm, sg, gua252.1518. Analyse de la recon-struction en ciment armédes immeubles détruitspar le cyclone du 12 sep-tembre 1928, de l’Inspec-teur Général des Colonies,Muller, chef de la Missiond’Inspection de la Guade-loupe à Monsieur le Minis-tre des Colonies. «Laconstruction en bois est d’unusage courant à la Guade-loupe et la maison en maçon-nerie, ou en béton armé con-stitue l’exception surtoutdans les agglomérationsrurales.»

56

113 Source: CAOM, fm, sg,gua252.1518. «Les con-structions en béton non armésont rares à la Guadeloupe,on ne peut donc guère seprononcer par expériencesur leur résistance. Il n’enest pas de même pour leciment armé, abondammentreprésenté à la colonie et quia partout offert une résis-tance parfaite, sauf dans unseul cas, à la Mairie duLamentin, dont l’examen desruines par M. le Chef duService des TravauxPublics révéla de graveserreurs de conception.»114 Actually, a letter fromGovernor Tellier impliesquite the opposite situa-tion: “Once it was sure thatthe Crédit Foncier wouldgrant loans to the communesfor their reconstruction andthat the reconstruction ofcolonial buildings could beachieved through a majorfund from the State, itbecame evident to give thistask to a body distinct fromthat of the Civil Engineer-ing Department, the lattercould not possibly accom-plish this momentous task,as it is indeed lacking intechnicians and the neces-sary means.” Source:CAOM, fm, sg, gua249/1506. Lettre du gouverneurTellier à M. l’Inspecteurgénéral, chef de MissionMuller, St Claude le 11avril 1929. «Lorsqu’il parutcertain que le Crédit Foncierserait autorisé à faire desprêts aux communes en vuede leur reconstruction et queles travaux propres à lacolonie pourraient être exé-cutés sur une subvention del’Etat des plus importantes,il apparut nécessaire deconfier ce travail à unorgane distinct de celui destravaux publics de laGuadeloupe, ce dernier nepouvant être chargé d’uneoeuvre aussi considérablemanquant en effet des tech-niciens et des moyensindispensables.»115 CAOM, fm, 1tp/440116 Signed on April 1, 1929with the Governor Tellier.Source: Idem.117 Source: Ibidem. “M.

4.3 The sending of specialists

If few statistics exist to give a picture of the extra amount of officersand money that might have been used by the departments directlyconcerned with the reconstruction (mainly Civil Engineering De-partment);114 there is sufficient data with regard to the contributionof the architect Ali Tur.

Indeed, while specific funds were raised to cover the improve-ment of governmental buildings such as the Prefecture, GeneralCouncil, Court House, etc., mostly in the city of Basse-Terre; theState commissioned architect Ali Tur, as Architect of the Ministryof the Colonies, to design and supervise the construction of theseinstitutional buildings.115

But in addition to this official task, it was stipulated in his four-year contract (1929-1933)116 that “Mr. Tur is free to design and work forthe communes or for individuals.”117 The results were incredible andthe force of this man has to be acknowledged: he designed morethan 50 buildings,118 including city halls (15), churches (7), presby-teries, schools (27), post offices, health centres, as well as variousurban plans (e.g. Pointe-à-Pitre, Basse-Terre, Lamentin). Withoutdoubt these buildings had a strong impact on the island’s land-scape. The impact was, however, not only physical, for Tur not onlybrought a new type of design and building technique to the colony,but also brought a corresponding education to the workers.

Indeed, after conducting a survey of what the colony could offerin terms of building capacity, Tur quickly realized that the islandwas mostly ignorant of the technique of concrete (there were nei-ther qualified workers, nor building companies were familiar withit) and therefore convinced the government to equip Guadeloupein this sense. Confirmed masons (mostly Italians) were sent toGuadeloupe to achieve this goal while, at the same time, a proce-dure for inviting tenders was initiated with governmental supportfor the installation of building firms coming from France.119

The consequences of this procedure were enormous for theyestablished the appearance of buildings with new materials, newforms, and new styles, the latter feature owing a great deal to the

everywhere offered perfect resistance, except in one case:the examination by the Head of the Civil Engineering Officeof the ruins revealed serious errors in the design of the CityHall of Lamentin.”113

The introduction of new technology into the building field wouldnot have fully succeeded without specialists. And here again, theFrench government seems not to have hesitated.

57

architectural bias developed by Tur (Fig. 30). It had a long-lastingimpact in Guadeloupe.

Nevertheless, not all of these developments could be possiblythe work of one or two men.120 The Civil Engineering Departmentalso played a decisive part in this process, for it questioned thetraditional way of building in the colony and obviously soughtsolutions even before the arrival of Ali Tur in Guadeloupe.

4.4 Questioning building methods

The abundant correspondence between the Ministry of the Colo-nies and the civil officers in Guadeloupe, as well as the internalcorrespondence between the latter, clearly display awareness onthe importance of reconsidering the rebuilding process.

From the start, which means the day after the hurricane, theengineers began to seek improved solutions for a building thatcould assure protection against hurricane and earthquakes, butalso against natural constraints such as the sun, humidity, insects;as well as methods that could facilitate its construction. The ideawas thus to design a lasting type of building, and from the earliestreports, it is evident that great attention was given to the possibili-ties reinforced concrete might offer.

After several studies (conducted during the emergency and af-terwards) comparing the use of wood and concrete in terms of cost,resistance and methods of construction, the conclusions were thesame: concrete was preferable, as stated in the reports of 1929 and1935. In addition, standardization was required.

1929: ”(…) For all of these reasons, reinforced cement [sic]must be used as much as possible for the reconstruction ofthe public and private buildings demolished by the hurricaneof last September 12th.”121

1935: ”(…) This is the reason why the wooden house, even ifmore comfortable to live in than initial appearances wouldhave us believe, is outdated and should be replaced byconcrete and stone construction, which is more long-lasting,less expensive to maintain, less dangerous in case of hurricaneor fire, healthier and more adaptable in every way to theneeds of our time.”122

Concern with standardization is visible in some documents thatexplain very precisely how models should be created and pro-duced. But those documents mostly relate to the elaboration ofroads and bridges. Only in one case do they concern buildings.

Tur, sera libre de se chargerdes projets et travaux pourle compte des communes oudes particuliers”.118 This number is based onan examination of thearchives, yet it can not beconsidered as definitivebecause more precisestudies on the work of thisarchitect would be needed.119 Galpin, C. Ali Tur,Architecte, 1927- 1937,Itinéraire d’une reconstruc-tion, Ministère de laCulture et de la Communi-cation, Conseil général dela Guadeloupe, 1990, p. 6.120 In fact, one shouldacknowledge the presenceof other specialists for thereconstruction in Guade-loupe, like that of RenéDanger, a chartered sur-veyor and professor inurban planning at the EcoleSpéciale des TravauxPublics in Paris, whocollaborated with Ali Turfor the development andextension plan of Pointe-à-Pitre in 1929.121 Source: CAOM, fm, sg,gua252.1518. In «Analysede la reconstruction enciment armé des immeu-bles détruits par le cyclonedu 12 septembre 1928», del’Inspecteur Général desColonies, Muller, chef de laMission d’Inspection de laGuadeloupe à Monsieur leMinistre des Colonies le 12janvier 1929. «De tout cequi précède, il résulte quedans l’œuvre de reconstruc-tion des bâtiments publics etprivés détruits par lecyclone du 12 septembredernier le ciment armédevra être employé danstoute la mesure du possi-ble.» The confusion in theusage of the terms “rein-forced concrete” and“reinforced cement” mayactually suggest an igno-rance of their precisemeaning.122 In Les travaux publics dela Guadeloupe, par G.Robert, Ingénieur principaldes Travaux Publics desColonies, Chef du servicedes Travaux Publics de laGuadeloupe, Paris: Lib-rairie militaire L. Four-

58

Figure 30: Some buildings designed by architect Ali Tur: the hospital of Pointe-à-Pitre,the square of Morne-à-l’Eau and the church of Sainte-Anne. Source: La Guadeloupe,Librairie des Arts Décoratifs, Paris, c.1935.

nier, 1935, pp. 244-247.«C’est pourquoi la maisonde bois, pourtant plus agré-able à habiter qu’on ne pour-rait le croire à première vue,a cependant fait son temps,elle doit céder la place à laconstruction en béton et enpierre plus durable, moinscoûteuse à entretenir, moinsdangereuse en cas de cyc-lone ou d’incendie, plussaine et en définitive demieux adaptée à tous les

59

points de vue aux besoins denotre temps.»123 “An office of availabledwelling has been createdby the act of August 17th,1931 [in Guadeloupe]”.Source: Les travaux publicsde la Guadeloupe, op.cit., p.271. «Un office des habita-tions à bon marché a donc étécréé par arrêté du 17 août1931.»124 Les travaux publics de laGuadeloupe, op.cit., pp.272-273.125 Again, this would be aninteresting topic to analyzeand research further.126 Robert, G. Les travauxpublics de la Guadeloupe,op. cit., pp. 219 & 238.«Trois dispensaires à peuprès identiques ont étéidentifiés dans les com-munes de Sainte-Rose,Sainte-Anne et Trois-Rivières, ils comportent:une salle d’opération, unepharmacie, un cabinet demédecin, deux chambres àdeux lits, des wc, une sallede bain. Des galeries bor-dent les bâtiments sur deuxcotés. La surface bâtie estd’environ 90m2. (…) Troisbureaux des postes ont étéconstruits: un à Trois-Rivières, un à Bouillante, unà Marigot (commune deVieux-Habitants). Ces troisbureaux à peu près iden-tiques comportent un rez-de-chaussée et un étage. Lasurface au rez-de-chausséeest de 100m2, la surface àl’étage de 64m2. On ytrouve au rez-de-chaussée:le bureau public, le bureaudu Receveur, la salle àmanger, la cuisine, ladouche et les wc, et à l’étagetrois chambres à coucher.»

Aiming at an ease of construction and of acquisition, thisproject was actually a type of habitations à bon marché (“affordabledwelling”), that is a type of dwelling constructed for low-incomeindividuals, the ancestor of social housing.123 Engineer Roberts,who presents the project in his book, carefully explains the differ-ent steps from building to renting the dwellings. Established bythe Civil Engineering Department, this type of housing was actu-ally based on a model, from which larger types were designed. Thesize, cost, material, technique of construction, inner equipment andloans system were also set up. Ultimately, three types were pro-posed: type A (about 34m2) including one common room, one bed-room, one kitchen, one toilet and one shower room; type B (about45m2) similar in its dimensions to type A, but with an extra bed-room, and type C (60m2) including two more bedrooms and di-mensions slightly superior to those of type A.124 Unfortunately, nodrawings illustrate his descriptions. Besides, it is not certainwhether those models have ever been built because no documentwas found on the subject.125

However, to return to Ali Tur, it becomes clear why Ali Tur’sideas received such quick approval: they were in direct line withthe conclusions of the Civil Engineering Department. Concreteand standardization were also indeed significant elements of hisdesign work. If his preference for concrete cannot be doubted, forall of his buildings are in concrete, the application of the standard-ized design is less visible even though it actually exists. Many ofhis buildings were actually “prototypes” more and less adapted todifferent sites. Post offices and health centres are examples of this,as confirmed by Engineer Robert in 1935:

“Three almost identical health centres are visible in thecommunes of Sainte-Rose, Sainte-Anne and Trois-Rivières,they include: an operating room, a pharmacy, the doctor’soffice, two bedrooms with two beds, wc, a bathroom. Onboth sides of the buildings, there are galleries. The floorsurface is around 90 m2. (…)Three post offices have been built: one in Trois-Rivières,one in Bouillante, another in Marigot (Vieux-Habitants).Those three buildings are almost identical, including aground and an upper floor. At the ground level, there is afloor surface of 100 m2, and of 64 m2 for the upper floor. Atthe ground level, we find: the public office, the office of theReceptionist, the living room, the kitchen and the wc, and atthe upper floor there are three bedrooms.”126

60

Finally, the main question arises: what were the results of all of thedifferent kinds of support provided to the colony?

4.5 Assessment of the reconstruction of 1935

“Today, the sorely tried Guadeloupe has courageouslystarted to work. The ‘vieille colonie des Seigneurs des Islesd’Amérique’ is becoming modernized. The great works afterto the hurricane of 1928 have given it a new look. Thedevelopment of the port of Pointe-à-Pitre, the repair of thebeautiful colonial road from Pointe-à-Pitre to Basse-Terre,the installation of power and electric light, the constructionof public buildings and schools, which many Frenchcommunes would envy, show a certainty of direction,competency in the realization of the work and creativeactivity, which are making Guadeloupe a colony worthy ofFrench devotion. For three hundred years, it has neverstopped being so.”127

Despite this optimistic opinion, written by the Governor ofGuadeloupe in 1935, on the occasion of the tercentenary anniver-sary of the annexation of Guadeloupe to France (which, in manyways, also represents an opportunity to discover the island in de-tail, through various reports, newspaper articles, pictures, and ex-hibitions made for the occasion), the assessment of thereconstruction in 1935 is far from being so positive.

If it is possible to prove that the program concerning institu-tional buildings was carried out, the seven other “priorities” donot seem to offer the same certainty. Rather, it seems that very littlewas achieved in the seven years compared to what was planned. Infact, if the Bulletin Mensuel d’Informations (a monthly bulletin pub-lished by the French Overseas Agency on the colonies) confirmsthe existence of a power plant and of an electrical network, as sug-gested by Governor Bouge, it also says this network is constitutedof only “one high voltage cable and of six minor voltage cables”128 cover-ing a limited area: this is very little when considering Guade-loupe’s area. In the same way, as far as the “hygiene and assistance”program is concerned, if in 1935 four hospitals were erected(Pointe-à-Pitre, La Désirade, Grand-Bourg and Saint-Martin), onlythree health centres can be counted (in Sainte-Anne, Port-Louis andTrois-Rivières) instead of the 30 planned, while the renovation ofthe hospital in Saint-Claude was not completed.129

Furthermore, the contribution130 of G. Robert, the PrincipalEngineer at the Civil Engineering Department of the Colonies andHead of the same department in Guadeloupe, is crucial on this

127 Source: CAOM; bib,som,d5196. La Guadeloupe dutricentenaire, 1635-1935,présentée par le Gouver-neur L. J. Bouge, Basse-Terre, 1935. «A l’heureactuelle, la Guadeloupe sisouvent éprouvée, s’est misecourageusement à l’oeuvre.La vieille Colonie des Sei-gneurs des Isles d’Amé-rique se modernise. Lesgrands travaux entrepris àla suite du cyclone de 1928lui ont donné un aspectnouveau. L’aménagement duport de Pointe-à-Pitre, laréfection de la belle routecoloniale de Pointe-à-Pitre àBasse-Terre, l’installationde la force et de la lumièreélectrique, la constructiond’édifices publics etd’écoles que de nombreusescommunes françaises luienvieraient, démontrent unesûreté de direction, unecompétence dans la réalisa-tion des oeuvres et uneactivité créatrice qui font dela Guadeloupe une Coloniedigne de la sollicitude de laFrance Depuis trois centsans, elle n’a jamais cessé del’être.»128 Source: CAOM. BulletinMensuel d’Informations,n°18-19-20.129 Source: CAOM. BulletinMensuel d’Informations,n°9-10.130Les travaux publics de laGuadeloupe, op.cit.

61

matter because he methodically evaluates the results of the recon-struction program. In general, the critical tone of his comments andthe many sentences in the conditional tense (e.g. “could influence theaspect of the towns”, “could make the decayed buildings disappear”, etc.)emphasize the still-to-be-done works or incomplete works. Forexample, when discussing the road works, he evokes how theroads are classified and on whom their maintenance depends.131

Engineer Robert also notes how there is an inherent dilemma inhow to interpret the reality:

“Thus the Guadeloupean road network, in spite of the greatworks recently accomplished to renovate it, does not yetessentially correspond to what seems to be on paper and alarge part of the byroads, as well as some sections of thecolonial roads, could be more precisely called ‘trails’.”132

Similarly, elsewhere, Engineer Robert, in his analysis tries to con-vince the reader of the importance of establishing regular drain-age. By providing answers to the objections the project might face,he reveals that it has not yet been implemented:

“In draining a town, in distributing potable water ratherthan contaminated water, the Colony cannot rely on animmediate profit measurable in coins, unlike works on roadsor ports. It can only envisage a more remote, less tangibleinterest. For example, increasing the productive capacitiesof individuals and the amount of workers by improvinghygiene and general living conditions...

Concerning the drainage of Pointe-à-Pitre, the Colonyshould act like an estate agent, as defined in Article 14 of theAct of July 19, 1927, not enforced in Guadeloupe.”133

Finally, the official report written by the central government,which relates to the assessment of the reconstruction in 1940, isperhaps the most expressive document (Table 2). The reconstruc-tion effort barely reaches half of the goals (45.9%) of all the pro-grams: only 4 programs exceed 50 % and three developed less than20% of their aims, one of them being the task of urban planning forthe communes.

Obviously, the reconstruction program clearly failed to fulfilits aims. Despite this fact, two points are worth noting: first, thefailure of the reconstruction cannot be associated with a shortage offunds, for there was quite continuous financial support comingfrom France (Table 3); and second, although the building processdid not fully develop, its challenging and implementation of the

131 Colonial roads andbyroads are the twocategories established bythe Civil EngineeringDepartment. Rural paths,though numerous, are leftout of this classificationbecause the Act of August20th, 1881 was notenforced in the colonies.Source: idem, p.61.However, concerning thebyroads, since the Act ofMay 21st, 1836 has notbeen enforced in thecolony, their maintenancedepends on the communes“where no one is doinganything.” Source: Ibid, pp.95-96.132 Ibid, p. 62. «Aussi leréseau guadeloupéen,malgré les grands travauxeffectués récemment pour leremettre en état, ne corres-pond-il pas encore sur leterrain, à ce qu’il paraît êtresur le papier et une bonnepartie des chemins vici-naux, ainsi que certainstronçons de routes colo-niales, pourraient être plusexactement désignés sous lenom de ‘pistes’.»133 Ibid., pp. 179-180 & 189.«En assainissant une ville,en distribuant de l’eaupotable au lieu d’eau conta-minée, la Colonie ne peut eneffet escompter un profitimmédiat pouvant fairel’objet d’un décompte endeniers, pas comme les tra-vaux de route ou de ports,elle ne peut plus envisagerqu’un intérêt plus lointain,mois tangible, par exemple,accroître les capacitésproductives des individuset le nombre des travailleurspar l’amélioration desconditions de l’hygiène etde l’habitat en général. (…)Pour l’assainissement dePointe-à-Pitre la Coloniejouera en l’occurrence unrôle de lotisseur tel qu’il estdéfini dans l’article 14 de laloi du 19 juillet 1924, nonpromulguée en Guade-loupe.»

62

use of new materials, and technologies insured a very long-lastingimpact on the design and building process in Guadeloupe.

Indeed, after several years, the use of concrete was no longerrestricted to public buildings, but had spread to include wealthyfamilies. This was because concrete embodied a certain image ofmodernity and represented a certain social ascension, on top of itscomforting features.134 This way of thinking continued for the nextsixty years and was eventually extended to the entire population,supported by the ease of finding and using concrete in comparisonto the rare, and therefore expensive, local building material(wood) which requires carpentry skills. Besides, the introduction

134 Dupré, K. «Permanenceset ruptures des formesurbaines des bourgs deGuadeloupe: cas de Gosieret de Trois-Rivières, de1928 à nos jours»,Mémoire de DEA, Bégot D.(dir.), Université desAntilles et de la Guyane,2002, p. 106.

Budgets New works, Civil Engineering Dept.

1927 3,127,646.97

1928 1,828,534

1929 2,054,844.82

1930 4,529,156.27

1931 3,894,518

1932 3,251,300

1933 2,752,000

1934 2,420,000

Table 3: The expenses for the revalorization of Guadeloupe from 1919 to 1929(extract), Source: CAOM, fm, 1/affpol/2640. «Projets d’équipement 1946» Directionpolitique, Sommes dépensées pour la mise en valeur de la Guadeloupe de 1919 à1934 (extrait). Note 1: French money was constantly devaluated in the period ofstudy as indicated by this document, and it was impossible to state whether thosenumbers were given in terms of a constant Franc. The numbers might only partiallyreflect the actual given budget. Note 2: Note the vocabulary shift from “Great Works”or “reconstruction” to “revalorization”.

Programmes Realized works by 1940

Roads and paths 62 %

Port of Pointe-à-Pitre 100 %

Secondary Ports 35 %

Drainage 19 %

Hygiene and assistance 80 %

Administrative buildings 42 %

Electricity 99 %

Education 4 %

Urban Planning 5 %

Other 13 %

Table 2: Assessment of the works realized by 1940, October 25th, 1941. Source:CAOM, fm, 1tp/623. (Emphasis added). Note the separation introduced in the “ports”category, underlining what has been 100% realized.

63

of modern town planning in Guadeloupe during the same periodfound one of its earlier implementations in the city of Pointe-à-Pitre in the Assainissement district.135

Nonetheless, the forms taken by the extension of the bourgs stillremain unexplored. If, thanks to the introductory historical con-text, some of the architectural and urban characteristics have beenevoked and shape the understanding of the basis on which thebourg began its reconstruction, it is now time to focus more pre-cisely on the contemporary period (1928-2003) via the specific casestudies of Gosier and Trois-Rivières.

135 At the north of theexisting city of Pointe-à-Pitre, the new district wasplanned in 1931 as part ofthe reconstruction pro-gramme (source: CAOM,tp624); yet by 1952 onlyone-third of the districtarea was built. Source:Giordani, J-P. La Guade-loupe face à son patrimoine,op.cit., p. 86.

64

PART IIIForms taken by the extension of the bourgs (1928-2003)

Figure. 31. The repartition of the population on the island in 1999. Source: INSEE.

5. MORPHOLOGICAL CONTEXT

“It is not possible to be a tiny dot isolated on the earth; onemust belong to a constitutive whole.”(Charles de Gaulle, 1946)136

From 1926 to 2003, the Guadeloupean population almost doubled,going from 243, 243 to 444,000 inhabitants,137 with 41% of it nowconcentrated in the biggest agglomeration of the island (Pointe-à-Pitre/Les Abymes), with the remaining part in the smaller towns(Fig. 31). Yet, from the ruins of the post-hurricane to the presenturban configuration, there is no doubt that the socio-economic con-text played its part in the general process of Guadeloupe’s urbani-zation.

The period 1928-1946 is symbolized by a succession of events thatgreatly affected the island because they paralyzed its economy. Aspreviously seen, the hurricane of 1928 is one of these events, but ina broader context the following years did not bring the stabilitythat could have supported the reconstruction: the crash of 1929,with the collapse of the world economy, also had important reper-cussions on the French political climate138 and hence on the Frenchcolonies. The succession of the different laws (e.g. 1923, 1934) estab-lishing a quota system139 for the export of rum and sugar respec-

136 Source: CAOM,bib, som,c/br/6327. Guadeloupe,1946-1971, 25 années dedépartementalisation. “Iln’est pas possible d’être unpetit point tout seul sur laterre, il faut faire partied’un tout qui se constitue.”137 Source: Annuaire stati-stique de la Guadeloupe &INSEE 2003.138 Carpentier, J. & Lebrun,F. (dir.) Histoire de France,Seuil, 1987, p. 329.139 Economically, Guade-loupe was bound to Franceby the “exclusive pact”restricting trade to theexchanges between Franceand Guadeloupe. Althoughthe free trade pact wassigned in 1860, realitydemonstrates that themain lines of the exclusivesystem were kept. Source:Boutroy, J-M “Le dévelop-pement des îles du Nord”,Mémoire de DESS, VerdolP. (dir), UAG, unpublished,1995. For more, see e.g.Sempaire, E. “La situationéconomique des Antillesde 1919 à 1945: le cas de laGuadeloupe”; Suvélor R.(dir.), Historial antillais,Fort-de-France, Dajani ,s.d, tome V, 1981, pp. 75-112. or Schnakenbourg, C.“La Compagnie Marseil-laise de Sucrerie Coloniale.Histoire de l’usine Blan-chet de 1860 à 1933"op.cit., pp. 44-50.140 Celma, C. “Le mouve-ment ouvrier aux Antillesde la Première Guerremondiale à 1939”, inSuvélor R. (dir.), Historialantillais, Fort-de-France,Dajani ,s.d, tome V, 1981,pp. 169-243.141 Creole saying whichrefers to wartime Guade-loupe, directly inspired

65

1938 1946 1956 1966 1977 1985 1995 2002

(%) 118 134 80 38 23 12 9 9

Sector of activity 1954 1967 1982 2001

I 36 18 8 3

II 15 15 28 13

III 12 67 68 84

Table 4: The evolution of the importations’ coverage by exportations between 1938and 2002. Source: CAOM bib, som,c/br/9319 & INSEE.

Table 5: The evolution of employment by sector of activities in Guadeloupe from1954 to 2001. Source: CAOM bib, som,c/br/9319 & INSEE 2003.Note: The activities’ sector is determined according to the French categorizationestablished by the census national agency INSEE. I: agricultural activities, II:industry, III: services.

tively, also aggravated the social climate of the island, alreadyshaken up by strikes.140 By imposing a blockade, the Second WorldWar (an tan Sorin141 in Guadeloupe) created a shortage of goods andmaterials that consequently ruined the island’s economy.

Comparatively, the post-war period witnessed many socialchanges, the most significant being the change in status, in 1946, tothat of a department from that of a colony.142Although the demandfor assimilation was not new,143 its practical implementation waslargely acclaimed by the political elite and the population, to-gether reflecting the immense hope placed in the central govern-ment to improve the general situation of the island as well as thedevelopment of its economy.

Through the access to political equality and the extension ofsocial services, starting from the founding of basic social security(e.g. diverse versions of the system of health benefits in 1947, mini-mum wage in 1950) to the development of various infrastructures(e.g. transport, schools); the island believed its society to be equalto that of France.

However, even if the gross domestic product (GDP) continu-ously increased after 1946144 and although the dismantling of theFrench colonial empire in the 1950s-1960s145 allowed the centralgovernment to renew its interest in the Old Colonies,146 the “par-ticular status” of the island emphasized by the successive constitu-tions of 1946 and 1958147 (being at the origin of many delays in thereal application of the laws), as well as the progressive deteriora-tion of Guadeloupean exterior commerce (Table 4), reveal how fareconomic development was from meeting expectations.

from the name of thegovernor in place, Sorin C.(1940-43). For more onthis period, see the workof Sempaire, E. Ladissidence en tan Sorin,Fort de France : Ed. E.Kolodziej, EDCA, 1984.142 Assimilation law onMarch 19, 1946, applica-ble to Guadeloupe,Martinique, FrenchGuyana and La Réunion.143 Bills for the samepurpose were alreadyunsuccessfully introducedin parliament, for examplein 1890 by Senator JulesIsaac, in 1915 by René-Boisneuf. Source: Miles,W. «Fifty years of assimi-lation», in Islands at theCrossroads, Rienner, 2001,p. 48.144 Daniel, J. “The cons-truction of dependency” inIslands at the Crossroads,Rienner, 2001, p. 62.145 For example, Indochinain 1954, Morocco andTunisia in 1955, Mali (ex-Sudan), Senegal and Mau-ritania in 1960, Algeria in1962. Source: Ageron, C-R.Histoire de la France colo-niale, III, Le déclin, Paris:Colin, 1991, pp. 273-283.146 “It is only after 1958that a development policywith subsequent meansstarted in the Frenchislands.” Source: Giacot-tino J-C. “Croissanceurbaine et développementaux Antilles” in EspacesTropicaux, Talence,CEGET-CNRS, n°4, 1991,p. 89. « Une politique dedéveloppement avec desmoyens suffisants n’étantentreprise dans les îlesfrançaises qu’après 1958 ».147 Articles 73 in 1946 and74 in 1958. For more onthe subject, see for exam-ple, Michalon, T. “Sur lesspécificités de l’Outre-mer: enquête et proposi-tion”, in La France et lesOutre-mers, l’enjeumulticulturel, Hermès-CNRS, 2002, pp. 423-433.

66

Town Population 1961 1974 1982 1990 1999

3,000 7 6 5 4 5

3,001-10,000 18 18 18 16 14

10,001-20,000 7 8 9 10 4

Over 20,001 (over 50,000) 2(-) 2(1) 2 (1) 4 (1) 8 (1)

Infrastructures Evaluation criteria 1946 1971

Road system Length (km) 1220* 1980

Commercial port Length of the docks (m) 736 2,235

Airport Planes movement - 80,000

Communication services Count of phones 400 7,725

Water distribution Count of inhabitants

reached 28,000 (10%) 260,000 (81%)

Electric network Count of inhabitants

reached 35,000 (13%) 240,000 (75%)

Education Count of classrooms 550 2,700

Sport Count of stadium 2 25

Social Social centers - 12

Hospital Amount of beds 1,000 4,145

Table 6: The evolution of the cities and towns of Guadeloupe depending on theirpopulation rate, 1982-1999. Source: INSEE.

Table 7: Development in public infrastructures from 1946 to 1971. Source: CAOM bib,som,c/br/9319. *1214 km in 1935! Source: Robert, G. Les Travaux publics de laGuadeloupe, op.cit., 2466 in 2000. Note: This document is to be reconsidered, for in1974, according to INSEE, only 32% of the population was connected to a water-system: can we believe that in 3 years the network totally crashed?

The creation of a policy aiming at the development of a tertiaryeconomy and at the development of an urban society truly boreresults, for in less than 30 years the island drastically changed itseconomic orientation (Table 5) as well as its territorial configura-tion (Table 6).

The modernization of the transportation system (ports, e.g.Jarry, and the road network), the policy of urban development (ini-tially symbolized by the renovation of Pointe-à-Pitre), the devel-opment of public services (e.g. the opening of the Fouillole campusin Pointe-à-Pitre in 1976),148 that of high level private services andof tourism (e.g. first charter of tourists),149 must be acknowledged(Table 7). Even the decentralization process (starting 1982), initi-ated under Mitterrand’s presidency, is significant – at least sym-bolically - because it aimed at providing more power to localauthorities.

148 Actually, an academiccentre was already openedin 1970, and transformedinto a college, Universitédes Antilles et de la Guyanein 1982. Source: Bouchet, H& Richet, G. Rapport d’éva-luation de l’Université desAntilles et de la Guyane,CNE, 1991, pp. 26-27.149 Source: CAOM bib,som,c/br/9319, 1974.“Nothing is left of thewooden terminal and thebasic runway of the 1950s.1, 600m long in 1950, therunway reaches 3,105 m in1961, thus facilitating thelanding of Boeing 707 andBoeing 747 since November1970.” «Plus rien ne sub-siste de l’aérogare en bois etde la piste sommaire desannées 50. De 1 600m en1950, la piste a été portée à3 105m en 1961, ce qui apermis l’accueil des Boeing707 et des Boeing 747 àpartir de novembre 1970.»

67

Yet the closure of almost all the sugar factories in the same timespan (1950s-1980s),150 and the situation of a housing market insuffi-cient to meet the housing demand, even more so after natural ca-tastrophes (e.g. hurricanes of 1956, 1964 and 1966), reflect theprofound malaise of a territory whose economic growth mainlyrelies on heavy national subsidization and whose urbanization isstrongly bound to the proliferation of poor-quality housing dis-tricts.151 The following decade (1990s) merely confirmed the de-cline of the rural world and the growth of the urban population(Table 6). But a closer look at the location of this urban populationmay show variations over time.

Previous years (1970s-1980s) were symbolized by the attractionto the city (e.g. Pointe-à-Pitre) and its closest neighbourhood,whereas the more recent period alternatively displays an urbansettlement highly concentrated in the neighbourhood towns to thedetriment of the cities, which are actually declining in popula-tion.152

Furthermore, the different functions inherent to this type ofurbanization (e.g. the bedroom community or escape-towns, ville-dortoir, ville-échappatoire) and to the new economic activities,boosted by a “tradition” of local tax incentives,153 have generatedthe creation of various morphologies in the territory and evenwithin the towns, not necessarily gathered in a homogeneouswhole (Table 8) or offering an equal standard of living. The hurri-cane of 1989 sadly represented one occasion to reveal this disparityto mainland France.

Finally, today, there is no doubt that the island has clearly leftits economy of production in favour of one of consumption; yet thehigh rate of unemployment,154 the frequency of strikes and thecontinuing housing problem, among others, offset the verdict of awealthy island with a successful urbanization process. This briefoverview of Guadeloupe’s history thus not only reveals an eco-nomic transformation, but also a spatial one, strengthened by theconstant increase of the population.

1954 1967 1982 1999

The population of the Pointe-à-Pitre/ 72,060 109,117 130,294 166,713

Abymes/ Gosier/ Baie-Mahault/ Lamentin/

Petit-Bourg agglomeration

Table 8: The evolution of the Pointe-à-Pitre/ Abymes/ Gosier/ Baie-Mahault/ Lamentin/Petit-Bourg agglomeration from 1954 to 1999. Source: CAOM bib, som,c/br/9319 &INSEE. (Note: The agglomeration has more than doubled in 45 years, while it gathersalmost 40% of the whole population of Guadeloupe in 1999)

150 For example, 1950: LaRetraite, 1968: Marquisatin Capesterre, 1978: Blan-chet in Morne-à-l’Eau,1980 : Darboussier inPointe-à-Pitre. Source:Bégot D. “Le sucre antillaiset sa patrimonialisation”,in Hocquet J.-C (dir.), LeSucre, de l’Antiquité à sondestin antillais, Actes du123è congrès national dessociétés historiques etscientifiques, Paris, CTHS,2000, p. 390, excerpt fromtable.151 For more precision onthe subject, see for example,Giacottino, J-C. «Crois-sance urbaine et développe-ment aux Antilles», op.cit.,pp. 81-101.152 Between 1990 and 1999,the city of Pointe-à-Pitrelost 20% of its populationand that of Basse-Terre,11%. Source: INSEE.153 For example, the law of1955 changing the status ofthe shoreline into a privateone instead of a public oneand thus allowing the con-structions in this zone; thePons law (1986) reducingtaxes to favor overseasinvestment…154 25.1% of the activepopulation of Guadeloupewas unemployed in 2001.Source: INSEE.

68

The next aim of this study is to look closely at the urbanization oftwo case studies, and to establish more precisely, within the gen-eral context, the forms taken by the process of extension.

Besides, since the assumption of interrelations between spaceand social components is adopted in this study, the question arisesas to whether it is possible to read social events from the urbanfabric.

Because of the late introduction of communal land-use plans inGuadeloupe (not before the 1970s), and especially, due to theirdiscontinuous production concerning the case studies, as well asthe difficulty to find contemporary cadastral maps (precisely onthe 1928-1986 period),155 such documents, few in number, cannot beused chronologically in comparison with one another. They havethus intentionally been omitted in this part of the analysis. Thematerials used to conduct the morphological analysis are the fol-lowing:

-the maps of the French mapping agency (IGN) that presentthe advantage of a synthetic view of the forms and of thestreet layout; but nonetheless offer too much uncertainty(large scale and unreliability) and no idea of the plot system(besides, since the production of such documents only startsafter 1955, almost 30 years of the chosen time span remainuncovered).-the municipal archives of each town that provide furtherinformation about the commune, specifically through itsmunicipal minutes.-the available historical research on the communes.-interviews with the inhabitants.

Because of the errors found in documents while researching, cor-rections have been necessary and will show up at the larger scale(1/5,000). For the smaller scales (1/20,000 or 1/25,000), only minorchanges have been made for the most obvious mistakes. In addi-tion, conjectural plans have been drawn to facilitate the readabilityof the study, despite the degree of unreliability they contain.

155 Despite the longtradition of such apractice: already in 1732cadastral maps wereissued by the Engineers ofthe King, reproducing theland division of the island.

69

Figure 32. Gosier. Source: IGN 2001.

70

6. MORPHOLOGICAL CASE STUDIES

6.1 Gosier

“Then we arrive at Gosier. The village has been razed andthe inhabitants camp under disjointed wooden boards.”(10.18.1928)156

It is at the end of the 17th century that the first vestiges of the parishof Gosier157 may be found, on a site benefiting from relativelygood access to the sea, despite the presence of mangroves and cliffs,the inland largely dominated by hilly lands (terres morneuses).158

Quickly configured for military defence, with the erection of FortLouis in 1695 and that of Fort Fleur d’Epée between 1759 and 1763,it seems few interests existed in developing the village itself,which was scarcely inhabited, reflecting the small populationpresent in the parish as a whole.159 At that time, it suffered from thecontinuous French-British rivalry: it was largely destroyed duringthe battles of 1794.

The 19th century greatly favoured the extension of Gosier,transforming the parish into a commune by the 1837 Act,160 for theconstant increase in population and the period of relative peaceensured its growth. The second and final emancipation in 1848 per-petuated what had begun with the French Revolution and beenstopped by the reign of Napoleon (who reintroduced slavery in1802, after it had already been abolished once in 1794): namely, thedismantling of homesteads into smaller-sized ownerships. Thebourg itself is a good example of this process because its territoryremained in the hands of the same family (the Boyvins) from theend of the 17th to the end of the 18th century (Fig. 33), after whichthe selling out to various owners started.161 Furthermore, the re-search conducted by G. L. Lawson-Body162 on land transactions be-tween 1834 and 1910, including Gosier, which ascertained thegrowth of transactions in the commune after 1848 (Table 9), con-firms this land-division phenomenon.

TIME SPAN GOSIER

1834-1848 7

1849-1874 35

1875-1900 32

1901-1910 9

TOTAL 83

Table 9: The number of land transactions depending on the period in Gosier. Source:Lawson-Body, op. cit., Table 3 (extract), p. 57.

156 Source: CAOM, fm, sg,gua240/1464. Report fromthe French Ambassador tothe US, Paul Claudel, onOctober 18, 1928. «Puisnous arrivons au Gosier. Levillage a été rasé et les habi-tants campent sous quelquesplanches disjointes.»Rapport de l’ambassadeurde France aux USAClaudel, 18 octobre 1928.157 As underlined byAdélaïde-Merlande, J. inHistoire des communes(tome I, pp. 5-9: “Histo-rique de l’institutionmunicipale des origins à lafin du XIXè siècle, Guade-loupe-Martinique), thedistrict is the administra-tive circonsconscriptionduring the 17th and 18thin Guadeloupe and Marti-nique. The limits of thedistrict are almost fittingthose of the parish, thereligious circonscription.After 1790, with the FrenchRevolution municipalities(les communes) emerge, butstarting 1802 the “parish”word comes back in Gua-deloupe to qualify thedistrict. It is only in 1837that Guadeloupe andMartinique are defini-tively divided into towns.158 In Atlas des Départe-ments Français d’OutreMer, III, Guadeloupe,CEGET-CNRS-IGN,Talence-Bordeaux, 1982.159 485 inhabitants in 1699and 4,644 inhabitants in1797 (5% of theGuadeloupean population)of which 48 lived in thebourg. Source: Histoire desCommunes, op.cit., Vol. 3,pp. 43 & 47.160 Histoire des Communes,op.cit., Vol. 3, p. 48.161 Histoire des Communes,

71

Figure 33. The cadastral map of Gosier in 1732 (detail). Source: Arch. Dép, Gua.

op.cit., Vol. 3, p. 44.162 Lawson-Body (2000) «L’établissement de lapaysannerie enGuadeloupe : le cas del’espace vivrier desGrands Fonds », in BuracM. (dir.) La question de laterre dans les colonies etdépartements françaisd’Amérique 1848-1998,Karthala & GéodeCaraïbe,2000, pp. 37-74.163 Histoire des Communes,op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 49.164 Idem, p. 52.

Figure 34. Gosier in 1902. Source: CAOM 1p1297.

But, at the dawn of the 20th century, Gosier was still a town of verysmall importance, representing only 2.75% of the Guadelou-peanpopulation with its 4,611 inhabitants in 1895.163 They were mostlyinvolved with fishing activities.164

Concerning the form of its bourg, while one anonymous persondescribes it as “barely sixty houses” (see footnote 80), mapsvaguely show a ribbon development along the secondary colonialroad (Fig. 34), which seems to have evolved little until 1928. Awitness (born in 1912 and living in Gosier) says:

“In 1928, there was only one road, with nothing but thewoods around it. All the streets of today which go down [tothe sea], did not exist. (…) There were small single-floorwooden houses, not joined, with wooden slats (…) Theplateau Saint-Germain, Mangot, behind the city-hall, there

72

was nothing but woods, except for some footpaths leadingto the sea. On the boulevard, there was already the house ofthe speech therapist.

In l’Enclos, there was nothing, except one house, that ofthe Gillot family.”165

The hurricane of 1928 hit the bourg strongly; yet if the damageswere important (Fig. 35), so, too, were its consequences to a com-mune characterized by chronic poverty: reconstruction is a longprocess that does not always reach its goal. On the other hand, thedynamism generated by the increase of the population (almostdoubled in less than 40 years),166 mainly concerned with focusedfarming activities (Table 10), and the forthcoming celebration of1935167 seemed to offer more optimistic prospects.

Extraordinary measures were quickly taken by the govern-ment to help the island and its communes to recover from thedamages. Gosier did not, however, benefit much from them be-cause the commune was literally ruined and thus could not affordthem. The modesty of the loan taken out by the commune for its

165 Note: Plateau Saint-Germain, Mangot andl’Enclos are given namesfor different sub-districtsin the bourg. «En 1928, iln’y avait qu’une seule route,le reste c’était un bois.Toutes les rues d’aujourd’-hui qui descendent n’exis-taient pas.(…) C’était despetites maisons en bois sansétage, mais pas collées, enessente (…) Le plateauSaint-Germain, Mangot,derrière la mairie, c’étaientrien que des bois saufquelques sentiers pour lamer. Sur le boulevard, il yavait déjà la maison del’orthophoniste. A l’Enclos,il n’y avait rien sauf unemaison, celle de la familleGillot.»166 8,624 inhabitants in1931. Source: Arch. Dép.Guadeloupe. Census onJuly 1st, 1931.167 The celebration of thetercentenary anniversaryof the attachment ofGuadeloupe to France.168 Letter sent on August6th, 1932. Source: CAOM;fm,sg,gua249/1506.169 Source: Arch. Dép.Guadeloupe, série continue6265, 2025. Minutes of themunicipal council on April21st, 1931: “(…) for theconstruction of thepresbytery of the city hall,etc…2,500 barrels ofcement, 30 tons of re-bar,50m3 of wood for forms, 5toilets, 6 wash-basins,2,000kg of Corpenol, 1,000m3 of Coritect, 100 metalsheets.” «Matériel etmatériaux commandés par laCommune au titre desprestations allemandes (…)pouvant servir dans laconstruction du presbytère,de la Mairie, etc…2500barils de ciments, 30 tonnesde fer pour armature, 50m3

de bois de coffrage, 5 wcsièges à la Turque, 6 lavaboscomplets, 2000 kg deCorpenol, 1000 m3 deCoritect, 100 feuilles detôles ondulées.»170 Source: Arch. Dép. Gua-deloupe, série continue6265. Minutes of the muni-cipal council on January28, 1930. Note: So far, no

Figure 35: Gosier after the hurricane of 1928. Source: Album of Gosier-1935. Arch.Dép. Gua. n°1856. A witness (born in 1912) tells about the hurricane:

“There was no radio, and we called it “a wind”. We were six children at home. All ofthe houses fell down, except that of Doctor Hélène. My mother lived in front of thegrocery shop. When our house started to fall, my mother said we had to go to takerefuge at doctor Hélène’s house. I went outside and I don’t know what happened butthe wind carried me up to the cliff, over there. I went all alone to the Doctor Hélène. Inthe house was a woman who delivered in the midst of everyone. The evening, westayed in Doctor Hélène’s house. All of l’Houezel [name of a district] was in thathouse. We were so many that we had to stand. What I remember is that there wasone person who had hurt in his arm, and it would not stop bleeding. He died. And awoman, who came to take refuge in our home, and who was carrying in her basketwhat she was selling, she also died. In the bourg, they all took refuge in the church.”

73

Classification per occupation (07.01.1931) Gosier Land-surface per crop(01.01.1935) Gosier

Agriculture 7211 Total land-surface 3781

Industry (*1) 647 Cultivated land 1150

Commerce 251 Sugar cane 300

Transport and marine 257 Coffee only 10

Public force public, army, gendarmerie 7 Cacao only 10

Professional, civil servants, etc. 103 Coffee, cacao, banana together -

Persons of independent means 93 Subsistence crops 800

Small industry 634 Banana only -

Jobless or unknown occupation (*2) 55 Cotton -

other cultures 30

Bushes (Savane) 1400

Non cultivable 400

Wood and forest 830

*1 : small industry included*2 : children living in other communes than their parents’, pupils in boarding school,homeless, etc.

Table 10: Classification by occupation on July 1st, 1931 and land-surface per crop inGosier, on January 1st, 1935. Source: Robert, G. Les Travaux Publics de laGuadeloupe, op. cit., pp. 34-35, 224-225.

reconstruction (FF 400,000), granted in proportion to the commu-nal budget,168 and the list of materials ordered from Germany,169 aswell as the date of the claim (as late as 1931) all emphasize this fact.

Similarly, the municipal council’s cautious answer to architectAli Tur’s request to work for the commune reflects this fact as well:

“Moreover, the mayor presents to the council Mr. A. Tur’sletter of January 25th, 1930 pertaining to the establishmentof the pre-project concerning the communal reconstruction,mentioned at the meeting held on July 1st, 1929 (…)considering that the Commune’s budgetary resources aretoo limited and do not allow it to start incurring expenses(…) states that, the municipality, before committing to Mr.Tur, wishes to ascertain the support of the centraladministration.”170

Furthermore, the commune’s unsuccessful attempt, four years af-ter the hurricane, to make the State reconsider the financial organi-zation of loans, calling for “generous assistance (…) and the diminution(…) of the financial obligations tied to the loan granted by the CréditFoncier de France and to the German services”171 again emphasizes thecontinuing paucity of its budget.

Nevertheless, even with a limited budget, the necessary recon-

contract or building inGosier proves such sup-port. Thus, it can beassumed that Ali Turnever worked for thecommune of Gosier. «Enoutre M. le Maire communi-que à l’Assemblée la lettreen date du 25 janvier 1930de M. A. Tur au sujet del’établissement de l’avant-projet concernant les tra-vaux communaux dont il futquestion dans sa séance du1er juillet 1929. (…) consi-dérant que les ressourcesbudgétaires de la Communesont trop pauvres et ne lapermettent pas d’entre-prendre des dépenses (…)émet l’avis que la munici-palité, avant de s’engagerenvers M. Tur, soit d’abordassurée de l’appui del’Administration.171 Source: CAOM, fm, sg,gua249/1505. Minutes ofthe municipal council mee-ting, on August 6th, 1932.The dry answer to that de-mand was attached: nega-tive, for “everything isdefined by law and cannot bechanged just for Gosier”.Note: The author did notfind any other communesof Guadeloupe that for-mulated such a claim. «uneaide généreuse (…) la dimi-nution (…) des obligationscontractées par elle au titredes emprunts au CréditFoncier de France et desprestations allemandes.»

74

Figure 36: The map of Gosier c.1935. Source: Album of Gosier - 1935. Arch. Dép.Gua. n°1856.

struction provided the opportunity for Gosier to consolidate somemorphological features of the bourg (e.g. the central axis) and torestructure others (e.g. public building position, street system).

More precisely, concerning the street layout, there was an at-tempt to further develop the single main street into a wider systemwhile keeping the main direction parallel to the coastal line. Aproposal was made and accepted by the municipal council, lessthan one year after the hurricane on July 31st, 1929:

“The mayor presents to the council that, as part of thereconstruction plan of the Commune, the creation of twonew streets in the bourg, planned so long ago, is considered,parallel to the principal street and drawn as follows:

1 - in the South, one street 8 meters wide, at the border ofthe ‘50 geometric steps’172 zone with that of theneighbourhood owners (…)

2 - in the North, one street of equal width would crossthe parcels of the owners who would accept free cessions orsmall indemnities to the Commune.”173

Two years later, if it is not still evident whether those new streetshave been built (for they do not appear on maps before 1956, andremain strangely absent from the map of 1935, Fig. 36), the lastingdesire to improve the street system is apparent from the municipalminutes. The records call to proper maintenance of the existingstreet:

172 “50 pas géométriques”stands for a 81.2m widestrip along the shore ofGuadeloupe and Martin-ique, originally owned bythe Kingdom of Franceand then by the State.173 «M. le Maire expose auConseil que dans le plan dereconstruction de la Com-mune, il est prévu la créa-tion si longtemps projetéede deux nouvelles rues dansle bourg, parallèles à la Rueprincipale avec les deuxautres à créer dont les tracésseraient les suivants:1- Au Sud, une rue de 8 mde largeur à la limite de lazone des 50 pas géomé-triques avec celle des pro-priétaires riverains (…)2- Au Nord, une rue d’égalelargeur traverserait desparcelles de terrain depropriétaires qui consenti-raient des cessions gratuitesou contre des faibles indem-nités à la Commune (…)»Source: Arch. Dép. Guade-loupe, série continue 6265,délibération n°1785. Theproposition has beenaccepted the same day forthe following reasons “Byembellishing the bourg, (thecreation of those streets)will solve the sanitarysituation and will developthe interest of the wholecommunity, by facilitatingthe constructions of allkinds, which will providemore vitality in the bourgand therefore will contri-bute to the prosperity of theCommune.” Source: idem.”Tout en embellissant lebourg, y remédiera la situa-tion sanitaire et développerales intérêts de toute lacollectivité, en facilitant lesconstructions de toutessortes, ce qui mettra un peude vitalité dans le bourg etpartant contribuera à laprospérité de la Commune. »174 Source: Arch. Dép.Guadeloupe, série continue6265, Gosier 2065.Minutes of the municipalcouncil on 7.11.1931. «LeMaire expose que le chemindit « bord de mer» ou«embarcadère» en bas dubourg, conduisant à la plagesi fréquentée des touristes,

75

“The mayor puts forward that the path called the “sea side”or “wharf” down the bourg, leading to the beach, which isso frequented by tourists, strollers, and where the sea bathingis excellent and pleasant, needs urgent repairs.”174

Concerning the buildings themselves, little information is avail-able about the reconstruction of the domestic architecture, al-though the public buildings are further documented, for thecommune was directly or indirectly in charge of them.175

In general, the post-1928 period appears to have favoured areorganization of the public buildings in terms of position andmethods of reconstruction. New plans were made for the city hall,the presbytery, the schools and the funeral home, while the par-tially destroyed church was renovated according to its originalform.

But again, one could be surprised at the dates of this pro-gramme’s implementation: at least from 1928 to 1932 for theschools, 1929-1931 for the presbytery,176 at least from March 1931 toNovember 1932 for the city hall.177

If it is not possible to state precisely whether the funeral homeand all the schools were rebuilt on the same site, what is certain isthe change of the position of the city hall and the presbytery. Tak-ing the lot that was until then occupied by the presbytery, the newcity hall was erected in a more central position than it previouslyhad in the bourg. The box-shape cement two-floor volume, the flatroof, the exterior monotint, the simplicity of the façades, slightlyornamented with round openings and a balcony, obviously reflectthe bias towards architectural modernity,178 which can be seen onthe island at the time through the works of Ali Tur (Fig. 37).

In contrast, the presbytery rebuilt near the church presentedmore of the aspects of a “traditional” building (Fig. 38). On a ce-ment slab, the wooden symmetrical single-floor rectangular mainvolume was ornamented with an inner gallery, decorated withwooden arches and balustrades, while covered with a double gen-tly sloped hipped roof using metal sheets.

The same traditional characteristics could be noted of the build-ing functioning as the police station, which was even less elabo-rated and was most likely rented as a temporarily option (Fig. 39).After the hurricane, in answer to the demand of the Mayor ofGosier concerning police services, the Government replied:

“In response to your letter n°256 of November 2ndconcerning your Commune’s police-station, I have thehonour of informing you that all necessary arrangementswill be made to install a brigade of Gendarmes in the bourg

des promeneurs ; où le bainde mer est excellent etagréable, demande desréparations urgentes.»175 For example, the laws of1833, 1837, and 1884gradually instituted theobligation of the communeto have separated publicschools and city hall, andto maintain them. Source:Agulhon, M. “La mairie”,op.cit, p. 180.176 The still existing com-memorative plaque statesthe inauguration of thepresbytery on the 14th ofJuly 1931, while an excerptfrom the Official Journal ofGuadeloupe clarifies thestarting date of the cons-truction, voted on July31st, 1929 : “On SaturdayJanuary 24th, 1931 (…)proceeding of the followingact (…): construction of apresbytery with dependen-cies. Work expenses: FF115,000 (…)” Source: Arch.Dép. Gua., Journal OfficielGuadeloupe n°3, 1.15.1931. «Il sera procédé leSamedi 24 janvier 1931 (…)à l’adjudication (…) del’entreprise suivante: cons-truction d’un presbytèreavec dépendances. Montantdes travaux: 115 000 f,caution provisoire»177 Signs of the projectfound in the minutes of themunicipal council, onDecember 3rd, 1931: “Themunicipal council (…) givesits agreement for the follow-ing projects (…), the projectof construction of a city hallin reinforced cement,according to the plansestimations on October 3,1931, evaluated at FF 304,500 not including the threetall iron gates.” Sources:Arch. Dép. Guadeloupe,série continue 6265, 2065(Note: The minutes forOctober 4th, 1931 were notfound). The minutes forDecember 11th, 1932 state:“urgency of this commandfor the forthcominginauguration of the cityhall.” Source: idem.178 Acknowledged by thetown “[the city hall] is inreinforced concrete and ofmodern architecture”.

76

Figure 37: The city hall of Gosier, c.1935. Source: Album of Gosier - 1935. Arch.Dép. Gua. n°1856.Figure 38: The presbytery of Gosier, c.1935. Source: Album of Gosier - 1935. Arch.Dép. Gua. n°1856.Figure 39: The police station of Gosier, c.1935. Source: Album of Gosier - 1935. Arch.Dép. Gua. n°1856.

Source: Arch. Dép. Guade-loupe n°1856. Album ofGosier 1935.179 Source: Arch. Dép. Gua.Série continue 6265. Lettreon November 28, 1931«En réponse à votre lettren°256 au 2 novembre cou-rant relative au service de lapolice municipale de votreCommune, j’ai l’honneur devous faire connaître, quetoutes les dispositions utilesseront prises en vue del’installation d’une brigadede Gendarmerie au Bourgdu Gosier, sous réserve quela Commune mette à ladisposition au service de laGendarmerie un localsusceptible de servir decaserne provisoire.»180 “Specifications approvedfor the renovation of thebuildings of the Prison”From the Governor to theMayor of Gosier, on Octo-ber 27th, 1930. Source:Arch. Dép. Gua. Série con-tinue 6265, bordereau n°2974. «Cahier des chargesapprouvé relatif à la mise enétat des bâtiments de laPrison.»181 Source: Arch. Dép. Gua,série continue 6265, 102.Minutes of communalcouncil on 11.13.1928:“But, for the moment, it isurgent to plan the construc-tion of basic buildings totemporarily house theschools to satisfy the pupilswho can attend class (…) themunicipal council votes thecreation of the followingschools: 1. in the bourg oneschool with 4 classrooms forboys and girls, following ahalf day schedule (…)”“Mais, en attendant, il esturgent de prévoir à la con-struction de baraque-mentspour l’installation provi-soire des écoles afin dedonner satisfaction auxélèves qui pourront lesfréquenter (…) le conseilmunicipal vote la créationdes écoles suivantes : 1- aubourg une école comprenant4 classes destinées auxfilles et garçons, et fonction-nant à la demi-journée (…)»182 Source: CAOM; fm ,sg,gua249/1506. Minutes ofmunicipal council on June

77

of Gosier, with the condition that the Commune provides abuilding to the Gendarmerie for use as temporarybarracks.”179

The building was a small wooden single-floor house, covered withwooden shingles (essentes) on the exterior facades and with metalsheets on its hipped roof (Fig. 38), strongly reminiscent of the typeof dwellings found in the bourgs of Baillif or Bouillante (Figs. 16&17).

Unfortunately, even if the municipal minutes evoke theprison,180 it was impossible to find traces of the precise site of thisbuilding.

Regarding the schools, it seems their reconstruction had prior-ity, for only two months after the hurricane, the decision was madeto rebuild them.181 Nonetheless, it took quite some time to rebuildthe previous number of classrooms, because in its 1932 “call forgenerosity” to the government, the municipal council states how“only half of what existed has been rebuilt”.182

Moreover, as in the case of the police station, reconstructiondoes not necessarily mean building anew; rather it provides theopportunity, in a first phase, to use existing buildings via landtransactions.

“- I, the undersigned Gaston Billy, commit to sell to thecommune of Gosier a land property which I own, situatedin the bourg of Gosier. Consisting of a wooden single-floorhouse, covered with metal sheets, with galleries anddependencies damaged by the hurricane of September 12th,1928. Located along the Main Street, Colonial Road, with alot of 28.809m x 122.209m, with the short sides facing theroad on one end and the sea on the other.- The municipal council votes to buy Billy’s land property,considering that, according to the Mayor’s explanation, thisproperty is very useful for the commune and can be used asa lodgings for the schoolteacher as well as for theconstruction of basic buildings projected by the Assemblyto house the four-classroom school.”183

The second phase was however devoted to new construction, for“the building of a school for girls with two two-classroom buildings inreinforced concrete in the bourg is voted on March 12th, 1931”,184 al-though the execution of the work appears to have been problem-atic: on December 11th, 1932 the new school was still not built.185

Finally, the celebration of 1935 allowed a certain assessment ofthe reconstruction efforts in Gosier. Even if the different maps

8, 1932.183 Source: Arch. Dép. Gua,série continue 6265.Min-utes of municipal councilon March 27, 1929.«- Je soussigné, GastonBilly, m’engage à vendre àla commune du Gosier, unepropriété que je possède auBourg du Gosier. Consistanten une maison basse, cons-truite en bois, couverte entôle avec galeries et dépen-dances- endommagées par lecyclone du 12 septembre1928. Située le long de laGrand Rue- Route Coloniale,avec un terrain de 28m809de façade sur la route,compris la maison et122m209 de profondeur,finissant à la mer.-Le conseil municipal votel’acquisition de l’immeubleBilly, considérant que cetimmeuble, suivant lesexplications du Maire, estd’une grande utilité pour laCommune et pourra servirde logement de maître ; à laconstruction du baraque-ment prévu par l’Assembléepour l’installation d’uneécole à quatre classes.»184 Source: Arch. Dép. Gua,série continue 6265.Minutes of the municipalcouncil on March 12th,1931.185 “Proposition of the ope-ning of a seventh classroom(…) while waiting for theconstruction of the Girls’School.” Source: Arch. Dép.Gua, série continue 6265.Minutes of the municipalcouncil. “Proposition d’uneseptième classe (…) enattendant la construction del’Ecole des Filles.” Note: Itis not clear for this newbuilding whether it wasplanned on the same lot asthe school which existedprior to the hurricane. Nodocuments were found toconfirm or deny this.

78

Figure 40: The map of the Guadeloupean road system by engineer Robert in 1935(detail, Gosier). Source: Robert, G. Les Travaux publics de la Guadeloupe, op.cit.

Figure 41: The main street of Gosier, c.1935. Source: Album of Gosier - 1935. Arch.Dép. Gua. n°1856.

made for the occasion do not show anything other than the colo-nial road and some vague symbol for buildings around it at the siteof the bourg (Figs. 36 & 40), nothing is really different from the 1902map (see Fig. 34). The details provided by engineer Robert areworth noting in this regard.186

First of all, by acknowledging that the existing lane systemdoes not appear at all on the map (44km of it in Gosier),187 Robertsupports the idea of the existence of a more extended street system.

Besides, by warning of the gap between what is drawn on paperand the actual state of the roads (see footnote 131), he highlightshow reality might not always coincide with strict data. Admit-tedly, the Main Street of Gosier is in quite a poor state circa 1935,only covered with white stones (tuff), lacking any kind of urbanvocabulary such as proper surfacing, sidewalks, lampposts, etc.(Fig. 41).

186 In Robert, Les travauxpublics de la Guadeloupe,op. cit.187 While the length of theofficial driveable roads isonly 15 km on the map!Source: Idem, p. 64.188 Robert, G. Les travauxpublics de la Guadeloupe,op. cit., p. 36.189 Even detailing: “in thebourg, one boys’ school with5 classrooms and 249pupils, and one girls’ schoolwith 4 classrooms and 234pupils”. Source: Idem, p.280. «[on compte] dans lebourg, une école des garçonsavec 5 classes et 249 élèves,et une école de filles de 4classes pour 234 élèves.»190 “Gosier: construction of ahotel. The groundwork onthe lot granted to Chamberof Commerce of Pointe-à-Pitre for the development ofthe beach and the construc-tion of a bar-restaurant, willstart soon. Obviously, thework will be done quickly,the Chamber of Commercehaving taken out a loan of FF350,000 for it.” Source:Arch. Dép. Gua. Le Nouvel-liste de la Guadeloupe, 26avril 1933. «A travers laGuadeloupe, Gosier: Cons-truction d’un hôtel. Lestravaux de défrichage duterrain concédé à laChambre du commerce dePointe-à-Pitre pour l’amé-nagement de la plage et laconstruction d’un restau-rant-bar, vont commencersous peu. Tout laisse àpenser que ces travauxs’effectueront rapidement,la Chambre du Commercedisposant d’un crédit de350 000 f à cet effet.»191 Thus far, only hotels orinns in Basse-Terre, Pointe-à-Pitre, Gourbeyre, Saint-Claude, Trois-Rivières andDolé-les-Bains were listed,proving how Guadeloupehad few hotels to accom-modate its tourists. Source:CAOM, fm, agefom100/4.To know more about thetourist infrastructures inthe 1930s, see for exampleBégot, D. «Les Antilles et leGuide des colonies fran-çaises de 1931», in AbenonL.-Féjic N., La Caraïbe et son

79

With regard to the built space, althoughhouses are not documented in terms of mate-rial, shape, etc., a number of built propertiesare given (1,601) in relation to their value (FF5,194,610). This is a precious fact for it gives anidea of the position of Gosier, as a commune, incomparison to the 33 other communes ofGuade-loupe: Gosier holds the 13th rank in theamount of built properties, while their finan-cial value positions it in the 26th position.188

This again confirms the poverty of the com-mune. Furthermore, Robert introduces the firstnotions of population density and surprisinglyshows at the same time how, on Grande-Terre,Gosier is one of the most densely populatedcommunes, along with that of Le Moule (Fig.42).

Finally, Robert confirms the reconstructionof the presbytery, the city hall and the girls’school;189 and puts into evidence the presence of a new hotel-res-taurant in Gosier (symbol R in Fig. 40).

Although not belonging to the commune, for the hotel-restau-rant was commissioned by the Chamber of Commerce of Pointe-à-Pitre,190 this new type of building still represents, by its strategicposition in the bourg, one of the first signs of the awareness of theprospect of tourists in the commune of Gosier.191

Situated on the shoreline, on top of a little hill, the new build-ing, known as Chez Mario or La Pergola, was resolutely characterizedby a modern architectural style, using a multitude of the interna-tional movement’s vocabulary: a slight boat shape, some roundwindows, big openings, white concrete material, and terrace-roof(Fig.43).192 Furthermore, its location in the communal landscape aswell as its morphological features, contrasting with the bourg in itsbackground (Fig.44), forecast the future of the small town: a two-sided development, relying on a growing interest in tourist activi-ties and yet not reaching the same level of “accomplishment” forthe bourg.

However, it is not until the beginning of the 1970s that such adevelopment was acknowledged in the maps because the first IGNmaps of the 1950s still reflect a moderate extension of the bourg(Fig.45, map of 1956).

Figure 42: Map of the population density by the engineerRobert in 1935 (detail, Gosier). Source: Robert, G. LesTravaux publics de la Guadeloupe, op.cit.

histoire, ses contacts avec lemonde extérieur, Martin-ique, Ibis rouge éditions,2001, pp. 145-148.192 Unfortunately, it has notbeen possible to define pre-cisely who has designedthis hotel: pictures of it areassociated with the articleon Ali Tur and his work inthe magazine L’Architec-ture d’Aujourd’hui (1936),but there is no mention of itin the text written by thearchitect nor in other docu-ments evaluating his work.Additionally, the presentowners, civil servants andthe Chamber of Commercehave no idea about thedesigner’s identity.

80

Figure 43: View on the new club restaurant in the bourg of Gosier. Source:L’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui, Mars 1936. CAOM, bib, som, d/br/7233.Figure 44: Seaside resort hotel in Gosier, c.1936. Source: Musée Saint-John-Perse.

Table 11: The evolution of the population in Gosier (in Gosier’s bourg), 1926-1999.Source: Annuaire Statistique de la Guadeloupe & INSEE.

1926 1931 1936 1946 1954 1961 1967 1974 1982 1990 1999

8,348 8,624 9,524 8,784 7,947 10,150 13,025 13,906 18,381 20,688 25,360

(1,304) (5,143)

Even though the building densities of the ribbon developmentmay certainly have increased in 20 years, the overall ground den-sity remains quite modest, displaying a continuity of row ofhouses along the main street without backyard filling; and there-fore reflecting not only the economic recession of the war and post-war periods, but also the dramatic slump in the population’sgrowth (Table 11).

Similarly, if the early pattern of the bourg’s differentiation intothree morphological areas (coastal, central and inland) emergedvia the implementation of the streets planned by the municipalcouncil in the 1930s,193 the street system remained simple: twomain streets parallel to the shoreline with few perpendicular inter-sections (Fig. 46). The street system most likely fulfilled the needsof a population still mainly employed in the primary sector (Table12) and mainly living in the other sections of the commune: only1,304 inhabitants lived in the bourg in 1954.194

Furthermore, the absence of “grands projets” (great projects) or

Gosier 1961 1990 1999

Primary sector 51 8 2

Secondary sector 34.5 23 16

Tertiary sector 14.5 69 82

Table 12: The distribution of employment in Gosier (%), 1961-1999. Source: INSEE.

193 It is easy to recognizethe two new streets northand south of the mainstreet, although thenorthern street remainsnon-classified.194 Source: Lasserre, G. LaGuadeloupe, op.cit., p. 548.

81

Figure 45: The evolution of the building density in Gosier, 1956-2001. Source: Basedon a site survey and IGN maps of 1956, 1969, 1985 and 2001. (KD)

82

even smaller projects within this period (1935-1955), for example,renovating public buildings or creating new ones, clearly en-hances the morphological features developed in the immediatepost-1928 period. At the same time, this shows the small impact ofthe assimilation law on the bourg’s urban development.

Yet, as already indicated, the IGN maps do not show every-thing. 1955 really was a significant year in terms of urban planningfor the bourg of Gosier: it was the beginning of the urbanization ofthe 50 pas géometriques, as well as the further development of thestreet system in this zone, both directly inspired by the 1955 Actthat transformed the public status of the 50 pas géométriques into aprivate one.

Nevertheless, it seems that already in the 1940s the advantagesof exploiting this area had been perceived by the town, for it waswithin its limits that the new boulevard (A. Clara) was built. Urbanregulations seem to have initially delayed the building of thisarea:

“The mayor explains that the temporary concession of a 5ha75a 17cm lot, situated in the area of the ‘50 pas géométriques’within the limits of the Bourg has been given to the communeby the act on January 17th, 1942 to extend and embellish theBourg of the commune of Gosier. (…)Several houses, in reinforced concrete, are built in thisconcession (…) The entire area would have already beenbuilt were not for the necessary procedures to execute theproject of a housing development programme. TheDepartment of Urban Planning and Housing no longer grantsbuilding permits in this area of the ‘50 pas géométriques’without the realization of housing development.”195

Figure 46: The street system of Gosier in 1956, from the electrification plan of May27th 1955. Source: Arch. Dép. Gua, sc 2256.

195 Source: Arch. Dép.Gua,série continue 2226, PV du19 mars 1955. «M. leMaire explique que pourl’agrandissement etl’embellissement du Bourgde la commune du Gosier, laconcession provisoire d’unterrain de la contenance de 5ha 75a 17cm situé dans lazone des 50 pas géomé-triques dans les limites dudit Bourg a été accordée àcette Commune par arrêtégubermatérial du 17 janvier1942. (…) Plusieurs mai-sons d’habitation en dur,ciment armé, sont bâtiesdans la dite concession. (…).Toute la zone serait déjàbâtie s’il n’y avait pas àremplir les formalitésréglementaires pourl’exécution d’un plan delotissement, le servicedépartemental de l’Urbani-sme et de l’Habitation nedonne plus d’avis favorablepour délivrer des permis deconstruire sur cette zone des50 pas géométriques sans laréalisation du lotissement.»

83

But, very quickly, the commune became aware of the opportuni-ties offered by the governmental incentives to develop housingconstruction, and, demanded the extension of its bourg.196 Thus, theappropriation of the coastal strip led to the creation of the seashoredistrict (Fig. 47). More than access to new lots and the creation of anew district, it meant the introduction of a new type of planningand of urban forms in the bourg. Indeed, it was no longer a questionof prompt construction and more or less fitting planning into theexisting urban fabric (e.g. the reconstruction of the city hall, of theschool, etc.), rather, it involved the elaboration of a programme;not only providing lots for housing, but also planning the shape ofeach lot, the access road, the water and electricity networks, as wellas its aesthetic quality (“trees will be planted”).197

Furthermore, the deliberate choice to urbanize this coastal areain particular (why not the area north of the colonial road?) re-flected the considerable ongoing change regarding land use. Thelot with a sea view became attractive due to its tourist potential, anactivity on the rise in Guadeloupe, but also because of the changein attitude. If most of the population saw the advantage of sellinglots with no value only in terms of cultivation, the officials madeno mistake about land value. The coastal lots were the first offeredfor sale to professionals (e.g. lawyers, doctors),198 though no com-ments on this process can be found in the municipal minutes.

Moreover, the fact that architects Corbin and Amarias designedalmost all of the houses from lots 8 to 22 had a strong architecturalimpact: it meant a rupture with the traditional way of building, interms of location on the lot, building shape, plan and materials;

Figure 47: The impact of the row housing plan in the bourg of Gosier. Source: Basedon a site survey and cadastre. (KD)

196 Demand on October 4th,1954. Source: Arch.Dép.-Gua, série continue 2226.197 The full programme isdetailed in the minutes onJune 17th, 1955. Source:Arch. Dép. Gua, sc2256.198 Interview with M.Corbin, May/June 2003.Owner of one of the coastalplots.

84

Figure 48: The plan of the new square in the bourg of Gosier, December 27th, 1956.Source: Arch. Dép. Gua, sc 2226.

even though some concrete box-like domestic architecture alreadyexisted.

Nevertheless, it is not before the map of 1969 that evidence ofthis urbanization is revealed, reflecting the slowness of the proc-ess. The other projects of the same year such as the creation of apublic square behind the city hall (Fig. 48),199 the electrification ofthe streets of the bourg,200 the construction of sidewalks for the twoboulevards,201 new streets, and particularly the project of con-structing a new boys’ school (already passed in 1950 and not yetbuilt in 1958),202 encountered the same phenomenon. They first ap-peared on the map of 1969.

By 1969, the process of internal morphological differentiation inthe bourg and of its general densification was further advanced,although the street network remained quite identical to that of1956. Even if the municipal planning of 1955 showed results (e.g.the extension of Boulevard A. Clara, new streets at west of thePergola Hotel), the street system’s development mostly consistedof the classification of lanes and their extension (in 6 cases, alllocated in the inland area). Only in one case did new short streetseem to have been planned, while 5 other lanes, not classified,were added to the eastern inland area (Fig. 49). However, what ischaracteristic of this period was the incredible building multiplica-tion that took place throughout the entire bourg (the total count ofbuildings more than tripled, see Fig. 50), echoing the significantgrowth of Gosier’s population: it had almost doubled since 1954and quadrupled to 5,143 inhabitants in the bourg (Table 11).

Most of this increasing ground density was characterized byhousing construction along the streets and along the lanes, butbackyard filling was also a new emerging characteristic. As such,the morphological areas of the bourg then acquired certain unique-

199 Source: Arch. Dép. Gua,sc2256. Minutes on May27th, 1955.200 Idem.201 Ibid.202 Source: Arch. Dép. Gua,sc2256. Minutes onOctober 31st, 1955.

85

Figure 49: The evolution of the streets (classified and non classified) in Gosier, 1956-2001. Source: Based on a site survey and the IGN maps of 1956, 1969, 1985 and2001. (KD)

86

ness by the maturity and the individualization of their patterns.The central area, limited by the main street (present Boulevard

General de Gaulle) on its northern perimeter and the second boule-vard (the current Boulevard A. Clara) on its south side, is materia-lized in a succession of street blocks mostly characterized byribbon development on their long sides (facing the boulevards)and some backyard buildings. Although building developmentwas recognizable in this area, it did not double (82 buildings in1956 to 123 in 1969), except on the eastern and western limits of thebourg, that actually correspond to the new zones gained by thebourg. One reason that could explain this amount of building cove-rage could be the impact of hurricanes on Gosier (Betsy and Gretain 1956 and Inès in 1966), which, due to their severity, made recon-struction a priority.

“In 1956, you needed to get down on all fours if you wantedto succeed at finding shelter. All the houses made withwooden pillars fell down. (…)

In 1966, Inès tore my house apart and I decided toreconstruct it in concrete.”203

Figure 50: Backyard filling and building multiplication in the bourg of Gosier, 1956-1969. Source: Based on a site survey and IGN maps of 1956 and 1969. (KD)

203 Interview of Mrs. C.,born 1912 in Gosier andstill living in Gosier. “En1956, il fallait se mettre àquatre pattes si on voulaitréussir à s’abriter. Toutesles maisons en pilotis-boissont tombées. (…) En 1966,Inès a tout cassé ma maisonet j’ai alors décidé de lareconstruire en dur.”

87

On the other hand, new public buildingsappeared along the Boule-vard Generalde Gaulle, finally showing up on themap: from east to west, namely, the postoffice (in front of the cemetery), the newextension204 of the city hall (Fig. 51) andits public square, the boys’ school ex-tending the traditional rectangular vol-ume.

North of the main street, in the in-land area, building densification was farmore significant, giving shape to the dif-ferent sub-districts (Plateau Saint-Germain, la cour Numa, la cour Bonchamp, L’Enclos and Mangot)commonly gathered under the general name of “arrière-bourg”(back of the bourg) (Fig. 52). In this area, the streets spread in theshape of a comb from the main boulevard and, if earlier settle-ments followed quite regularly the lines of this perpendicularstreet system, the more recent ones break this tendency: this is evenmore apparent in the eastern part of this inland area (Mangot),where the constructions clearly appear in random positions. Is thisdue to the lack of continuity in the planning, as in the case of PèreCoudray Street, which was still not classified in 1969, or uncon-trolled settlement due to population growth? It is difficult to sayfor both arguments seem to be interrelated. But a witness, stillliving in this district, reveals that the commune was definitely nota factor to her migration:

“My house was carried here in 1952 onboard a truck and Imoved in on the 2nd of May 1953. The lot was used to storeall the excrement from the school; it is I who cleanedeverything. My house was nicknamed “the castle” when Ibuilt it, because all around there were only small ‘cases’.Me, I have built a veranda with bricks. There were muchfewer houses than there are today.”205

Similar to the lack of evident planning for this area is the absenceof the location of new public buildings in this part of the bourgwhich seems to support the idea that it was considered an “uninter-esting” area in terms of urban development. However, in actuality,the church-presbytery complex, the covered public market, one ofthe schoolteachers’ houses and the public movie theater bringsome nuances to this judgment. They are indeed all located in this

Figure 51: The extension of the Gosier city hall.(KD) - See colour plate.

204 The extension, made in1968, consisted in buildinga supplementary levelabove Victor SchœlcherStreet. Another volume hasbeen built on the full lengthof the existing building,doubling the initial width.205 Interview with Mrs. F.2002 (Gosier). «On a trans-porté ma maison ici en 1952sur un camion, et j’aiemménagé le 2 mai 1953. Leterrain était le lieu de dépôtdes matières fécales del’école, c’est moi qui ai toutnettoyé. Ma maison, onl’appelait le château quandje l’ai construite car toutautour ce n’était que despetites cases. Moi, j’aiconstruit une verandah enbriques. Il y avait beaucoupmoins de cases qu’au-jourd’hui.”

88

Figure 53: Public buildings in the bourg of Gosier, 1969. Based on a site survey (KD)

Figure 52: The sub-districts of the inland area (l’arrière-bourg) in 1969 (Gosier). (KD)

89

area, and even if the year of construction remains uncertain forsome buildings (e.g. the market, the movie theater), one cannothelp but notice that all but the presbytery are located in directcontact with the main boulevard (Fig. 53).

Finally, concerning the coastal area, the concretization of the1955 housing development programme was a determining factor.Reaching so close to the shoreline and having so much of an indi-vidualized pattern compared with the other urban forms of thebourg, it prefigured the basis of a new policy based on tourism tobenefit the town. Unlike what seems to have been uncontrolled bythe local authorities in northern areas of the bourg, the change isalso in the involvement of the town in such a development.

If one remembers that already in 1950 the Pan American andAir France airline companies launched the first flights to Pointe-à-Pitre,206 and that “most of the tourists go to Chez Mario (Gosier!) or to theGrand Hôtel (Pointe-à-Pitre),”207 it is easy to understand what was atstake. Furthermore, the absence of public buildings devoted tofunctions other than tourism one reinforces the particular charac-teristic of this coastal area. It has been nicknamed “the balcony”,describing very well its main purpose: to look at the sea, or to soakup the sun, and nothing else.

By 1982, the population of Gosier was over 15,000 inhabitants (Ta-ble 11) and partly because of this, one could expect a building im-pact in the bourg. However, the development of the street systemand the evolution of the building density were far from revealinga parallel growth.

Except for the creation of one street next to the church and onelane in Mangot, there was no addition to the street configuration of1969. The main changes were constituted by the classification ofexisting streets, mostly situated in the inland area (Fig. 49). More-over, in the same area, some lanes disappeared in favor to uncon-trolled urbanization, while the old road to Pergola followed thesame faith.

Similarly, the morphological organization of the bourg was notquestioned, or fundamentally transformed. The only exceptionwas the creation of a new block in the eastern part of the bourg (Fig.54), as the direct consequence of the construction of a new church.

This new block, joining together all the buildings with a reli-gious function such as the new church, the old presbytery and theenlarged cemetery; as well as a new pre-school, evidently was ofpublic vocation, signalling one of the most important goals ofcommunal planning. Yet, a look at the years needed to accomplishsuch a block, raises questions about the efficiency of the planning:already in 1959, funds were granted by the municipal council to

206 Pan American: Miami/Puerto Rico/Pointe-à-Pitre/Fort-de-France/Trinidad, Air France:Paris/New York/Pointe-à-Pitre, launched on August9th, 1950. Source: M.Oudet, Service du ControleAérien de Pointe-à-Pitre.See more on the launchingof airline companies in theCarib-bean in Chardon, J-P. Géographie des trans-ports maritimes et aériensdu bassin caribéen, op.cit.207 Source: Idem.

90

build a new church, designed by the architects Corbin andAmarias,208 but it was only in 1965 that the demolition and con-struction work started and only in 1977 that the work was com-pleted. The process took almost twenty years.

But, returning to the building pattern transformation, whatwas significant, at this time, was the coexistence of different kindsof processes, the newest being the beginning of building clearancein some street blocks, and the stagnation of the building density inothers (Fig. 55).

Figure 54: The new street block in Gosier. Source: Cadastre.

208 Source: Archives of theBishop, Basse-Terre. Letterof Father Coudray to theArchbishop.

91

Figure 55: Building evolution in the bourg of Gosier, 1969-1985: evidence of buildingclearance and building multiplication. Source: Based on a site survey and IGN maps.(KD)

In fact, it was largely in the central area and in the western partof the inland area (up to Mangot) that both phenomena were pre-dominant, resulting of building processes already started yearsago: individual building replacement or transformation, and theprogressive dominance of one material (concrete), as well as theincrease in land prices. A more detailed analysis of these phenom-ena will be further developed elsewhere in this study, but whatremains essential to keep in mind is that they both concerned pub-lic and private buildings. For example, the con-struction of the new church used a design basedon the augmentation of proportions, reinforcedconcrete, industrial references (e.g. the belltower like a three-dimensional netting), and areinterpretation of the T-plan (here the buildingis made of three equal naves, with two main fa-cades) (Fig. 56).

Figure 56: The new church of Gosier. (KD) – see colour plate.

92

Figure 57: Facades of the only two building permits requested in 1980 for privatehouses in the bourg of Gosier. Source: Municipal archives of Gosier.

In the same way, the only four209 building permits applied forin 1980 in the bourg exhibited the same features: changes of propor-tion, material, references and shape (Fig. 57) compared with theusual type of building in the bourg.

Nevertheless, in the same street block facing the stagnation orslump of its built density, it was still possible to see the apparitionof new buildings on empty lots: such was, for example, the case ofthe health care centre, built at the end of the 1970s (Fig.58).

However, the development in the coastal area and in the east-ern part of the inland area (Mangot) were of different nature, forthe infilling of the remaining land within street blocks was thepredominant process, expressing the well-established position ofGosier as a tourist station and the work it generated (Table 12),hence the new settlements.

The building up of the shoreline was no surprise. Due to thehousing development programme, the building density of theeastern part of this area faced no changes. The extension that tookplace in the western part was more surprising. Indeed, although itis not clearly shown on IGN documents, contrasting with the regu-larity and homogeneity inherent to the planning of the 1950-60s,the western developments of the coastal area suggest a loss of con-trol on the part of the local authorities at the mercy of high land-values: the buildings erected in this part are no longer familyhouses, but hotels. The evolution of the surroundings of the Pergola

is one example. From a lonely building on top of ahill in the 1930s, surrounded by trees, the proposalmade and accepted in the 1980s210 not only trans-formed the surroundings, by the construction ofsmaller buildings which covered the entire surface,but also doubled the original building‘s mass (Fig.59).

209 This number seems verysmall when consideringthe amount of new buil-dings constructed: it ismost likely an evidence ofthe habit of building with-out a permit. An analysisof this practice will bedeveloped further in thenext part.210 Building permitrequested on May 23rd,1980 and granted in 1981.Source: MunicipalArchives of Gosier.

Figure 58: The Gosier health centre (2002). (KD) – see colour plate.

93

Furthermore, the fact that not a single public building was builtin this area during the period (1969-85), whereas the few businessesthat opened were almost all tourist-oriented (e.g. hotels, night-clubs, restaurants), demonstrates the impact of real estate value onland use. Selling land seemed profitable. However, this idea ofprofit in building up the shoreline was not accepted by all andresistance appeared: the polemic surrounding the Calvary ofGosier was one example.

Built in 1892,211 the Calvary of Gosier immediately became asymbol of the commune, the same as the lighthouse erected on thesmall islet facing the commune and Poucette, a site known for freshwater bathing. Like the two other symbols, the Calvary (designedas a two-metre high cross with a Christ) stands on a coveted lot,whose ownership was in doubt (Fig. 59). After years of debate, itwas not only the ownership that proved problematic but also thefunction that should be attributed to the lot. Already in 1944, themayor had granted one building permit for a house; in 1955 thenext mayor wanted to sell the lot but because of private and clericalprotest, an agreement was finally made to develop this lot as apublic space in 1983. The realization of the project and its unani-mous acceptance among the population show the success of thatdecision.212

The later debate concerning the lot around the municipal beachknown as “la Datcha” reveals a similar confusion about its future:after having housed various small or large constructions (Fig. 60),been planned and planned again, the lot today mainly serves as aparking lot. No solution has been found, yet the existence of such aproblem exposes how the urbanization of the shoreline is not al-

Figure 59: Transformations of the Pergola Hotel and its surroundings, building permitrequested on May 23rd, 1980, and accepted in 1981. Source: Municipal Archives ofGosier.

211 In Histoire des Com-munes, vol.3, op. cit., p. 54.212 To the question “whatare the most popular sitesof the commune?” Calvaryand petanque are unani-mously ranked first in ourinterviews.

94

ways an easy process.In the eastern part of the inland area (Mangot), building multi-

plication also emerges as the main process of this period, yet fea-tures of development obviously followed other rules than those ofthe coastal area.

First of all, although in this area, the street system becamepartly categorized, two principal changes occurred that were ab-sent in the other two areas of the bourg: the creation of new streetsand the disappearance of old lanes.

However, both changes represented more a necessity due topopulation growth rather than actual planning: the fact that thenew streets were not even classified, their shape (again perpen-dicular to the main street) providing access to houses, but notbreaking the enclosure of the district suggest it.

Furthermore, the position itself of the new primary school (uneécole-Soufrière),213 although acknowledging the district as such,paid little attention to its reality in terms of traffic and access, re-flecting an obvious lack of planning. Located in a dead-end, sur-rounded by houses that are almost connected, there is no otheroption for parents, bringing their children by car, but to wait pa-tiently in the traffic jam.

Thus, the augmentation of housing in this area also revealedthe absence of the creation of true street blocks and, furthermore, aconstruction process mostly characterized by randomness and lackof urban control, socially favouring some (the land owners) interms of income and hindering others (the newcomers) in terms ofhousing quality.

“There were not many houses in Mangot before. (…) AllMangot belonged to the C. family. But shortly before Inès[hurricane in 1966] and especially afterwards, people startedto rent, then more and more. And they all came. And theybuilt their little “cases”. (…) The school was built in 1976, it’sa Soufrière school (…) Those who did not have water athome came to get it at the school. I even remember that

Figure 60: La Datcha, municipal beach in Gosier, before 1989. Photo P. Giraud.

213 Literally “a Soufrièreschool”, like Soufrière-house, hospital, etc., afterthe name of the volcanoSoufrière in Guadeloupe,which almost erupted in1976, provoking theexodus of more than20,000 inhabitants ofBasse-Terre towardsGrande-Terre. Manypublic buildings wereerected as a matter ofurgency to meet the needsof the new population.214 Interview with M. C.,inhabitant of Gosier,Mangot (2001-2002). “Iln’y avait pas beaucoup demaisons à Mangot, avant.(…) Tout Mangot apparte-nant à la famille C. Mais unpeu avant Inès et surtoutaprès, les gens ont com-mencé à louer, puis de plusen plus. Et ils sont tousvenus. Et ils ont construitsleurs petites cases.(…)L’école a été faite en 1976,c’est une école-Soufrière(…) Les gens qui n’avaientpas l’eau chez eux venaientse servir à l’école. Je mesouviens même que très tôtle matin il y en a quivenaient prendre leurdouche avec un baquet.»

95

very early in the morning some came to take their showerwith a bucket.”214

Finally, change in the bourg between 1985 and 2001 is of a differentnature because it marks the stagnation of the street system and ofthe building densification in most the areas of the bourg, as well asthe first implementation of social housing programmes. If thepopulation, still increasing (Table 11), thrusting Gosier into thecategory of a town of over 20,000 inhabitants, and the lasting re-nown of Gosier as a seaport cannot always explain the reasons forthis change, another major factor does: Hurricane Hugo, in 1989,which devastated Guadeloupe and particularly Grande-Terre, in-cluding Gosier (Fig. 61). Once again, everything had to be rebuilt.

Figure 61: Gosier after Hurricane Hugo (1989). Photo A. Collineau de Montaguère. –see colour plate.

Figure 62: Building evolution in the bourg of Gosier, 1985-2001: evidence of buildingclearance and building multiplication. Source: Based on IGN maps and a site-survey. (KD)

96

Figure 63: Gosier police station. (KD) – see colour plate.Figure 64: Gosier multi-media library. Photo: Brochure de la Médiathèque du Gosier. –see colour plate.

Thus, one can easily understand that priority was given to re-construction: public buildings (e.g. schools, gendarmerie) wereaffected, but also private ones. Basically, depending on the inhabi-tants’ incomes, reconstruction was either undertaken or not, whichthen explained the emergence of empty lots on some street blocks(e.g. central area and inland area - Fig. 62).

At the same time, for the local authorities, the reconstructionperiod was an opportunity (like the post-1928 period!) to recon-sider the organization of the public buildings by investing lots indifferent areas, although there was little question about redefin-ing those areas.

The construction of a new police station on the ruins of the oldgirls’ school in the coastal area (Fig. 63), of a multi-media libraryfacing the sea in the central area (Fig. 64), and the absence of devel-opment of the street system in general, constitute evidence of thisphenomenon.

But, more radical were the processes concerning the inlandarea. If the western part was, at first, little concerned by changes -only the building of the school canteen near the church- most mu-nicipal attention focused on its eastern part, Mangot.

The creation and classification of new streets (Fig. 49), thebuilding of a public day-care centre (Fig. 65), of a district house(2001-2002), and of social housing were the consequences of a newtype of planning, initiated by the commune in 1991: the renova-tion of derelict housing (RHI).

Similarly to what had been done in 1955, a precise programmewas elaborated for a delimited perimeter, but this time includingnot only the construction of houses and their access, but also publicservices. Nonetheless, the major difference between the two pro-grammes lay in the fact that the district of Mangot existed beforethe start of the “renovation”: it was no longer a question of extend-ing the bourg, but rather of changing its internal character.

97

By 2003, the RHI of Mangot was almost achieved, after years ofstruggle on both parts (the town and the inhabitants involved),characterized by new building forms (four-floor apartment blocks,Fig. 66) and high population density, thus providing a direct solu-tion to the incessant housing demand. Whether the programmefulfills its social goal is the question the next part will attempt toanswer. But, in light of the new RHI programme launched in 2002concerning all the remaining arrière-bourg (inland area, Fig. 67), itseems the commune of Gosier found its way to revitalize urbandevelopments in the bourg.

Finally, some information is of course missing and workingwithout very detailed or concise documents has certainly limitedthe precision of this presentation. Nevertheless, morphologicalpatterns have emerged from the analysis, and comparison with themunicipal land-use plan, only introduced after 1986, or with cadas-tral maps, just confirm what has been stated: the bourg is dividedinto mainly three areas, each of them having their own specificities(Fig. 68). It will be the task of the typomorphological operations toprovide a more detailed analysis.

This brief historical review of the contemporary settlements in thebourg of Gosier offers the occasion to verify how socio-economicactivities definitely shape the landscape, for, in this particular case,tourism has been the hastening factor towards the development ofa special urban morphology (coastal area). Similarly, the evolu-tion of the population of Gosier cannot be dissociated from thesuccess of the town as a tourist resort, despite hurricanes: like eve-rywhere else in the world, people tend to move closer to a placethat offers better job opportunities.

Furthermore, there is obviously an interrelation between mu-nicipal and individual wills and actions that results in a system ofhierarchy among the streets and as well as among the districts. The

Figure 65: Day-care centre in Mangot, Gosier. (KD) - see colour plate.Figure 66: Apartment blocks in Mangot, Gosier, 2003. (KD) - see colour plate.

98

Figure 67: Advertisement for the renovation of the inland area (arrière-bourg in Gosier).Source: SEMAG.

Figure 68: The municipal land-use plan of Gosier (POS), 1986. Source: SEMAG.

99

6.2 Trois-Rivières

One of the few sites in Guadeloupe presenting massive archeologi-cal vestiges is Trois-Rivières, which is also the location of an oldEuropean settlement. When the parish of Trois-Rivières wasfounded in 1640, the French colonial occupation was only fiveyears old.215 Benefiting from the fertile sides of the MountMadeleine, which offers relative protection against hurricanes; ir-rigated by three main rivers (Trou-au-Chien, Petit Carbet andGrande-Anse), and having the advantage of a gentle climate anddirect access to the sea, the parish of Trois-Rivières was largely

215 Calise Nazaire “Trois-Rivières” in Histoire desCommunes, op.cit., Vol. 6, p.261.

most significant evidence of this phenomenon is the regular classi-fication, over the years, of almost all the lanes and by-roads ini-tially created by the inhabitants. Also, if there is no doubt that thecommune is the main agent of urbanization of the southern part ofthe bourg (coastal area), simultaneously, and until the 1990s, theinhabitants were the ones shaping the northern part (inland area).Subsequently a duality appears in the urban development of thebourg, which does not necessarily imply contradiction or conflict.The very different urban forms, produced by each group (privateor communal) have, until recently, managed to coexist. Perhaps“architectural creolization” would be a more appropriate qualifi-cation than architectural cohabitation, for many private buildingsin the inland area strongly refer to the housing model of the coastalland: the task of the forthcoming typomorphological analysis willbe to prove this.

Finally, what is striking about of the urbanization of the bourgof Gosier is the slowness of the process (the bourg being still in 1956barely half of what it is now), so much dependent on the topogra-phy and on the occasionally destructive weather conditions. Thereis almost no flat street in Gosier; they all are constrained by theexigencies of the site, going up and down. Similarly, the comb-shape on the northern sub-districts was not born of man’s imagina-tion: they simply follow the elevations of the site; while thedifficulties of making this area accessible via the creation of newstreets reveal problems due to the geophysical conditions. On theother hand, there is no longer any doubt about how the differenthurricanes or even the tedious waking of the volcano have influ-enced urbanization: by reconstruction often combined with newplanning in the worst events, or by punctual operation due to thesudden migration of the population (e.g. Soufrière school).

But are those features specific to the bourg of Gosier or commonto other bourgs? The following description of the bourg of Trois-Rivières may provide some answers.

100

Figure 69: Trois-Rivières. Source: IGN.

101

used by the earliest colonials for cultivation and fishing activities.By 1664, there were 214 inhabitants in Trois-Rivières.216 Althoughsubsistence crops were certainly predominant at first, the rapidgrowth of the laborer population217 revealed the intensification ofeconomically profitable plantations (e.g. sugar cane and coffee)which served the interests of a certain sector of the population.

The social tensions inherent in the French Revolution as well asthe reintroduction of slavery in 1802 had repercussions in Trois-Rivières, where the majority of the population was enslaved.218 Fora period of time, the place was renowned for massacres.219

The final emancipation (1848) took place during a period ofeconomic crisis in Trois-Rivières, as in Guadeloupe as a whole. Thewealthiest planters very quickly found a way to alleviate the prob-lem of the lack of cheap labor through the recruitment of inden-tured laborers, largely from India. Although the needs of theplanters may not have been fully satisfied220 (because the start ofthe decline of the grand plantations also brought new adjust-ments), the restructuring of cultivation to replace sugar cane withvanilla and later banana maintained the commune’s level ofwealth. In parallel, the growth of small farmers, due to the landdivision process, favored the development of new settlements inTrois-Rivières: new districts such as la Plaine, Montchappée, laRegrettée appeared. On the whole, the population continued to in-crease, reaching 8,058 inhabitants in 1915.221

Finally, what long characterized Trois-Rivières, like otherplaces in Guadeloupe that successfully sustained a sugar-basedeconomy, was relative wealth. This was expressed not only in theplantations but also in the bourg through its development and thearchitectural quality of its buildings.

In the mid-1920s, the bourg of Trois-Rivières was already organ-ized and urban: compact, crossed by a small ravine, with a centralchurch facing shops (including a health care centre).222 It developedalong the colonial road joining Pointe-à-Pitre to Basse-Terre andpresented some genuine city patterns (Fig. 70). The strict alignmentof the houses along the street, the multi-storey houses with elabo-rated regular facades, the existence of sidewalks, were evidence ofthis organization as was the municipal council’s encouragementfor the inhabitants to abandon rural habits.

“Mr. Latapie (mayor of Trois-Rivières, 1920-1929) forbidspig breeding in the Bourg.(…) The owners and tenants ofhouses, inhabited or not, have to maintain their yards,gardens, sidewalks and lots constantly clean: It is forbiddento let animals alone in the communal cemetery or on thechurch square.”223

216 Idem, p. 264.217 In 1664, there were 214inhabitants in Trois-Rivières, and 721inhabitants in 1699, ofwhich 71% were enslaved.Source: Ibid.218 By 1772, 82% of the2,385 inhabitants wereenslaved. Source: Ibid.Note: This percentage wasnothing exceptional; on thecontrary, it reflected quitewell the composition ofGuadeloupe’s population:84% of slaves in 1790, 80%in 1813. Source: Arch. Dép.Gua, Annuaire Statisique dela Guadeloupe.219 1802: fights against thereestablishment of slaveryin Dolé and at the church ofTrois-Rivières. Source:Lacour, A. Histoire de laGuadeloupe, 1858, reed.Fort-de-France/Pointe-à-Pitre, Edition et diffusionde la Culture Antillaise,1978, tome 3, pp. 284-285.220 From 1855 to 1857,Trois-Rivières asked for933 indentured laborers,70% of which came. In1882, there were 734.Source: Ibid, p. 268.221 Source: Arch. Dép. Gua.Annuaire Statistique de laGuadeloupe.222 Source: CAOM, fm,agefom111/40. Rapportsur le fonctionnement duservice de santé de Guade-loupe, 31 mars 1939, par leMédecin Lieutenant-Colonel Vernon.223 Source: MunicipalArchives of Trois-Rivières.Arrêtés municipaux 1 et 2,1925. «M. Latapie interditd’élever des cochons dans leBourg. Les propriétaires etlocataires de maisons,habitées ou non, sont tenusd’entretenir constammenten état de propreté leurscours, jardins, trottoirs etterrain. Il est interdit delaisser en divagation desanimaux dans le cimetièrecommunal ni sur la place del’église.»

102

But the bourg of Trois-Rivières also benefited from the presence ofa large amount of river stones,224 which not only served the inter-ests of the road department but those of the builders as well. Manyhouses in Trois-Rivières were built with these stones, either en-tirely, from the basement to the roof, or partially (Fig. 71).

“In Trois-Rivières, many houses are entirely built withstones and dressed stones (…) The district of Trois-Rivièresis the most picturesque of Guadeloupe, with the volcanicstones that cover its entire perimeter.”225

The use of stones ensured the protection of many buildings againsthurricanes, and, by extension, the permanency of the morphologi-cal organization of the bourg. The aftermath of the 1928 hurricaneprovides an example of this phenomenon.

As was the case elsewhere in Guadeloupe, Trois-Rivières wasbadly hit by the hurricane: the church lost its bell-tower, and nu-merous houses were completely ruined, crops destroyed, etc. Butthe commune’s economic position of wealth, prior to hurricane,permitted an easy reconstruction based on existing finances andurban structures, as well as on the desire to take advantage of theopportunities offered by the central government. Thus, the recon-struction consolidated the established urban patterns, while theadvantages of Trois-Rivière’s prosperous natural surroundings al-lowed it to quickly regain its position in the economic market.226

Additionally, the continuous population increase, from 8,788 in-habitants in 1926 to 10,462 ten years later,227 was another sign of thedynamic found in Trois-Rivières, even after the hurricane.

In late 1928 attention focused on reconstruction. Four months afterthe tragedy, 985 properties were registered as damaged, of which38 claimed a loss above FF 30,000.228 The amount of the loan taken

Figure 70: The bourg of Trois-Rivières, c.1910. Source: Martin, R. La Guadeloupe enzigzag, journal du gendarme à cheval Georges Bonnemaison (1900-1903), Ed. Caret,2001.Figure 71: An example of a stone house in Trois-Rivières. (KD) - see colour plate.

224 The term “river stones”may not be the mostappropriate to specify thenature of those volcanicstones, but it is the onemost commonly used bylocals.225 Source: Archives ofBishop in Basse-Terre. L’Echo de la Reine, 1936, pp.70 & 72. «Aux Trois-Rivières, beaucoup [decases] sont entièrementconstruites en moellons eten pierre de taille. (…) Lequartier des Trois-Rivièresest le plus pittoresque deGuadeloupe, avec lespierres volcaniques quicouvrent son périmètreentier.»226 By 1931, Trois-Rivièreshas regained its main acti-vities: “Pointe-à-Pitre, acity of 40,000 inhabitants, istotally lacking truck farm-ing produce, which comes inlarge part from Trois-Rivières (45 km) and whoseprices are doubled by thetransportation.” Source:CAOM, fm1tp/441. LaGuadeloupe, projet derefection du réseau routier,étude générale du 1er août1931. “Pointe-à-Pitre, villede 40.000 habitants esttotalement dépourvue deproduits maraîchers quiviennent en grande partiede Trois-Rivières (45 Km)et dont le prix est doublé parle transport.”227 Source: Arch.Dép.Gua.Annuaire Statistique de laGuadeloupe.228 Source: CAOM, fm, sg,

103

gua252.1518. Statement ofthe loss, estimated accor-ding to the communalcommissions, whose fileshave already been centra-lized in the colony’s maintown, January 19th, 1929(see table 1 p. 66).229 Source: CAOM, fm1tp/440. Muller’s Report on thecommunal loans to theMinistry on April 29th,1933.230 For a short descriptionof Ali Tur’s work in thesecommunes, see Le Patri-moine des Communes de laGuadeloupe, op.cit., pp.167-168 (Lamentin) & p.328.

by Trois-Rivières (1 million francs)229 from Crédit Foncier de Francein 1931 was not surprising, for, as already stated, the municipalbudget could afford it. Whether the town received manufacturedproducts from the German war reparations remains unknown, be-cause no evidence of it was found; but what is certain that Trois-Rivières benefited from the reconstruction program initiated bythe government (in terms of health improvement and communica-tions development).

Furthermore, the town decided to use the services of Ali Tur,the architect commissioned by the central government. Onceagain, this decision revealed the town’s financial security (it wasable to pay his fee) but also, in a wider context, revealed the mu-nicipality’s control over the urban, for all the works of Ali Tur inTrois-Rivières were restricted to the design of public buildings.There are no signs of his assignment being extended to rethinkingof the bourg’s structure, as was the case in the bourgs of Sainte-Anneor Lamentin, for example.230

Figure 72: The “public block” in 1931 (Trois-Rivières). Source: Municipal Archives ofTrois-Rivières.

104

Figure 73: The health centre and church of Trois-Rivières by architect Ali Tur.Source: CAOM, bib,som,d/br/8728, «Un ensemble de constructions à la Guadeloupe(1931-34), architecte: Ali Tur», in L’Architecte architectural review.

Figure 75: Salin house, in front of the post office in the bourg of Trois-Rivières. (KD) –see colour plate.Figure 76: The present post office in Trois-Rivières, designed by Ali Tur in 1932. (KD)– see colour plate.

Figure 74: The plot of the health centre and post office in Trois-Rivières. Source:CAOM, 1tp447.

105

Figure 77: The Trois-Rivières church before 1928.Source: Municipal Archives of Trois-Rivières.

231 Henceforth, this particu-lar block will be termedthe «public block» to avoidrepetition with regard toits main functions.232 On March 28th, 1932the project of a post officedesigned by Architect AliTur was approved by theGovernor of Guadeloupe.Source: CAOM, 1tp/447.Note: In this document, thehealth care center isalready drawn, thusconfirming its designperiod.233 In De clocher en clocher,Trois-Rivières, op. cit.

In the bourg of Trois-Rivières in the1930s, the street layout was not ques-tioned, nor was the position of the mainpublic buildings or the functions theyhosted. The block that contained the cityhall, the schools, and the prison main-tained its main features for twenty yearsmore (Fig. 72).231 Similarly, the colonialroad remained the main artery for dec-ades. The smaller road leading to the seawas unchanged. The only noticeable transformations were the ex-tension of built areas along the colonial road (in both western andeastern directions) as well as the architectural characters of the newbuildings. The transformations were major as far as the architec-tural style introduced in the bourg by Ali Tur was concerned.

Basically, the reconstruction period offered the occasion for themunicipal management to provide the bourg with new publicbuildings, but in limited number, because the commune alreadyhad services (all major public services were found in the “publicblock”). Ali Tur was in charge of all the work. Between 1931 and1933, Tur designed the church, the post office232 and the health carecenter of Trois-Rivières, imposing a new architectural style (di-rectly inspired by the French Arts Déco and Modern movement)and a new building material: concrete (Fig. 73).

Both the post office and health centre were erected on a plotsituated along the colonial road, at the western end of the bourg,thus creating a logical continuity with the bourg (Fig. 74). More-over, the building of private houses (Fig. 75) at the same period andin the same area underlines the probable desire on the part of themunicipality to extend the bourg’s limits. The shapes of the postoffice and health centre differed, yet their architectural style wasthe same, of simple proportions and displaying a terrace roof,regular white facades, large and small openings to facilitate naturalventilation and with concrete as the main material (Fig. 76).

With regard to the new church, its position (on the site of theoldest one) was never questioned, although debates multipliedover the choice of whether to enlarge the initial building or toreconstruct it.233 Furthermore, once the decision was taken, com-ments and criticisms continued unabated because the new churchwas distinctive within the urban landscape of Trois-Rivières.

From the classical structure of the old church, composed of amain body extended by two chapels at its sides (Fig. 77), and de-

106

molished in 1931234 (Fig. 78), Ali Tur only kept the orientation andthe idea of green areas surrounding it. If the principle of the longnave remained, the general silhouette of the building and the newmaterial (reinforced concrete) definitely proposed a different aes-thetic, far from the former building references. The simple rectan-gular volume of the building, its perfect geometry and its externalmonotint could be seen as architectural features already existing inthe past, but the monumentality of the building (in its plan andelevations, see Fig. 79), its new type of openings (bull’s-eye win-dows, very long and narrow shutters or geometric-pattern shut-ters, frontal and lateral entrances), or even the porches jutting outfrom the wall, were doubtless evidence of a new style, a modernone. The spaces around the church, planted and paved with riverstones, reducing the traces of the old cemetery to one or twograves, remained identical in their conception to those in placeprior to the new construction, yet their proportion shrunk, andimposed contrast between built and non-built space as well as be-tween the new church and the surrounding neighborhood.

Founded in April 1931, the new church was finally inauguratedand sanctified in July 1933 (Fig. 80).235 The building was quicklynicknamed “the prison wall” by the inhabitants,236 reflecting wellhow not every one applauded such modernity.

Finally, one could think that the celebration of Guadeloupe’sattachment to France motivated the rapid completion (before 1935)of the new three buildings, yet locally nothing confirms this. Moreinteresting is the fact that the three buildings were actually startedafter 1931, that is after the government passed the law preciselydefining the reconstruction program.237 Thus, it could be assumedeither that there was no emergency or that the delay was intention-ally used in order for Trois-Rivières to take advantage of the gov-

Figure 78: Demolition of the old church in Trois-Rivières, and the cornerstone layingceremony of the new church, April 1931. Source: Municipal Archives of Trois-Rivières.

234 Idem.235 In De clocher en clocher,Trois-Rivières, op. cit.236 Anecdote told by mostwitnesses and even writtenabout in Le Patrimoine desCommunes de laGuadeloupe, op.cit., p.365.237 See Part II for a briefreminder.

107

Figure 79: Plan and section of Trois-Rivières’ new church. Source: Conseil Généralde la Guadeloupe, Basse-Terre.Figure 80: The inauguration of the new church of Trois-Rivières, July 1933. Source:Musée Saint-John-Perse.

108

Trois-Rivières

Total land-surface 2,934

Cultivated land 1,300

Sugarcane 150

Coffee only -

Cacao only -

Coffee, cacao, banana 700 (2nd rank in Guadeloupe)

Subsistence crops 300

Banana 150

Cotton -

Other cultures -

Bushes (savane) 200

Non-cultivable 130

Wood and forest 1,300

Table 13: Land surface per crop in Trois-Rivières on 01.01.1935. Source: Robert, G.Les Travaux Publics de la Guadeloupe, op. cit.

Figure 81: Map of the Guadeloup road system by the engineer Robert in 1935 (detail,Trois-Rivières). Source: Robert, G. Les Travaux publics de la Guadeloupe, op.cit.

ernment incentives and to reinforce its urban organization.No new elements belie this impression in the assessment estab-

lished by Engineer Robert.238 On the contrary, by presenting gen-eral data about the communes, Robert confirmed the idea ofTrois-Rivières as a wealthy town (holding the second position forthe value of its built properties, just after the city of Pointe-à-Pitre),239 dependant mostly on agriculture (44% of its territory wasdedicated to it, of which 54% was for coffee, cacao and banana, seeTable 13), with a clearly marked urban center and relying on thesame road system as in 1902, apart from the junction to the seashore

238 Robert, Les travauxpublics de la Guadeloupe,op. cit.239 Ibid., p. 36.

109

that was acknowledged this time (Fig. 81).If 10km. of roads were suitable for cars, Robert also indicated

that 14.5km of extra roads constituted the real street layout of thetown.240 Furthermore, Robert evoked the introduction of electric-ity in the town:

“Since 1935, the Colony has been benefiting from a powerplant of 2,750 kilowatts in Baie-Mahault (…) The distributionnetwork presently includes a high-voltage line (…), andbeside this, the low-voltage networks in Pointe-à-Pitre,Abymes, Baie-Mahault, Petit-Bourg, Goyave, Capesterre,Trois-Rivières, Dolé, Gourbeyre, Basse-Terre and Saint-Claude.

The streets of those cities and towns are lit up at nightand electricity has brought, even in the smallest places, thesignificant economic and social progress that it induces. Theclear and clean electric bulb has replaced the smoky lampand ventilation, refrigeration, and phone use are rapidlyincreasing.”241

Yet, little was said about the built space of Trois-Rivières and itscharacteristics, even if Robert specified that Trois-Rivières held the9th position out of 34 Guadeloupean towns due to the amount ofbuilt properties (1547).242 Only some still existing renownedhouses, like that of Doctor Siméon, built around 1929 (Fig. 82), orthat of the center (today the “Tout Affaires” shop, Fig. 83) can pro-vide a glimpse of the architecture of this period.

They were either built in the traditional style, but at a magnifi-cent level (full wooden building surrounded by a gallery withornamented posts and gingerbread details) or in the modern style,and thus reminiscent of the architectural bias developed by Ali Tur

Figure 82: Doctor Siméon’s house in the bourg of Trois-Rivières. Source: Flohic, J.L.,Patrimoine des communes de la Guadeloupe, Ed. Flohic, 1998, p. 363.Figure 83: The “Tout Affaires” shop, built c.1929 in the bourg of Trois-Rivières. (KD) –see colour plate.

240 Ibid., p. 64.241 Source: CAOM; fm, 1/affpol/2984, dossier 3,“Industrie Guadeloupe”December 1938. «LaColonie dispose, depuis1935, à Baie-Mahault,d’une centrale thermique de2750 kilowatts (...)Le réseaude distribution comprend, àl’heure actuelle, une lignehaute tension (...) et, enoutre, les réseaux basse-tension (200-115 volts) dePointe-à-Pitre, Abymes,Baie-Mahault, Petit-Bourg,Goyave, Capesterre, Trois-Rivières, Dolé, Gourbeyre,Basse-Terre et St Claude.Les rues de ces villes etbourgs sont éclairées la nuitet l’électricité a apporté,jusque dans les aggloméra-tions de modesteimportance, le grandprogrès qu’elle constitue aupoint de vue économique etsocial. L’ampoule électriquepropre et claire s’estsubstituée à la lampefumeuse et la ventilation, laréfrigération, l’usage de latéléphonie sans fil sedéveloppent rapidement.»242 Robert, Les travauxpublics de la Guadeloupe,op.cit., p. 36.

110

Figure 85: The map of Guadeloupe in 1938 (detail, Trois Rivières). Source: Arch.Dép. Gua, Service Géographique du Ministère des Colonies, 1938.

Figure 84: The map of population density (Trois Rivières) by engineer Robert,c.1935. Source: Robert, G. Les Travaux publics de la Guadeloupe.

(full concrete house, terrace-roof, geometric ornaments). Withoutdoubt, the town displayed some wealth.

Nonetheless, the review also showed that Trois-Rivières had asmall population density (less than 100 inhabitants per km2, Fig.84), a relatively small road network (restricted to the colonial roadand the road which provides access to the sea, Fig. 85) and wasmainly devoted to agricultural activities (81% of the working forcewas employed in this sector) when, comparatively, this sector haddecreased to 58% in Guadeloupe as a whole. And, perhaps, thosedetails are the most significant because they demonstrated theweaknesses of a town that would not manage to adapt to the trans-formations of the next decades.

111

Figure 86: The evolution of classified and non-classified streets in Trois-Rivières,1956-2001. Source: Based on a site survey and the IGN maps of 1956, 1969, 1985and 2001. (KD)

Table 14: The evolution of the population in Trois-Rivières, 1926-1999. Source:Annuaire Statistique de la Guadeloupe & INSEE.

Between 1935 and 1936, Trois-Rivières’ population increased by12%. Between 1936 and 1954, it decreased by 23%, barely exceeding8,000 inhabitants (Table 14). If this slump in the population’sgrowth was not only characteristic of Trois-Rivières, for the wholeof Guadeloupe faced the same phenomenon (from 203,454 in 1936to 229,120 inhabitants in 1954), more specific was the evolution ofthe bourg during the period 1935-1955. This time can be character-ized by a desire for renewal, evidently inspired by the island’s

1926 1931 1936 1946 1954 1961 1967 1974 1982 1990 1999

8,788 9,325 10,462 9,922 8,059 9,099 9,268 8,869 8,094 8,556 8,738

112

Figure 87: The built space of Trois-Rivières c.1955. Source: Based on a site surveyand IGN maps. (KD)

status change and the modification of the municipal team.243

Actually, from 1935 to 1955, one could say that very littlemoved in the bourg of Trois-Rivières. By 1955, the street layout hadnot developed at all; the colonial road remained the main artery ofthe bourg (Fig. 86). The ground density was very modest, display-ing a discontinuous ribbon development along the colonial roadand disseminated houses here and there (Fig. 87). The core of thebourg remained almost identical, with the “public block” still be-ing used for the main public functions: religious (church), adminis-trative (city hall) and educational (schools); while, in the westernend of the bourg, the post office and the health care center stood assymbolic limits.

The electrification of the church in 1937244 and the constructionof the parish house were exceptions. Yet, the scale of these projectswas proportional to the general lack of development. The parishhouse was started right after the electrification of the church:

243 After the war, in 1945,Doctor Siméon was electedmayor of Trois-Rivières, achoice that also symbol-ized the end of the domi-nance of rich planters.Siméon remained mayoruntil 1977.244 In De clocher en clocher,op.cit. Note: This eventwas not innocent symboli-cally, for in the quest forprogress/modernity, thechurch anticipated theother public buildings.

113

Figure 88: The parish house in Trois-Rivières, front and side facades. (KD) - Seecolour plate.Figure 89 (right): The impact of the parish house, the presbytery and the church onthe landscape of Trois-Rivières. (KD) - See colour plate.

“In October 1938, Father Casimir Blanc began theconstruction of a large and modern parish house, 25m longand 12m wide, to which he gave the apostle Saint Paul for itspatron. This house was inaugurated on August 15, 1939.”245

A long rectangular building, the parish house appeared as a com-promised version of different styles, in comparison to the reso-lutely modern church. If the shape of the building, the use ofreinforced concrete and its structural composition (post/beam) re-called the Modern style, the fronton ornamented with balustersevocated the Baroque style (Fig. 88). Even its location, behind thechurch and in front of the presbytery, half-built against the down-ward slope, might be evidence of the intention to construct a lessimportant building than that of the church. This was a small project(Fig. 89).

However, a general survey of municipal archives shows that ifthe period of 1935-1946 was quite calm, the 1950s definitelysignaled the beginning of a municipal planning period in the bourgof Trois-Rivières. The aim was to renew the buildings hosting pub-lic services such as schools, the market square, city hall, the publicgarden, and to upgrade the sewer system. The coincidence betweenthe date when these projects were conceived and that ofdepartmentalization (1946), leaves no room for doubt as to the

245 In De clocher en clocher,op.cit. «Le Père CasimirBlanc, en octobre 1938,édifiait une salle d’oeuvrespacieuse et moderne, de25m de long sur 12m delargeur à laquelle il donnaitl’apôtre Saint Paul pourpatron. Cette salle futinaugurée le 15 août 1939.»

114

strategy quickly implemented by the municipality. Exactly as inthe post-1928 period, the post-1946 period was an era of publicprojects for Trois-Rivières, showing perhaps the ability of munici-pal representatives to take advantage of the new politico-socialsituation.246 In the first meeting of the new General Council ofGuadeloupe, Trois-Rivières already had some requests:

“In Trois-Rivières, the reconstruction of a school complexincluding 18 classrooms and one workshop (…) as well asthe construction of the communal sewer system (…),construction of a Tax Office (…), construction of a city hall,and a market in the bourg and on the seashore.”247

But, unlike the post-1928 period, the designing and building proc-esses did not progress at a rapid pace.

From 1946 to 1955, few buildings were realized, making themrich subjects for anecdotes, in spite of the municipal will to speedup the process,248 and though their physical impact might be sig-nificant. One of them was the convent and another the new cityhall.

The convent was actually a private initiative, with no relationto the municipal planning. Consisting of several buildings on a lotlocated further down from the presbytery, the convent was in-serted in the bourg in direct continuity with the other religiousbuildings such as the church, the parish house, and the presbytery.Sister Elisabeth (born in 1918) explains the initial stages of the con-vent construction:

“I arrived in Trois-Rivières in 1951. Instead of the convent,there was the savannah; that is how we called it. Thesavannah belonged to the Roussel family, the cows grazedthere. Since the Notre-Dame Sisters took a vow of poverty,they could not buy the lot. We had to wait for the bishop todo it. Before, there was only a small wooden house... Thesisters had to walk through the presbytery to reach thesavannah. It was only in 1960 that the small street ‘Ruelledes Sœurs’ was built. There was a path across from the church,but no road to the sea. Of the three current buildings, thesmall house at the entrance already existed, but has beentotally reconstructed since then. After that came the big houseand the second house at the entrance. The yellow house [thesecond house at the entrance] was built after 1951 for the useof the chaplain or tired priests, who were traveling. That iswhere they slept. We started to build the big house in 1958.”249

(Interview with Sister Elisabeth, Trois-Rivières 2001-2002)

246 No negative or positiveconnotation is intendedhere.247 Source: Arch. Dép.Gua.sc80, Conseil Général de laGuadeloupe: Premièresession ordinaire de 1946.Rapport présenté par MeOmer Ninine au nom de lacommission des GrandsTravaux (10 juin 1946).«Aux Trois-Rivières, recon-struction d’un groupescolaire de 18 classes avec 1atelier (…), égouts dans lescommunes de Trois-Rivières (…),Trésor (…),construction d’une mairie àTrois-Rivières et marchéscouverts au bourg et au Bordde mer de Trois-Rivières.»248 “The mayor insists onthe urgency and need for thecommune to buy lots for thebuilding of a city hall, of aschool complex, and othermunicipal buildings.”Source: Arch. Dép. Gua. Sc1031, municipal minuteson November 15th, 1949.«Le maire fait ressortirl’urgence et la nécessité deces acquisitions par lacommune en vue de l’édifi-cation d’une mairie, d’ungroupe scolaire, et autresédifices communaux.»249 Interview with SisterElisabeth, Trois-Rivières2001-2002. «Je suis arrivéeen 1951 à Trois-Rivières. Al’emplacement du couvent,c’était la savane, c’estcomme ça qu’on appelait. Lasavane appartenait à lafamille Roussel, les vaches ybroutaient. Comme les sœursde Notre-Dame ont fait vœude pauvreté, elles ne pou-vaient pas acheter. Il a falluattendre que l’évêché lefasse. Il y avait seulementune petite maison en bois(…) Les sœurs passaient parle presbytère pour se rendreà la savane. Ce n’est qu’en1960 que la Ruelle desSœurs a été faite. Il y avaitun chemin en face del’église, mais pas de routepour le bord de mer. Destrois bâtiments d’aujou-rd’hui, il y avait déjà lepetit bâtiment d’entrée, maisqu’on a complètement refaitdepuis, et ensuite on a con-struit la grande maison et la

115

Figure 90: Constructing the new street in the bourg of Trois-Rivière. Source: Based onthe cadastre. (KD)

From this statement, it appears that the process of several stages(building construction first, and then street access), was still inprogress in 1960. A similar length of time was registered for thebuilding of the city hall.

The initial idea for the project emerged in 1946, under the mu-nicipal administration of Mayor Siméon.250 In 1950, the first buil-ding phase began, with the second and final phase in 1953.251 Thebuilding was finally inaugurated in 1956: it took 10 years to becompleted. But, despite the duration of the project, the impact ofthe new building on its surroundings was significant: the organi-zation of the existing public institutions was questioned for thefirst time in the bourg. The aim was not actually to fundamentallymodify the existing “public block,” but rather to dispatch some ofits functions elsewhere. The new city hall was planned on anempty lot, behind private houses.252 But direct contact with the“public block” was maintained by the creationof a new street, made possible by the demoli-tion of a private house,253 and the disruption ofthe traditional alignment in this part of thebourg (Fig. 90). Thus, the new building directly

Figure 91: The Trois-Rivières church and city-hall: theconfrontation of two symbols? (KD) - See colour plate.

deuxième petite maison àl’entrée. La maison jaune aété faite après 1951 pourl’aumônier ou les prêtresfatigués qui voyageaient.C’est là qu’ils dormaient.On a commencé à construirela grande maison en 1958.»250 Source: Arch. Dép. Gua.Sc 80.251 Source: Arch. Dép. Gua.Sc 1026, Municipalminutes of March 27th,1953.252 Of historical interest isthe fact that manywitnesses told me thatwhen the digging startedfor the foundation of thecity hall, many bones wereexcavated, remains fromthe cemetery, which hadpreviously been located onthe site.253 Source: Arch. Dép. Gua,sc 1031, PV du 10 juin1950, 27 février 1951.

116

Figure 92: The new City Hall of Trois-Rivières and its location in the bourg. Source:Cadastre / (KD) - See colour plate.

faced the church. Was there any desire to challenge the monumen-tality of the church by the monumentality of the city hall, to placethe two symbols in confrontation with one another (Fig. 91)? Thishypothesis seems plausible when looking at the architecture of thenew city hall.254

Designed by Architect Chérubin,255 the building contrastedstrongly with the old city hall. Here, there is no “traditional” rec-tangular two-floor house, but rather a concrete building with im-posing proportions and a style reminiscent of the works of AliTur.256 The T-shaped plan, with a scale contrasting with theneighborhood houses, long façades (up to 30m for the front façade),alternating horizontal and vertical lines, enhanced by columns andgalleries, many elements of the new building emphasized themodernist architectural bias, contrasting with the surroundingstone/wooden houses (Fig. 92).

The construction of the city hall was therefore not a projectmerely concerning one building: it was also a real act of planning,including street modification and architectural choice, as well asprobably constituting a strong symbolic act (Fig. 93). Though thechurch was, at a certain time, ahead in the move towards moder-nity, the city hall seemed to overtake it:

“Television came in 1964, and I remember that we all wentto the city hall to watch it because the Doctor Siméon [themayor at the time] had bought a set. It was black-and-white,but people came from far to watch the 8-10pm program.They came with their blankets, and we all sat in the bigroom, which was there until it was divided into offices.”257

Furthermore, the project for a public square near the city hall,voted on in 1956, confirmed the planning orientation of the town.

“(The Mayor) points out the urgency and the necessity ofdeveloping a square nearby the city hall, along with the

254 Another argument is thechoice of the new cityhall’s position. In light ofthe fact that the bourg wasrelatively empty at thetime, it becomes obviousthat apart from the interestin centrality, other factorsmay have played a role.255 Guadeloupean architect,educated at the Ecoled’Architecture de Paris,graduated in 1944.256 In many documents theconfusion between theworks of the two architectsis visible: even in the veryserious La Grande Encyclo-pédie de la Caraibe, Archi-tecture, op.cit. (confusionfound p. 121.)257 Interview with G.Siarras, 2001-2002. «Latélévision est arrivée en1964, et je me souviensqu’on allait tous en mairiecar le docteur Siméon avaitacheté un poste. C’était ennoir et blanc mais les gensvenaient de loin pourregarder le programme de20-22h. Ils venaient avecleurs couvertures et on étaittous assis là dans la grandesalle qu’il y avait avantqu’on la divise en bureaux.»

117

Figure 93: Municipal and religious building in Trois-Rivières c.1956. Source: Basedon a site survey and cadastre. (KD)

installation of benches, which will serve as a promenade forthe population.”258

Finally, if in the period of 1935-1956 only a few buildings wereerected (and even if they do not appear on the 1955 map), it wasnonetheless a period of planning, which bore results during thenext decades. It is impossible to say whether the long buildingprocess was due to a more limited municipal budget or to depend-ence on the central government (in terms of money or timetable),because no data were found on the subject. What is certain, how-ever, is the fact that those new projects were intended to renew thebourg, not only physically but also in terms of customs. The 1970sconfirmed this.

By 1969, the structural elements of the bourg of Trois-Rivières(street layout and built space) were little changed (Figs. 86 & 94),although all of the projects planned in 1946 were realized. In the

258 Source: Arch. Dép. Gua.Sc 1027, municipalminutes of 8.4.1956. « (LeMaire) fait ressortirl’urgence et la nécessité del’aménagement d’une placeprès de la Mairie avecinstallation de bancs quiservira de lieu depromenade à la population.»

118

Figure 94: The evolution of building density in Trois-Rivières, 1956-2001. Source:Based on a site survey and the IGN maps of 1956, 1969, 1985 and 2001. (KD)

same way, it would seem that a contradiction emerged when con-fronting the population and building numbers: in 1967, Trois-Rivières had 9268 inhabitants (a 15% increase when compared withthe data of 1955), yet the amount of main homes decreased by 10.5%between 1961 and 1967.259 Yet, far from being contradictory, thisinformation reflects a specific process in the bourg: renewal with-out heavy building multiplication.

The general concept of the main artery remained untouchedwith regard to the street system. Only two new streets appearedperpendicular to the colonial road, but like almost all the otherperpendicular streets, they were country lanes (not classified in thestreet system, see Fig. 86), like the one behind the city hall, asexplained by G. Siarras, Head of the Technical Department of Trois-Rivières:

“The street going down towards the bourg was covered inasphalt around 1970. Before, it was only a path. I canremember that it was full of mango trees. Between this streetand the ravine, there were a house and the baker with awooden oven.”260

259 Source: INSEE.260 Interview withG.Siarras, 2001-2002(Trois-Rivières). «La ruequi descend dans le bourg aété recouverte d’asphaltevers 1970. Avant, c’étaitjuste un petit chemin. Jem’en souviens bien carc’était plein de manguiers.Entre la rue et la ravine, il yavait une maison et leboulanger avec un four àbois.»

119

Furthermore, the main characteristic of the streets existing in 1969(except for the colonial road) was that they developed as a result ofthe earlier construction of some areas. Such was the case, for exam-ple, in the area around the city hall (first the city hall was built, thenthe communicating street was opened), around the convent or inthe eastern part of the bourg. But, what was most significant aboutthis period was the particular transformation noticeable at thebuilt space level.

First, the projects of 1946 were finished by 1969. The city hallcompleted in 1956 was now surrounded by a public garden, whilehalfway up the hill, behind it, the tax office was built, as a concreteblock lacking much inspiration.

Situated at the previous site of the girls’ school,261 the publicmarket was designed by architect Chérubin in 1956 (Fig. 95).

“The Chairman presents to the Assembly the brief detailedestimate concerning the realization of a covered market,situated above the fire station (…), and evokes the urgencyand usefulness of building a covered market in the bourgincluding stalls, butcher’s and fisher’s blocks (…) TheCouncil, in light of the urgency and the necessity ofdeveloping a covered market in the bourg in order to preventthe selling of provisions, vegetables and fish in front of thegrocery stores; and after deliberation, unanimously agreeswith the brief detailed estimate concerning the realizationof a covered market, estimated at 10 million FF, by requestinga metal-sheet roof with a fiber-cement ceiling, 4 butcher’sblocks and 4 fisher’s blocks. Motion passed.”262

Recapturing some of the elements introduced in the city hall (e.g.the frontal staircase, the columns, reinforced concrete as the domi-nant material), Chérubin’s proposal for the market’s design was asimple volume limited by a slab supported by pillars. The centraldome, made of claustras, brought natural light inside, where the

Figure 95: The market of Trois-Rivières. Source: Flohic, J. L. Patrimoine descommunes de la Guadeloupe, Ed. Flohic, 1998, p. 365.

261 “Exactly at the site of thepresent market was whereyou earlier found the girls’school. It was a woodenbuilding. I was a teacherthere.” Source: Interviewwith Sister Elisabeth,Trois-Rivières 2001-2002.262 Source: Arch. Dép. Gua.Sc 1027, municipalminutes on June 9th, 1956.«Mr le Président soumet àl’Assemblée le devisdescriptif sommaire destravaux d’aménagementd’un marché couvert audessus de la Caserne desSapeurs- Pompiers (…) etfait ressortir l’urgence etl’utilité de construire unmarché couvert au bourgcomprenant loges etboucherie et poissonnerie.(…) Le Conseil tenantcompte de l’urgence et de lanécessité d’aménager aubourg un marché couvertafin de pouvoir supprimerla vente de vivres, légumeset poissons devant lesépiceries, après en avoirdélibéré, approuve àl’unanimité le devisdescriptif sommaire destravaux d’aménagementd’un Marché couverts’élevant à la somme de 10millions de francs endemandant une toiture entôle avec plafond en fibro-ciment, 4 loges de boucherieet 4 loges de poissonnerie.Adopté.»

120

different blocks stood on the sides.But perhaps, of all the latest constructions, the project of a

school complex was the most significant. Built outside the tradi-tional limits of the bourg, the school complex not only reflected achange in the way the municipality thought about its public facili-ties, but also announced the end of the renting system. But let Mr.Sainte-Luce Théolade,263 former headmaster of the new schoolcomplex, explain the genesis of this complex:

“I was born on January 23rd 1929 in the family house. At thetime, there was no pre-school so between the age of five andsix, I went to school at a woman’s house, the stone house inSchœlcher. Today that house is abandoned. My mother diedwhen I was six years old. Then, I went down to the bourg,and I started primary school in the colonial house, whichdoes not exist anymore. This colonial house was destroyedand the schoolteacher replaced it with the one that is stillstanding now.

That was when the schools in the center of the bourgwere founded. There was a school for boys and one for girls.The city hall was between the two schools, which were forthe first to ninth grades. But, in reality, the fifth to ninthgrade classes were mixed. With regard to the boys’ school,our classrooms (first to third grade) were at the street level,while one classroom (the fourth grade) and the headmaster’sapartment, which was the same size as the three classroomsof the lower floor, were on the upper floor. The girls’ schoolhad three long classrooms.

A little later, since the number of pupils was increasing,the boys’ school was reorganized. New classrooms werebuilt and we entered through a corridor. On the upper floorthere were the classrooms and downstairs, in the new wing,was the school cafeteria.

The students in the highest grades were in the buildingparallel to the Père Labat deadend.When the number of pupils really became too high (around1945), the students in the highest grades were moved to thesite of the present library.264 It was not like that before. Itwas a wooden storey-house, which belonged to the Frémontfamily, who had inherited the house from the Siarras family.At first there were three classrooms, and then very soonafter a fourth.

By the end of the 1950s, since there definitely was a lackof space, the municipality rented several private houses:265

they were the two facing the city hall, which are now derelict,

263 This statement has beenextensively confirmed byother statements, as wellas by the municipalarchives, which is itself auseful shortcut into thebourg’s memories!264 Since a new libraryopened in 2003 behind thecity hall, more precision isneeded because the inter-view took place in 2002.The informant is thereforetalking about the previouslibrary, the one in front ofthe city hall.265 Confirmed in themunicipal minutes ofDecember 30th, 1953, forexample. Source: Arch.Dép. Gua. Sc 1026. “Themayor asks the Council tovote for the allocation of thenecessary funds to pay thevarious rents of housesfunctioning as schools.” «LeMaire invite le Conseil àvoter les crédits nécessairespour les différentes loca-tions de maisons servantd’école.»

121

Figure 96: The chronological location of school buildings in the bourg of Trois-Rivières. Source: Based on a site survey and cadastre. (KD)

Figure 97: Unrealized projects for the new school complex in Trois-Rivières. Source:Municipal Archives of Trois-Rivières.

Figure 98: The main facade of the new school complex in the bourg of Trois-Rivières.(KD) - See colour plate.

122

and the ground floor of the current hairdresser’s house.Then, since the space was still too restricted, there was aneed for an “explosion”. Four classrooms for boys werebuilt on the present site of the pre-school, and one classroomfor girls in the building which now hosts the senior citizens’club. The classrooms for the boys have disappeared, but wecan still see the masonry foundations. All those classroomswere for the first to the fourth grade. It was at that time thatthe gender separation was reintroduced. When the girls wentto the fifth through ninth grades, they stayed in the buildingnear the church. There was also a private school, which Ihave always known, run by the woman, who had taught mein first grade. In this private school, there were fourclassrooms. In general, this was for the children who hadproblems.266

Later, the school complex ‘Quatre Chemins’ was built267

and all the remaining buildings were for the fifth to ninthgrades. I remember the opening of the school complex wellbecause just before, as a young schoolteacher, I was onholidays in France and upon my return we moved in.”

Through this long narration, one clearly understands that, beforethe creation of the school complex Quatre-Chemins, there were sev-eral other buildings, usually privately owned, that functioned asschools in addition to those present in the “public block”. Theywere all located in the bourg (Fig. 96).

Similarly, the first plans for the school complex, designed in thebourg between 1946 and 1954 (again by the architect Chérubin),showed that the first projects revealed an interest in keeping publicfunctions within the bourg (Fig. 97).

Why the decision was finally made to push the complex to-wards the outer limits of the bourg remains uncertain. Yet, the scaleof the project, its style (resolutely contrasting with the general lookof the bourg - Fig. 98), the probable traffic jam that a location in thecenter of the bourg would generate, are among the possible factors.

However, the construction of the complex outside the tradi-tional boundaries of the bourg (completed in 1969)268 was a signifi-cant act in three areas:

- it signaled the end of the practice of renting buildings- it extended the bourg’s limits- it showed the historical tendency of municipal planningfor building conservation and less frequently for replace-ment: indeed all of the previous municipal school buildingswould eventually be used for other public activities.

266 In response to the ques-tion “who attended thisschool, the children of therichest, of the whites?” M.Sainte Luce answered “no,no, the poor people wouldpay. It is not like in Francehere, the parents make moresacrifices for their children.My own children never hadto work during theirstudies.”267 Approval of the plansand detailed estimate ofthe school complex onApril 13th,1956. Source:Arch. Dép. Gua. Sc 1026,municipal minutes of thesame date. Note: the schoolcomplex owes its name toits site configuration, at theintersection of four lanes.The complex was comple-ted in 1976.268 Source: CAOM, bib,som, d3905.

123

Figure 99: Successive locations (1-3) of the gendarmerie in Trois-Rivières. Source:Based on a site survey and IGN maps. (KD)

Figure 100: Pattern of early densification, 1955-1968, in the bourg of Trois Rivières.Source: Based on a site survey and IGN maps. (KD)

124

The same process can be observed some years later in regard to thenew site of the gendarmerie, which confirmed the new directionstaken by municipal planning. Contrasting with the case of theschools, which were always located in old municipal buildingswithin the bourg, the new gendarmerie was built outside the bourg(Fig. 99).

In light of the economic change of the 1970s, these points be-came even more evident because the bourg provided 75% of thecommunal occupations269 at the time. Decentralization could thusbe considered to be logical to avoid traffic jams, for example.

On the other hand, apart from the public planning, whatemerged from the built space analysis was a pattern of truedensification. The total amount of buildings in the bourg more thandoubled between 1968 and 1985, but the multiplication was actu-ally spatially uneven. Even if it still was not very significant (itconcerned less than 33% of new buildings), the discontinuous rib-bon development along the colonial road showed evidence of fill-ing, more noticeable on the upper eastern part of the bourg and indirect continuity with the “public block” (Fig. 100). Buildings ofvarious styles and functions materialized on both sides of the road,reflecting the influence of the new municipal architecture (Fig.101).

Figure 101: Some examples of building built between 1955 and 1969 in the bourg ofTrois-Rivières. (KD) - See colour plate.Figure 102 (bottom right): The main building of the convent in Trois-Rivières. (KD) -See colour plate.

269 Source: CAOM; bib,som, d/br/11552. «Le sudbasse-terrien, approchegéographique», de J-CBaptisitide et M. Etna,p.30.

125

However, it was in the areas slightly off the colonial road thatsignificant multiplication took place. There, and mostly in thenortheast part of the bourg, building multiplication took the formof backyard infilling since most of the time the buildings appearedparallel to the direction of country lanes, but not in direct contactwith the street (examples of this visible along the colonial road,Fig. 101). Furthermore, buildings were sometimes erected com-pletely independent from the street structure. This generated thecreation of small new districts, whose buildings tried to tame thehilly and rocky landscape. The Notre-Dame Sisters had the experi-ence of undertaking construction before the existence of an accessroad, when finishing the last and biggest building of their convent(Fig. 102):

“The big house is made with the hard rocks from here, whichwe broke. We had a very difficult time. We had to dynamitethe lot to be able to build. But the rocks are so hard that wecould not break them all. That is the reason why, today,there are differences in level and this ramp: because of therocks we could not destroy which remained. This house isstrong — I am not afraid of hurricanes— because it is madewith those rocks!

We started to build this house in 1958, and the lower partis made of rocks, the rest of concrete and rocks. I rememberwhen we made the first concrete slab because the priest wassupposed to visit us and I wanted the slab to be ready for hisvisit. So, we were encouraging the workers and we were allthe time on the construction site. Finally, we succeeded. Then,since at first there was only the ground floor, we used tosleep with two other sisters on the slab, under the moon.”270

Building multiplication was the major phenomenon of the 1955-1969 period. Yet, considering the duration of the building processfor all the public buildings from their conception to their inaugura-tion (over ten years), one could wonder why. There was no evi-dence found to confirm a link between the origin of funds orrestrictions due to the municipality’s need to buy new lots, butwhat is undeniable is the part played by Mother Nature in themunicipal budget. On August 11, 1956 a “public calamity” (Hurri-cane Betsy) destroyed 99 buildings in Trois-Rivières, of which 82were houses (47 wooden houses, cases) and 17 other types of build-ings. In the bourg itself, 12 houses were ruined and 27 partiallydamaged.271 In 1964, it was Hurricane Cléo’s turn to hit Trois-Rivières and in 1966 that of Hurricane Inès.272

Between 1974 and 1982, Trois-Rivières’ population dropped to

270 Interview with SisterElisabeth, Trois-Rivières2001-2002. «La grandemaison est faite avec lesroches dures d’ici qu’on acassées. On a eu vraimentdu mal. Il a fallu dynamiterle terrain quand on a vouluconstruire. Mais les rochessont tellement dures, qu’onn’a pas pu toutes les détru-ire. Si aujourd’hui il y a desdifférences de niveau oucette rampe, c’est à causedes roches qu’on n’a pas pudétruire et qui sont restées.Cette maison, elle est solide,je n’ai pas peur descyclones, car elle est faiteavec ces roches! On acommencé à construire cettegrande maison en 1958, ettout le bas est fait despierres, et le reste en bétonet roches. Je me souviensquand on a coulé la premièredalle, car le prêtre devaitnous rendre visite, et jevoulais que ce soit prêt poursa visite. Alors, on encoura-geait les ouvriers et on étaittout le temps sur le chantier.Finalement, on a réussi.Ensuite, comme au départ iln’y avait que le rez-de-chaussée, on dormait sur ladalle, dehors à la lune, avecdeux autres sœurs.»271 Source: Arch. Dép. Gua.Sc 1666.272 Those were the mostimportant, but “minor”hurricanes were noted in1955, 1956 (Greta), 1963(Helena). Source:Météorologie Nationale.

126

Figure 103: The evolution of built space in the bourg of Trois-Rivières, 1969-1985.Source: Based on a site survey and IGN maps. (KD)

Figure 104: A plan showing the new emplacement of the war memorial and the publicsquare behind the city hall in Trois-Rivières (1977). Source: Municipal Archives ofTrois-Rivières.

127

8,094 inhabitants, contrary to the gen-eral tendency in Guadeloupe, wherethe entire population increased 1.2%during the same period.273 And likethe declining nature of Trois-Rivières’ population (very well ex-pressed also in the rise in empty houses: +388% between 1961 and1982!),274 the street layout and the evolution of building densityrevealed a similar lack of development.

By 1985, apart from the changes in the classification of existinglanes, the main modification in the street system was the creationof a new street joining the colonial road to the street behind the cityhall (Fig. 86). Built in 1982, this section was conceived in order torelieve car traffic in the bourg and to give direct and independentaccess to new buildings behind the city hall. Otherwise, the idea ofthe main artery was not questioned.

Similarly, the morphological organization of the bourg was notfundamentally transformed, but seemed rather to perpetuate thepreviously existing development logic. The construction of newpublic buildings and the slow building multiplication of privatehousing were the main processes of this period, although the prac-tice of building clearance started to appear (Fig. 103).

Concerning the public buildings, the planning of new publicblocks was reinforced. If the old schools were kept to house asso-ciations, behind the city hall the public garden was re-planned tohouse a new pre-school and a House for Youth. By 1971, both build-ings were in use and the transfer of the war monument to oneextremity of the public garden in 1977 from its position in theancient “public block”, completed the planning of this area (Fig.104). The pre-school and the House for Youth were typical of the1970s architectural trend: concrete buildings with strong volumes

273 Source: INSEE.274 Source: INSEE.

Figure 105: Pre-school, Trois-Rivières. (KD) -See colour plate

Figure 106: The House of Youth in Trois-Rivières. (KD) - See colour plateFigure 107: The new health centre in Trois-Rivières. (KD) - See colour plate

128

(one circular, the other irregular), contrasting with “traditional”domestic architecture (Fig. 105). Yet, their small size and their re-sponses to the exigencies of the site (e.g. the difference in level ac-commodated by a composition with stairs and various volumes forthe House of Youth) proved to fit the new public block (Fig. 106).

In the other part of the bourg, towards the post office, a newhealth centre was built, right behind the pharmacy. Alreadyplanned in 1968, the construction finally started in 1971 and wascompleted in 1972.275 Part of the central government programme todevelop health and hygiene services in Guadeloupe, the newbuilding was quite similar to many of those built in the same pe-riod in the other Guadeloupean communes (e.g. Gosier): a longrectangular concrete volume, with a terrace-roof (Fig.107).

However, it was at the private level that the lack of develop-ment was the most significant. Less than 40 new houses were builtbetween 1968 and 1985 (confirmed by the census established be-tween 1961 and 1982, noting a 2.9% increase in main houses inTrois-Rivières),276 while 10 of the older constructions disappearedfrom the 1985 map. If the small building multiplication was logicalwhen considering the population decline in the same period, an-other factor could further explain this process: the waking of the LaSoufrière volcano and its consequences.

Indeed, on August 15, 1976, Trois-Rivières’ population totallydeserted the commune for several months, in accordance with offi-cial orders.

If the idea here is not to debate whether interests other thansafety were at stake,277 the event admittedly could be seen as hav-ing reinforced the town’s observed tendency towards slow devel-opment. But in 1985, the town of Trois-Rivières registered 79building permit requests, of which only three concerned buildingsin the bourg.278 This basically, reflected the form of developmentover the following years: a renewal of the commune, but onlyminimally in the bourg.

Between 1982 and 1999, Trois-Rivières’ population increased by8%. However, if an attempt to revitalize the street system was no-ticeable, the 1985-2001 period was marked by an apparent stagna-tion of built space in the bourg.

Like other towns in Guadeloupe, Trois-Rivières faced prob-lems due to car traffic.279 In the bourg, whose street system reliedupon a main artery, the situation was even more critical, as G.Siarras explains:

“Before, there was only one road, going in both directions,directly joining Pointe-à-Pitre to Basse-Terre. It went through

275 Source: CAOM; bib,som, d3905.276 Source: INSEE.277 The decision to evacu-ate the city did not onlyconcern Trois-Rivières, allat-risk areas were subjectto the same law. However,the decision was widelycontested by many; onereason being that somerenown scientist had saidthat there was actuallylittle chance of eruption.One hypothesis held by thedetractors was that thedecision was really a wayto reduce the Basse-Terre’seconomic power or toappropriate the lands. Onthe subject, see a morescientific account: Yacou,A. (dir.) Les catastrophesnaturelles aux Antilles,d’une Soufrière à l’autre,Ed. Karthala-CERC, 2000;or for a fictionalizedversion, the novel Maxi-min, D. Soufrières, Editiondu Seuil, 1987.278 Sources: MunicipalArchives of Trois-Rivières,Urban PlanningDepartment.279 By 1985, 43.6% ofGuadeloupean familieshad a car and it increasedto 54.3% by 1995. Source:INSEE.

129

Figure 109: The evolution of built space in the bourg of Trois-Rivières, 1985-2001.Source: Based on a site survey and IGN maps. (KD)

Figure 108: The one-waystreets in Trois-Rivières.(KD)

130

Trois-Rivières. (…) Until 1996, it was the principal road (…)In front of the church, there was the Crédit Agricole bankwhere the schools used to be. When the Ecomax [smallsupermarket] opened (1996) and when the bank moved upthe street, it provoked huge traffic jams. We had to open upthe bourg.”280/281

To improve traffic, a new section of road was planned in 1997,282

continuing the section built in 1982 (Fig. 86), but the planning ef-forts did not seem to bring full satisfaction:

“The contouring road inaugurated in 1998 has helped toopen up the bourg considerably. Nevertheless, a traffic jampersists at the stop sign, when arriving at the main artery.”283

Today, a person arriving in Trois-Rivières can experience the cross-ing of the bourg in two ways. By car, the experience principallyconsists of one-way, stop and no entry signs at several street inter-sections, totally undermining the street layout based on a mainartery (Fig. 108). On foot, the experience becomes simpler and al-lows one to sense the main artery because all the traffic signs do notapply.

Thus, contrary to what V. Phalente wrote in her analysis of theTrois-Rivières street system,284 it becomes clear that the develop-ment of the street layout of the bourg was not made without anapparent structure; the case is rather the opposite situation: it hascentered on a main artery structure, the street layout was devel-oped to bypass it.

Concerning the built space, for the first time, the analysis ofbuilding densities displayed a quasi-stagnation of building multi-plication and the emergence of a new process: comprehensive re-development.

Indeed, building multiplication in the bourg was a very mildprocess, for the overall ground density increased only modestly(only 12 new buildings, Fig. 109). Representative of this phenom-enon is the small amount of building permits requested in theyears 1990 and 2000: 303 requests in both years and only 12 withregard to the bourg.285 But, despite their small number, whatemerges is the fact that they are privately owned (even in a public-vocational area, e.g. the scout house, built with private funds, Fig.110), with the exception of the building housing the municipal wa-ter department (Bâtiment de la Régie des Eaux), built in 1992.

“The water department of the commune of Trois-Rivièresdid not have enough working space in the decayed rooms of

280 Decision voted on July6, 1995: “On July 6th, themunicipal council decidedon the installation of a one-way traffic in the agglome-ration. It aims to relieve themain artery of the bourg,which is facing problemswith daily traffic jams. Thisproject has been agreedupon with the Union of themerchants.” Source:Municipal magazine,Notre Trois-Rivières, Jan-uary 1996, p. 22. «Leconseil municipal du 6juillet décidait la mise enplace d’un sens unique decirculation dans l’agglo-mération. Ce dispositif apour conséquence de sou-lager l’artère principale duBourg, confrontée auxproblèmes quotidiensd’embouteillage. Ce projet afait l’objet de décision avecle Président de l’Union descommerçants.»281 Interview with G.Siarras, 2001-2001 Trois-Rivières. «Avant, il n’yavait qu’une seule route, endouble sens, qui reliaitPointe-à-Pitre directement àBasse-Terre. Elle passaitpar Trois-Rivières. Cetteroute existe toujoursaujourd’hui mais estmaintenant en sens unique.Jusqu’en 1996, c’était laroute principale à doublesens. Devant l’église, leCrédit Agricole était à laplace des écoles. Quandl’Ecomax s’est installé(1996) et que la CA a bougé,cela a provoqué de grosembouteillages. Il a falludésenclaver le bourg.»282 “The contouring roadgoing from Lovelace and tothe bourg’s schools is ofgeneral interest. It will helprelieve traffic in the bourgand achieve a certain fluidi-ty. It will be a two-lane road.Several intersections will becreated or developed (…)According to our provi-sions, the detour can beoperational within the nextfive months.” Source:Municipal magazine,Notre Trois-Rivières, July1997, p. 7. «La route decontournement du Bourg deLovelace aux écoles Mixte I

131

et II du Bourg est une routed’intérêt général. Ellepermettra de décongestion-ner le Bourg qui trouveraainsi une certaine fluidité.Elle sera à double circula-tion. Divers carrefoursseront créés ou aménagés(…) Selon les prévisions, lecontournement pourra êtreopérationnel dans les 5 moisà venir.»283 Source: Municipalmagazine, Notre Trois-Rivières, January 2000, p.11. «La route de contourne-ment du bourg inaugurée en1998 a permis de désengor-ger sensiblement le centrebourg. Toutefois, il persisteun goulot d’étranglement,au niveau du panneau stopau moment de rattraper laroute principale.»284 In La GrandeEncyclopédie de la Caraïbe,op.cit., p. 113.285 Source: MunicipalArchives of Trois-Rivières,Urban Planning Depart-ment.286 Source: Municipal mag-azine, Notre Trois-Rivières,1992, p. 7. «Le service deseaux de la commune deTrois-Rivières était à

Figure 110 (Top left): The scout house in Trois-Rivières. (KD) - See colour plate.Figure 111 (Top right): The new building housing the municipal water department inTrois-Rivières. (KD) - See colour plate.Figure 112 (Bottom left): From school buildings to Elder Association, Trois-Rivières.(K.D) - See colour plate. Note: The small concrete pillars in front of the buildings areremains of other previous school buildings.Figure 113 (Bottom right): From school to library, Trois-Rivières. (K.D) - See colourplate.

the bourg’s old school building, as much for its offices as forstorage. A beautiful building was thus constructed in thecity hall yard for the cost of FF 1,700,000. Designed byArchitect Jack SAINSILY, and construction executed by thefirm Frise JEREMIE Benjamin, it is a functional building,well integrated into the city hall’s neo-classical style. It alsohosts the municipal police.”286 (Fig. 111)

However, it would be wrong to believe that municipal manage-ment had disappeared from the scene: by directing its actions to-wards comprehensive redevelopment, municipal managementbecame less obvious on the map. Actually, comprehensive redevel-opment accounted for substantial change, which largely concernedpublic buildings built before or around the 1930s.

Redevelopment consisted in small modifications to adapt thebuilding to its new functions: for example, the remaining schoolbuildings were transformed to host activities for the senior citizenassociation (Fig. 112) or the municipal library (Fig. 113); the old

132

Figure 114 (Top left): The Initiative Centre, Trois-Rivières. (KD) - See colour plate.Figure 115 (Top right): From fire station to housing and public services, Trois-Rivières. (KD) - See colour plate.Figure 116 (Bottom): From dispensary to children’s recreational centre, Trois-Rivières.(KD) - See colour plate. Note: The modifications were made without buildingpermission or an awareness of the patrimonial value of the building: civil servants didnot know the building had been designed by Ali Tur.

building hosting the gendarmerie was turned into a tourist centre(Fig. 114), the former fire station into a youth center and in 2000,into housing (Fig. 115),287 the old health centre into first a children’sday care center and, in 2001, into a sport and leisure center (Fig.116).288 But redevelopment also addressed more complex programsas revealed by the case of the old “public block”.

Until the 1990s, the remaining buildings of the old “publicblock” were partly used for public services (e.g. housing the mu-nicipal water department), and partly rented to private businesses.After the construction of a new building to house the water depart-ment (1992), municipal management quickly made known its in-tention to tear down the old buildings in favour of a housingprogramme (Fig. 117).

“The commune, as the owner of very rundown buildingslocated in the bourg, those which previously housed theschool, wishes to reconstruct all of the buildings for securityreasons on the one hand, and to improve the bourg’s

l’étroit dans les locauxvétustes de l’ancien collègedu bourg tant pour sesbureaux que pour sa capacitéd’entrepôt de matériels. Lebel édifice dans la cour de lamairie a donc été construitpour un coût de 1 700 000 F.Conçu par l’architecte JackSAINSILY, réalisé parl’entreprise Frise JEREMIEBenjamin, c’est un immeu-ble fonctionnel bien intégréau style néo-classique de lamairie. Il abrite également laPolice municipale. »287 “Since 1998, the formerfire-station has closed, thefire-men now being inGourbeyre. The building,part of the communalheritage, has been restored.Now it hosts a youth center,an ambulance service andfour apartments on the firstfloor.” Source: The muni-cipal magazine of Trois-Rivières, Notre Trois-Rivières, n°6, 2000, p. 11.«Depuis 1998, l’anciennecaserne des pompiers afermé ses portes, les soldatsdu feu ont élu domicile surla commune de Gourbeyre.Le bâtiment, élément dupatrimoine communal, a étérécupéré et restauré. Désor-

133

Figure 117: The old building before demolition (left) and a model of the redevelopmentproject (right). Source: Municipal magazine Trois-Rivières en marche, n°7, 1992, p.10.

appearance on the other. Today the buildings are occupiedby artisans and businesses. The project aims at satisfyingthem first.”289

Local events and attitudes (e.g. modification of municipal team in1995, doubt about the project’s legacy, etc.) seemed to have delayedthe undertaking and somehow reversed the primary ambitions(insertion of small businesses within the housing programme in-stead of insertion of housing within the commercial centre); yet thefundamental idea to build anew remained.

Started in 1997, 21 social housing units and 5 business spaceswere finally ready in 2001, replacing the last buildings from theold “public block” and covering the river, which crosses the bourga bit more. With, there was a desire “to keep some past urbanfeatures, witnesses of our history and our heritage,”290 such as “itscity-house type” or “roof (of) traditional form”291 (Fig. 118) in thenew municipality. By keeping its construction within the tradi-tional contours of the old “public block”, municipal managementachieved a successful insertion into the site. The program was thusperceived by many to be at the appropriate scale (Fig. 119).

But this specific case of comprehensive redevelopment wasalso important for another reason: for the first time in the bourg,municipal buildings were re-oriented towards new housing withprivate partnership. It clearly marked the change in policy on thepart of the municipality. It was apparently convinced of the successof this type of building operation because, already in 2001, twicethe number of similar social housing units was being planned inthe bourg.

Thus, despite the 48% increase in main houses between 1982and 1999, which occurred in the commune as a whole, though defi-nitely not in the bourg, it would seem that the bourg had been givena second chance through redevelopment.

mais, il abrite un PointJeune, un service ambulan-cier et quatre appartementsau premier étage.»288 Source: The municipalmagazine of Trois-Rivières, Notre Trois-Rivières, n° 9, 2001, p. 21.289 In the municipal maga-zine of Trois-Rivières,Trois-Rivières en marche,no. 7, 1992, p. 10.290 Idem, n° 3, 1996, p. 16.291 Ibid, n° 5, 1998, p. 7.

134

Figure 118: New housing in Trois-Rivières. (KD) - See colour plate.

Figure 119: The old public block, Trois-Rivières, ‘before’ and ‘after’. Source: MunicipalArchives of Trois-Rivières.

135

Finally, what emerges from the examination of the urban develop-ment of the bourg of Trois-Rivières is an urban morphology basedon relatively simple components, which were themselves struc-tured by the successive municipalities and, on a smaller scale, byprivate dynamics.

Indeed, the bourg’s street layout remained restricted to the colo-nial road for a very long time and it was only in the 1980s that anextension was constructed. Similarly, the built space of the bourghas, on the whole, faced little transformation: building multiplica-tion was often limited to a ribbon development along the principalstreets with rare backyard fillings.

Yet, in this slow and reduced process of development, whatremains characteristic of the bourg of Trois-Rivières is the majorrole played by municipalities. In creating and extending new pub-lic blocks year after year, in redeveloping old public blocks orindividual public buildings, there is no doubt that the municipali-ties have greatly contributed to the bourg’s urban renewal. In com-parison, the private initiative seems to lack ambition.

The municipal land-use plan, introduced in the late 1970s in thecommune, confirms the morphological patterns that have beenobserved, as well as the town’s importance in matters of land use.There are still lots of large dimensions in the bourg (reflecting thesmall extent of land division), except those corresponding to theribbon development, which are smaller (Fig. 120). Furthermore,the fact that in 1985 (before the redevelopment operation) the townstill owned 18% of the lots within the bourg (Fig. 121) is a majorelement in the understanding of municipal management.292

Is it then possible to see in the built space’s evolution a parallelwith the social, economic and cultural changes of the bourg?

The answer is certainly positive because in many ways the cre-ated landscape reflects the “life” of Trois-Rivières. After a period ofeconomic wealth (before World War II) visible in the bourg’s serv-ices, the town went through a long period of population loss andeconomic crisis. The absence of real economic transformations formany years and the slow decline of the farming sector (31% ofTrois-Rivières’ population still worked in the agricultural sector in1990 (Table 15) favored the relative stagnation of the built space.

TROIS-RIVIÈRES (%) 1961 1990 1999

Primary sector 59 31 11

Secondary sector 27 16 12

Tertiary sector 14 53 77

Table 15: Distribution of employment in Trois-Rivières, 1961-1999. Source: INSEE.

292 Source: SEMAG 1985.

136

Figure 120: The land-use plan (POS) of Trois-Rivières (last corrected 1996). Source:Municipal archives of Trois-Rivières.

Figure 121: Land-ownership in the bourg of Trois-Rivières. Source: SEMAG 1985.

The fact that the population did not increase until the 1990s alsosupported the bourg’s urban inertia. Yet, this inertia was simultane-ously thwarted by other elements: relative protection againstnatural disasters and a strongly public- oriented policy.

Indeed, despite the different hurricanes or volcano alerts thathit Trois-Rivières after 1928, none of them fully destroyed thebourg: most of the time, the question was more one of compensa-tion rather than reconstruction after the event. This is in contrast to

137

many other Guadeloupean towns that did not withstand these dis-asters, as in the case of Hurricane Hugo in 1989. Thus, the site’scharacteristics ensured the endurance of many buildings, which,had they been in other places, would have already vanished. At thesame time, the fact that the communal budget did not need to focuson massive reparation expenses stimulated a public-oriented mu-nicipal policy of building and planning.

Finally, when the population started to increase again in Trois-Rivières, even if private initiatives showed little revitalization,municipal policy opted for comprehensive redevelopment withinthe bourg. Without a doubt, the bourg’s morphology has been influ-enced by the general climate of the town, which in its own way alsoreflects the island of Basse-Terre’s general evolution.

7. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS

Obviously, the bourgs of Gosier and Trois-Rivières did not followthe same type of development. Many similarities are howeverworth noting because they underline how the predominance ofcertain elements, at a given time, unquestionably influences theentire development process.

First, with regard to the street layout, it was observed that inboth cases the bourg’s street pattern was originally restricted to asingle axis of communication, joining one town to another. Apartfrom being of a methodological interest, since this finding con-firms the necessity of historical background to avoid erroneousconclusions; this finding adds a new perspective to the understand-ing of the bourg development. Indeed, a reading of contemporaryroad maps hides the historicity of the street layout, but once thedevelopment process of the street system is taken into considera-tion, certain influences on the development of the bourgs of Gosierand Trois-Rivières become more evident. In short, the renewal ofthe Guadeloupean road infrastructure served the interests of thebourg of Gosier, by facilitating its accessibility. On the contrary, bycontouring the bourg of Trois-Rivières, the new road (“RN1”) ac-centuated its isolation.

Second, the development of the street layout is in both casesrecent and consequent to car traffic development. While “in 1935there are no more than 1200 cars in Guadeloupe”,293 more than40,000 motor vehicles were registered in 2002.294 The bourg of Trois-Rivières, like that of Gosier, relied for a long time on the samestreet pattern. It is only between 1950 and 1960 for Gosier, and 1970and 1980 for Trois-Rivières, that the street fabric started to evolve

293 In Bégot, D. Les Antillesfrançaises à travers lesguides touristiques de 1913à nos jours, Exposition à laMédiathèque du Gosier,January 2002 (CD-Rom).294 Source: INSEE.

138

in response to the necessity of opening the bourg to improve thetraffic situation.

Third, the development of the street system extends the limitsof the bourg. Although it appears to be clear in this study that priorto the streets, buildings may have already been constructed (e.g.Mangot in Gosier or the convent in Trois-Rivières), it is equallyclear that it is only when street classification occurs that built-upareas start to be officially considered as within the limits of thebourg.

Fourth, in both cases, the earlier morphological pattern is aribbon development.

Fifth, the forms taken by the bourgs’ extension are dependent onthe site exigencies and on the natural disasters.

Sixth and last, both bourgs seem to have developed in parallelwith the development of the part of the island on which they aresituated. Gosier on Grande-Terre benefited from the tourist boom,while Trois-Rivières, on Basse-Terre, declined along with the farm-ing activity of the area.

Finally, the contextualization and the documentation of theforms taken by the process of extension of the bourgs of Gosier andTrois-Rivières provided the opportunity to consider the way inwhich the created urban landscape was modified in parallel to thebourg’s social, economic and cultural changes. Sometimes, the rea-son for a transformation can only be inferred, but one aspect of theanalysis that leaves no room for doubt is that any layout is theconsequence of decisions, whether made by public agents or byindividuals. If at this stage of the analysis, the extent to which socialdynamics are linked with spatial dynamics can be understood, itnow becomes necessary to examine more deeply the agents in-volved in this process, as well as its consequences on the typomor-phological operations.

139

PART IV:ANALYSIS OF THE PROCESS OFMODERNIZATION

The aim of this part is to analyze the processes of modernizationfrom an urban and architectural viewpoint. Starting from abroader context to establish how the concept of modernization wasunderstood, the analysis gradually centers on the typomorpho-logical operations proper to the case studies of this work, to seekout the implementations of modernization in Guadeloupe.

140

8. FROM DISCOURSE TO REALITY

8.1 Preamble: on the choice of discourse

Modernization is not a process limited to a period, nor to the con-flict opposing ancients and moderns. The meaning of moderniza-tion is not unambiguous, a number of definitions reflect differentperspectives which results in the difficulty in grasping the fullconcept. Some see modernization as “the action of adapting to contem-porary pressures, replacing something obsolete by something modern, inorder to improve output, production quality, and capacity”,295 whereasothers define it as what is actually “made according to contemporaryhabits and rules, which corresponds to the present taste and sensibil-ity”.296 More broadly, some view it as “a concept describing a processthrough which societies are believed to change from less to more developedforms through the introduction of new technology and other socialchange.”297

Whatever meaning is assigned to modernization, what re-mains constant is the continuum of modernizations displayedthroughout human history as well as in material culture. Closer tothe time span of this study, the most significant changes occurringduring the first decades of the 20th century radically transformedthe interpretation of the word: the scale factor, attributed to thepurpose of modernization, was increased remarkably.

Due to the convergence and complexity of economic, technicaland social change during the modern period, restricting the under-standing of modernization transformations to the influence of thearchitectural modern movement would undoubtedly greatly nar-row the comprehension of the phenomenon. The emergence of amovement is indeed rarely an abrupt event but rather the meetingof many elements, directly or indirectly. Furthermore, although inthe pre-war period there was an evident interest in seeking thebest combinations of technical modernity for buildings (or publicworks) and new forms and ways to understand space,298 not every-one was convinced of its value.299 It took time before moderniza-tion bore the results that are apparent today.

Therefore, the aim here was not to rewrite the history of mod-ern architecture or the birth of urban planning, for many havealready done so,300 but rather to propose an angle of analysis thatwould reflect Guadeloupe’s modernization in relation to its statusas a former colony and later as a French department. Similarly, theaim is not to consider modernization in a broad context (for it hasalready previously evoked), but rather to deepen the understand-ing of the concept through the specific lens of urban and architec-tural features. For this reason, the research interest is focused on

295 Larousse Dictionary,Paris, 2002.296 Nouveau Petit RobertDictionary, Paris, 1993.297 Revised UnabridgedDictionary, Chicago:MICRA Inc, 1998.298 Cohen J-L “La marchede l’architecture moderne”in Histoire de l’Art,Larousse 1988, p. 212.299 For example, the severeattitude that dominatedtowards Loos (1870-1933)’s Raumplan (“spatialplan”), a proposal torenew the rules of theinternal distribution in abuilding, reflected quitewell the fixedness of theintellectual establishmentin the beginnings of the20th century.300 For example, see Ragon,M. Histoire mondiale del’architecture et de l’urban-isme modernes, Casterman,Paris-Tournai, 1986,Tribillon, J.F. L’urbanisme,Ed. La Découverte, 1990;or for a more critical view,Choay, F. L’Urbanisme,utopies et réalités, Editionsdu seuil, Paris, 1965.

141

documents directly concerning the colonies and which show thelink between what happened in France (as much on the technical ason the social level ) and what was thought to be (or was) imple-mented in the colonies. In addition, due to the contradictions of theFrench governance, which simultaneously relied on “equality forall”301 and colonial practices until 1946 in the case of Guadeloupe, ithas been decided to limit the discourse analysis to the pre-departmentalization period (1900-1946), this specific period beingjudged to be particularly significant to explain (to some extent) thecurrent bonds between France and Guadeloupe on the topic ofmodernization.302

A great variety of documents exist, ranging from the officialtexts regulating the colonies, which originated in France, to theofficial texts issued locally, from the military or political archivesto the private correspondence of colonizers, etc. However, reports,articles and pictures from national and international congressesand exhibitions were chosen as documents that could provide thebest insight into the type of colonial modernization employed byFrance in the architectural and urban field. Indeed, both types ofdocuments aimed at presenting a synthetic view on different as-pects concerning the colonies as well as alternatives to be consid-ered for the colonies’ development. Because of their underlyingideologies and political bias, the same documents can also be seenas reflecting the thinking of their time.

Nevertheless, here again a distinction was drawn among thesecongresses and exhibitions, for, if some of these events simply pro-posed panels related to the colonies, others fully centered theirthemes on the colonies, as in the case of the colonial exhibitions.Thus, it has been decided to narrow the analysis to the eventsstrictly focusing on colonial themes and preferably concerningGuadeloupe.303

8.2 Colonial discourses

“One must not cease repeating this: colonization is neither aphilosophical intervention, nor a sentimental action. For usor for any country, it is a business.” (Rondet- Saint, 1929)304

At the beginning of the 20th century, the French colonial empirewas on the brink of a clear revival. The recent conquests mainlyrealized under the Third Republic (Tunisia in 1881, Indochina be-tween 1883 and 1886, Madagascar in 1885, Morocco in 1911 andthose of Africa between 1881 and 1900)305 came to revitalize anempire, which had been largely dismantled after 1763306, with theAntilles, French Guyana, Sainte-Lucie, Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon,

301 One of the postulates ofthe French Republic, theothers being “liberty” and“fraternity”.302 Admittedly, only thesurface of the topic will betouched upon here as itcould be the subject of ano-ther entire dissertation.303 Congresses specific toother colonies (e.g. Con-gress of Northern Africa)have not been taken intoconsideration. In thecontext of this work, theanalysis refers to the firstFrench Colonial Congress(Paris, 1903); the ColonialNational Exhibition andCongress of Marseille(1906); the Congress of theOld Colonies (Paris, 1909);the Colonial NationalExhibition and Congressof Marseille (1922); theGreat Colonial Interna-tional Exhibition of Paris(1931) and the Exhibitionof the Tercentenary of theattachment of Guadeloupeto France (Paris, 1935).Source: All original textswere found at BNF, exceptfor the event of 1935, forwhich related documentswere found at CAOM.304 Source: CAOM. LaDépêche coloniale, Novem-ber 29th, 1929. Note: Theauthor was Head of theMaritime and ColonialLeague. “Il ne faut pas selasser de le répéter : lacolonisation n’est ni uneintervention philosophique,ni un geste sentimental. Quece soit pour nous ou pourn’importe quel pays, elle estune affaire.»305 Without forgetting theformer conquest of Algeriain 1830. Source: Carpen-tier, J. & Lebrun, F. (dir.)Histoire de France, Seuil,1987, p. 269 & pp. 314-317.306 Year of the Frenchdefeat against the English,the direct consequence ofwhich was the loss of mostAmerican colonies (Treatyof Paris). Source: Idem.

142

Louisiana (sold in 1803 by Napoleon), Reunion, and trading postsin India and Senegal, remaining the only traces of former glory.

In parallel, colonial expansion favored the emergence of a colo-nial viewpoint, symbolized by the successive creation of politicalgroups or consortiums devoted to the colonial cause. In 1893, forexample, the Colonial Party and the Minister of Colonies werefounded. During the same year, the French Colonial Union (UCF)was created as an interest group which joined economic and finan-cial forces.307

It is within this context that the first French colonial congresseswere held,308 benefiting from colonial imagery (and a colonial im-agination) already previously initiated with the Universal Exhibi-tions of 1889 and 1900, among other events.309 Despite someprotests against the principle of colonization,310 a colonial ideol-ogy gradually peaked, reaching its apotheosis in the 1930s, spread-ing a type of colonial discourse based on “the right of superiorraces over inferior ones”,311 and on the “civilizing mission” to beundertaken by France. In light of this colonial ideology (to imple-ment “progress”312 in the colonies), it was thus logical that colonialcongresses and exhibitions would mainly focus on assessing howmodernization was or should be quickly implemented in the colo-nies. This was especially evident in the architectural and urbanfields.

As international and national research on new technologiesand building material guided the transformation of the design andbuilding process in France,313 design processes were also at the coreof the colonial housing problem. As evidence, one can refer to thecontent of the discussed topics (e.g. “Housing” in 1903, “Regula-tions concerning the housing construction in the colonies of thetropical zone” in 1906, “The colonial modern house and the basesof its rational organization” in 1909, “Urban Works” in 1922, “Thecolonial metallic house” in 1931, etc.),314 as well as the regular men-tion of the introduction of novelties.

For example, as early as 1906, one report already referred to theuse of reinforced cement and terrace-roof for domestic architec-ture, which actually could be seen as very advanced when keepingin mind that F. L. Wright or Le Corbusier, for example, were justbeginning to integrate those features in their architecture.

“There are attempts today to replace trusses and attics byreinforced cement terrace-roofs. Besides the fact that thoseterraces are rarely perfectly waterproof, houses possessingthem are terribly hot.” 315 (Fig. 122)

307 Source: Bruant C. Lelogement et la ville dans lespremiers congrès coloniauxfrançais, LADRHAUS,1997, p. 2.308 The First FrenchColonial Congress tookplace in Paris, betweenMarch 29th and April 4th,1903. Source: Idem, p. 3.309 For more details seeAgeron, C-R. «L’Exposi-tion coloniale de 1931,Mythe républicain oumythe impérial?» in Leslieux de mémoire, Vol. 1,Gallimard, 1997, pp. 493-495.310 Carpentier, J. & Lebrun,F. (dir.) Histoire de France,op.cit., p. 316.311 Excerpt from the speechof Jules Ferry (politician)on July 28, 1885. Source:Idem, p. 320. «Il faut direouvertement qu’en effet lesraces supérieures ont undroit vis-à-vis des racesinférieures.»312 For more on this colo-nial ideological trait, seeCoquery-Vidrovitch, C.“La colonisation fran-çaise” in Histoire de laFrance coloniale, vol. 3, pp.13-14.313 If not immediately or ona large scale, the worksbefore the First World Wardoubtlessly marked theFrench building produc-tion. As examples we cansee the French Perret, Prostand Garnier (who intro-duced respectively a newmaterial [reinforcedconcrete] and a newconceptualization of thecity), the German Gropius(by, for example, erasingthe concept of load-bearingwalls in his Fagus factory),and later, those leaders ofthe Bauhaus movement(articulating earlier princi-ples of building rational-ism and standardization),and the CIAM (such as, LeCorbusier).314 Titles respectivelyfound in the congresses ofParis (first French ColonialCongress, 1903); Marseille(Colonial National Exhi-bition and Congress,1906); Paris (the Congressof the Old Colonies, 1909);

143

Figure 122: Two examples of concrete buildings in the French colonies: (Top) TheCommentry-Oissel house, Tunisia: (Bottom) The Fillod colonial house, Abidjan.Source: Royer, J. (ed.) Congrès international de l’urbanisme aux colonies et dans lespays de latitude intertropicale (1931 ; Paris), op.cit.Vol. II, pp. 69 & 71.Figure 123: The International Colonial Exhibition of Paris, 1931: The Pavilion ofGuadeloupe by architect Ali Tur. Source: Musée Saint-John-Perse.

Marseille (Colonial Natio-nal Exhibition and Con-gress, 1922); and Paris(the Great Colonial Inter-national Exhibition of1931). Source: BNF.315 Source: BNF. Report ofDr Hénaff «Hygiène del’Européen aux payschauds», in Charles-Roux(dir.) Compte-rendu destravaux du Congrès colonialde Marseille, Paris, Chal-lamel, 1908, tome 3, p. 322.«On essaye aujourd’hui desupprimer les fermes, lesmansardes pour construiredes toits en terrasse enciment armé. Outre que cesterrasses sont rarementd’une étanchéité parfaite,les maisons qui en sontmunies sont horriblementchaudes.»

144

316 For a detailed accountof this event, see Hodeir, C.& Pierre, M. L’Expositioncoloniale, Ed. Complexe,1991.317 The star attraction ofthe 1931 Exhibition wasthe reconstitution of theAngkor Palace, covering5,000 m2, which was sup-posed to show the Frenchcolonizers as the “occiden-tal peace-makers” andguarantors of “the past,natural forerunner of thefuture”. Source: C. Farrère,“L’exposition coloniale”,album hors-série,L’Illustration, May 1931.318 At first strongly asso-ciated with the “hygienist”movement, the disciplinegradually acquired itsunique status throughlegislation and the earlycontribution of HenriProst, Tony Garnier, forexample, as well as theemergence abroad of asimilar process (for exam-ple, in England, the emer-gence of “town planning”after the earlier GardenCities based on the theorydeveloped by E. Howard).Source: Ragon, M. Histoiremondiale de l’architectureet de l’urbanisme modernes,op.cit., and Panerai, Castex& Depaule Formes urbaines,op.cit. More details on thehygienist movement in thecolonies in Pinol, J.L. (dir.)Histoire de l’Europeurbaine, Seuil 2003, pp.433-437.319 It is interesting to notethe gradual and substan-tial shift evident between1903 and 1931: at firstmostly scientifically trea-ted by medical profession-als, urban planning andurbanism debates weregradually monopolized bymore urban-orientedpersonalities (e.g. engi-neers, architect, and urbanplanners). For example, ofthe five lectures given onthis topic in 1906, only onewas not made by a medi-cal doctor, whereas in1931, out of 29 lectures,only 5 were by medicaldoctors and 22 by archi-tects, urban planners or

Furthermore, the Guadeloupe pavilion presented during the Colo-nial International Exhibition of 1931316 without a doubt empha-sized the island’s modernization as orchestrated by France. Thechoice of architect to design this pavilion (Ali Tur was the samearchitect commissioned to design the administrative buildings af-ter the hurricane of 1928), the pavilion’s aspect (modern concretebuilding, with smooth white coating and clear lines, see Fig. 123),and even the pavilion’s location (in the neighborhood of theAngkor palace317, see Fig. 124) which offered the opportunity of astrong contrast between traditional and modern architecture, weresurely parts of a meticulously selected scenery to highlight whathad been accomplished in Guadeloupe.

Furthermore, as an increasing amount of concepts developedof what was not yet called urban planning emerged in France318 (aswell as in Europe in general), the planning of the colonial citybecame a subject to be treated seriously.319 Lists of realizations;pictures of bridges, public buildings, gardens; statements of thenumber of kilometers of new roads or electric cables; calculationsof water networks, implementations of French laws in the coloniesand future urban programs, directives on building methods orhow to combine local architecture and aesthetics320 were dissemi-nated to prove how

“(…) urban planning is one of the noblest forms ofcivilization since it satisfies two equally highpreoccupations: the love of fellow man, shown throughenhanced access to health, well-being, housing comfort; andaesthetic satisfactions obtained through the greatarchitectural realizations, the embellishment of the home,the city and its surroundings.”321

Yet, even if they magnify the “colonial pact”, all of this data andinformation also allowed colonial realities to become known. Thisis especially evident in the case of Guadeloupe. Indeed, in theirattempt to give a precise assessment, many texts actually denouncethe weaknesses of colonial implementations or even totally ignoremodernization, perhaps suggesting its minimal impact. The bestexample of a very critical text on modernization’s implementationcould be seen in the work of Engineer Robert,322 presented for thecommemoration of 1935 and already commented on at length ear-lier (see Part II). However, other small-scale texts are worth notingas well. One example is the article of G. Joutel (a journalist),323

which also made clear the limits of colonial modernization. Prais-ing the urban planning of Guadeloupe in 1935, Joutel actuallystated how essentially “progress” was misunderstood.

145

Figure 124: The International Colonial Exhibition of Paris, 1931: The map of theexhibition and an aerial view of the site. Source: CAOM and Archives de l’AgenceUniversitaire de la Francophonie au Cambodge.

engineers. This confirmsthe emergence of the disci-pline parallel to its deve-lopment in France.320 This enumerationrandomly summarizes thedifferent kinds of docu-ments found on the subject.321 Source: BNF. Introduc-tion of M.E. du Vivier deStreel in Royer, J. (dir.)Congrès international del’urbanisme aux colonies etdans les pays de latitudeintertropicale (1931; Paris),Paris: Ed. d’Urbanisme,Vol. 2, 1932-1935, p. 4.«C’est qu’en effet l’urbanis-me est l’une des formes lesplus nobles de la civilisationpuisqu’il satisfait à deuxpréoccupations égalementélevées : l’amour du pro-chain, se manifestant par lamise à sa portée de la santé,de la salubrité, du confort del’habitation; les satisfactionsesthétiques obtenues par lesgrandes réalisations archi-tecturales, l’embellissementdu foyer, de la cité et de sesalentours.»322 Les travaux publics de laGuadeloupe, op.cit.323 La renaissance de laGuadeloupe, un remarquableeffort d’urbanisme, byGeorges Joutel, 1935.Source: CAOM, fm,agefom111.40.

146

“Instead of leaving to chance constructions which may haveoften been considered luxurious because they constituted acertain progress, like the health centres of Trois-Rivières,Sainte-Rose and Sainte-Anne, which are still ignored bygroups which have not yet understood their necessity; adevelopment plan has been designed each time it waspossible.”324

In the same way, the brochure325 especially designated to presentthe commemoration of 1935 exhibition in the new Museum ofColonies, largely by depicting paintings and sculptures, evidentlyignored architecture and urban works, thus perhaps implying theirminimal contribution in the shaping of Guadeloupe.

Hence one could wonder whether, in the particular case of exhi-bitions, the redundancy of the same reference could carry furthermeaning. The choice of Ali Tur to design the pavilions of 1931 and1937,326 and the exhibition of his works for the commemoration of1935 clearly reflect the decision to show the most modern expres-sion of what had been realized in Guadeloupe. Nevertheless, evenif it seems understandable that Ali Tur’s works were considered asure success, was there really nothing new to exhibit between 1931and 1937? This hypothesis would seem to be valid when one recallsthe assessment of the reconstruction program in 1935 (barely halfof the goals were reached on average, with clear-cut deficiencies indetail) as well as the results of a report published in 1937 in themedia which evidenced a dichotomization of architecture.

“Efforts should be made for the peasants, for whom it isindispensable to replace the hovels and grass huts that aretoo often seen with housing that is not luxurious butcomfortable.”327

Indeed, the “progress” in domestic architecture could have pro-vided another aspect (after the construction of administrativebuildings) of the impact of colonization to be displayed during the1931-37 period. Yet, although earlier governmental reports al-ready warned against the pitfall of widening the gap between do-mestic architecture and administrative architecture,328 colonialefforts continued to favor administrative architecture,329 whichthus became one of the only “beneficial effects” to be exhibited.

Moreover, in a broader context, the fact that the 1931-1937 pe-riod was marked by economic and political crisis in France, as wellas the impending war, contributed to the abandonment of pro-grams geared towards the development of the colonies.330 Just afterthe Second World War, a text conclusively confirms the hypothesis

324 Source: Idem. «Au lieude laisser au hasard desconstructions, qui, souventont pu paraître somptuairesparce quelles constituaientun progrès, comme lesdispensaires des Trois-Rivières, de Sainte-Rose etde Sainte-Anne, qui demeu-rent inutilisés par descollectivités qui n’en ont pasencore compris la nécessité ;un plan d’aménagement aété dressé chaque fois quecela a été possible.»325 Source: CAOM, bib,som,d5196. Brochure del’Exposition du Tricen-tenaire du rattachement desAntilles et de la Guyane à laFrance, 1635-1935, Troiscents ans d’histoirecommune et l’art contem-porain et les Antilles.326 The exhibition of 1937was not a colonial exhibi-tion; officially entitled theExposition Internationaledes Arts et des Techniquesdans la vie Moderne, it wasdedicated to the display ofmodern decorative artsand techniques. One of itspavilions was totallydevoted to French colonies,including Guadeloupe,and it is for this reason (aswell as due to its world-wide impact) that it ismentioned here.327 Source: CAOM, fm,agefom 100/1, 13. «LaPresse», October 13th,1937. «L’effort se porteraaussi du côté des paysanspour lesquels il est indis-pensable de remplacer pardes demeures non pasluxueuses, mais confortablesles masures et les paillotesque l’on rencontre encoretrop souvent.»328 Evident in the numerousreports written by Muller,Head of the InspectionMission (1928-1933) sentafter the 1928 hurricane.“The destroyed buildingsmust be replaced by others,bigger, more comfortableand built according to moremodern methods. But, accor-dingly, one danger shouldbe avoided. One should not,in the name of progress,expect too much and thusgenerate a too striking

147

that there was a lack of housing development in Guadeloupe:

“The landscapes have not changed: they are splendid,Guadeloupe “The Emerald Island” and its dependencies (…)provide unforgettable memories of beauty. But the sceneryof daily life (…) does not match: outside of someadministrative modern buildings, a comfortable hotel (inBasse-Terre), there are still too many wooden constructions,tokens of the devastating hurricane of 1928, small, grey,lacking aesthetics and without much comfort. The war cameto interrupt a movement of renovation and reconstructionthat had been taking shape since 1935 (…). One may hopethat this movement will continue with the return of Peace.”331

Furthermore, another characteristic of the colonial exhibition andcongresses worth noting for the insight it offers into colonial reali-ties is their staging and “advertising” type packaging.

Henry Bérenger, the French ambassador and former governorof Guadeloupe, for example, gave little information on the island’smodernization in an extensive preface to the album La Guade-loupe,332 published for the commemoration of 1935. Only at the endof his description, which mainly focuses on the island’s naturalresources, does Bérenger mention modernization in terms ofschool buildings, electricity and the development of the traffic sys-tem.333 In addition, of the 100 pictures depicting the island, only 7show new realizations (of which 6 were Ali Tur’s buildings), whilethe front page quite symbolically set the tone: it was “the younggirl with madras” that was selected to illustrate Guadeloupe’s best(Fig. 125).

Colonial exhibitions systematically included folklore andshows ranging from perfect illusions to maladroit representa-tions/reconstructions and even the grotesque,334 evoking anotherreality, one not yet touched by modernization.

Thus, if, in reality, and especially in the case of Guadeloupe,modern buildings were placed in a prominent position, one couldwonder how many visitors believed that locals were living in thekind of houses designed by Ali Tur, when they were offered at thesame time traditional songs performed by “natives” in woodenhuts.

Another example of this flagrant dichotomy can be seen in theexhibition of 1937. On the one hand, the visitor could admire themodern pavilion of Guadeloupe, designed by Ali Tur (Fig. 126),and on the other s/he could admire a boat (La Caravelle, see Fig.127),designed to be “a charming evocation of the [Antilles] islands” andhousing a bar conceived as “an artistic realization, a popular en-

contrast between the luxuryof public edifices, that needto be reconstructed, and theincredible misery of theprivate buildings.”Source: CAOM, fm, sg,gua252.1519. Missiond’inspection de Muller,1928/1929. De l’InspecteurGénéral des Colonies,Muller, chef de la Missiond’Inspection de la Guade-loupe à Monsieur le Mini-stre des Colonies. August3, 1929. «Il faut doncremplacer les immeublesdétruits par d’autres plusvastes, plus confortables etconstruits selon desméthodes plus modernes.Mais en cette matière unécueil est à éviter. Il nefaudrait pas, sous prétextede progrès, voir trop grandet qu’il put s’établir un jourun contraste par tropfrappant entre le luxe desédifices publics qu’il estnécessaire de reconstruireet la misère incroyable deshabitations privées.»329 What is visible, forexample, in the budgetdistribution of the recon-struction program in 1931is that the role attributedto “administrativebuildings” is three timeslarger than that of“hygiene and assistance”programs (which provi-ded, among other things,some funds for privatebuilding reconstruction in1935). Source: Robert, G.Les travaux publics de laGuadeloupe, op.cit. Note:Another report fromMuller clearly reveals howdomestic architecture istied to the economicresources of individuals(not those of the centralgovernment), thus explai-ning the impossibility ofusing modern buildingmethods: “The question ofthe reconstruction of privatebuildings is more delicate(…) To the suggestions (…)regarding the measures thatcould be taken to encouragethe victims to have theirdamaged houses rebuilt inreinforced concrete, Mr.Lefebvre, the temporaryGovernor of Guadeloupe,

148

answered: (…) the loans tobe accepted by the futureloan office or whatever otherloan group are necessarilylimited by the value of theguaranty deposits, it wouldnot seem possible in thiscase to require a reinforcedcement reconstruction,however modest it shouldbe.” Source: CAOM, fm, sg,gua252.1518. Analyse dela reconstruction en cimentarmé des immeublesdétruits par le cyclone du12 septembre 1928, del’Inspecteur Général desColonies, Muller, chef de laMission d’Inspection de laGuadeloupe à Monsieur leMinistre des Colonies.January 12th, 1929. «Beau-coup plus délicate est laquestion de la réédificationdes immeubles privés (…)Aux suggestions (…)concernant les mesures quipourraient être prises pourinciter les sinistrés à fairereconstruire en ciment arméleurs maisons détruites, M.Lefebvre, Gouverneur inté-rimaire de la Guadeloupe afait la réponse suivante: (…)Les avances à consentir parle futur Office des prêts oupar tout autre organisme decrédit devant nécessaire-ment être limitées par lavaleur des gages offerts engarantie, il ne sera, semble-t-il, pas possi-ble, dans cecas d’exiger le reconstruc-tion en ciment armé, simodeste soit-elle.»330 Source: Carpentier, J. &Lebrun, F. (dir.) Histoire deFrance, op.cit., pp. 325-334.331 Source: CAOM, fm,agefom 100/1, 8. «Condi-tions actuelles de la vieaux Antilles» (no date, noauthor). «Les paysagesn’ont pas changé: ils sontsplendides, la Guadeloupe«Ile d’Emeraude» et sesdépendances (...) laissentd’inoubliables souvenirs debeauté. Mais le décor de lavie de tous les jours (...)n’est pas à la hauteur: pourquelques bâtiments admini-stratifs modernes, pour unhôtel (à Basse-Terre) confor-table il y a trop encore deconstructions en bois,souvenirs du cyclone

Figure 126: The Paris Exhibition of 1937: The Pavilion of Guadeloupe by architect Ali Tur.Source: CAOM. “Le Courrier colonial illustré”, November 25th, 1937.Figure 127: The Paris Exhibition of 1937: Le Bar des Isles. Source: CAOM, agefom 605.

Figure 125: The cover of the book La Guadeloupe, edited for the commemoration of theyear 1935. Source: Private collection.

149

destructeur de 1928, grises,petites, sans esthétique etsans beaucoup de confort. Laguerre est venue interrom-pre un mouvement de réno-vation et de reconstructionqui se dessinait depuis 1935(...). Il est permis d’espererque ce mouvement vareprendre avec le retour dela Paix.»332 Bouge, M.L.J. (dir.) LaGuadeloupe, Ile d’Emeraudeet ses dépendances, Librai-rie des Arts Décoratifs,Paris, 1935.333 “Its two main towns,Basse-Terre and Pointe-à-Pitre are lit up by electri-city. Cars, the number ofwhich exceeds 1200 and isconstantly increasing, runon an admirable road net-work (…) Primary schoolsincluding more than 400classrooms, offer instructionin 36 communes.” Source:Idem, p. 15. “Ses deuxvilles principales, Basse-Terre et Pointe-à-Pitre sontéclairées à l’électricité. Desautomobiles dont le nombredépasse douze cents et vacroissant constammentsillonnent un admirableréseau routier (...) Desécoles primaires comportantplus de 400 classes distri-buent l’instruction danstrente-six communes.»334 The classic anecdote isrelated to the real origin of“cannibals” and other“natives” performing theirancestral dances, rituals orsongs for the public: atbest, they were rarelynatives but rather formersailors, mailmen, waitres-ses transformed into can-nibals for the event, and atworse, Parisians hired asperformers. Source: Hodeir& Pierre, L’expositioncoloniale, op.cit., pp.98-100.335 Source: Annuaire Stati-stique de la Guadeloupe.336 Intentionally, the ques-tion of the psychologicalrepresentation of colonialideology through exhibi-tion has been ignored herebecause, as previouslymentioned, the ways inwhich urban and architec-tural modernization havebeen understood is the

chantment and an advertising success.” It was precisely here that“local choreographic reconstructions and traditionally costumedemployees” were providing the exotic dream while Ali Tur’sbuilding was confirming the input of French civilization.

However, one has to admit that realities, in these caricaturedforms, were only disguised, not completely falsified: until 1940more than 85% of the Guadeloupean population lived in woodenhouses without running water or electricity, with only a mere 3%residing in concrete houses.335

Could the quality of life then be summarized as only“progress” and the implementation of modernization?336 This iswhat the colonial ideology claimed, an assumption that has, ofcourse, been questioned since then.

Finally, what comes out of the analysis of documents from colonialexhibitions and congresses is the fact that these documents are bothshowcases of colonial ideology and interests, and through what isleft unsaid, barely whispered or sincerely admitted, an insight intocolonial reality. A double interpretation is thus possible, which issignificant because it clarifies existing relationships betweenFrance and Guadeloupe on the topic of modernization.

Therefore, if modernization appears to have been truly wantedand if it certainly existed, it very often remained limited to theisland’s general development (specifically its infrastructure: ports,roads, administrative buildings) and, to some extent, restricted to acertain segment of the population, introducing (or maintaining?) astrong disparity in architectural practices, and even further devel-oping contrasts within the population.337

In addition, colonial discourse analysis substantiates anothercontradiction, which also played its part in the shaping of Frenchand Guadeloupean bonds in terms of modernization. This was theestablished consensus that united democratic and colonist princi-ples under the same umbrella. The articulation of the equality prin-ciple338 was put into practice via the construction of hospitals,health care centers, the rebuilding of churches and public gardens,which were directed at the whole of the population. This assimila-tion of colonial and democratic principles helps explain why urbanand architectural modernizations are perceived to require littlethought.

Indeed, if the concepts of building standardization, mechaniza-tion, and rationalization of the urban space, or the use of newbuilding materials, technologies and architectural styles truly in-dicated a modernization of architectural and urban practices, it isnonetheless striking to realize how precise references to an archi-tectural movement or intellectual trends are absent. “Modern colo-

150

nial architecture”, “modern urban policy”, “modern material”were talked about, yet not a single allusion to a well-known archi-tect or even to the Art Deco, (largely promoted by the Paris Exhibi-tion of 1925),339 or later to the Modernist Movement was made.One wonders if this general approach could not be seen as an intel-lectual way of equalizing all of the colonies’ inhabitants, even if inreality a building hierarchy existed; no reference is made to thedifferences between native dwellings and those of the whites. It isonly in the Congress of 1931, particularly with Lyautey’s lecture,340

that the first notions of aesthetic interests, acknowledgement of anindigenous art, suggestions of possible cooperation in urban andarchitectural practices between France and its colonies, and evencriticism of bureaucracy and a certain type of architecture wereformulated. Yet, in the colonies, and especially in Guadeloupe,further research is needed to assess their realities.

“In my long colonial career, two questions have particularlyinterested me above others: native policy and urbanplanning.

Native policy, the original conditions of our coloniallife, our progress, the pacification, the coming together ofpeoples, our increasingly close union with them, all thatmakes the greatness and the nobility of this colonialenterprise, constructive and not destructive, as I have sooften proclaimed.

Urban planning, understood in its wider meaning,belongs to the same family as native policy. It brings easeof life, comfort, charm and beauty.

The protection of native art, scrupulous conservation ofancient monuments, their adaptation to the necessities ofmodern life with the constant concern for respectingtraditions, research into new constructions of an artappropriate to the diversity of countries, the daily struggleagainst administrative formality, against arrogant routines,against the ugliness of the “model type”; this inventory isby itself enough to help understand all the reward there isfor a leader to devote himself to this creative action.”341

In conclusion, through colonial exhibitions and congresses it ap-peared that the implementation of modernization certainly of-fered a means of fulfilling the equality paradigm while the truedichotomy, bound to the colonial system, persisted: a contradic-tion that remained in the post-colonial period and contributed toshaping Guadeloupe’s contemporary urban landscape.

primary focus. Yet, thenegative image of thecolonized (inferior, prim-itive, uneducated, etc.) dis-played during these eventsis worth noting because itobviously weighed on thecollective ideal to be rea-ched, which was evidentlysymbolized by the coloni-zers. For an early critiqueof this men-tal process, seeCésaire Aimé, Discours surle colonialisme, PrésenceAfricaine, 1989.337 One has to rememberthat in those times, housingwas often combined withofficial buildings, therebyemphasizing the differencein ways of living betweencivil servants and the restof the population, as sub-stantiated by Ali Tur’splans for post offices andhealth centres, for example.Yet, one could wonder towhat extent an analysis ofthe rural terri-tories ofFrance during the sametime span would displaydifferent features.338 The French Republic isbased on “liberty, equality,fraternity”. Equality wasperceived as justifyingcolonial enterprises: in allof the studied congresses,without exception, it wasmentioned at least twice.339 Officially entitled theExposition Internationaledes Arts Décoratifs etIndustriels Modernes, itpromoted the unificationof the decorative arts withthat of industry. The exhi-bition brought togetherthousands of designs fromall over Europe and be-yond. With over 16 millionvisitors, it marked the highpoint of the first phase ofArt Deco. For more on thisevent, see, for example,Ragon, M. Histoire mon-diale de l’architecture et del’urbanisme modernes,op.cit., pp. 79-85.340 Which appears as thepreface of the first volumeof L’urbanisme aux colonieset dans les pays..., op.cit.341 Source: Idem, Preface ofGeneral Lyautey, pp. 7-8“Dans ma longue carrièrecoloniale, deux questions

151

8.3 Realities after 1946

Since it has been established that, on the one hand, colonial dis-courses revealed colonial ambitions and reflections (even if some-times indirectly) of colonial realities; and, on the other hand, thatthe modernization of colonies paradoxically served colonial inter-ests and those of French democracy, one could then wonder whatbecame of colonial realities once the island changed status, fromcolony to department.

Departmentalization was significant in the sense that changingthe status of the island also meant renewing its legal framework.This particularly was needed in the urban and architectural fields342

because of the transformation of the economy (the decline of ruralactivities in favor of tertiary activities –tourism and services) and aremodeling of size of the biggest agglomerations (out of shape byhigh population growth and rural exodus). Regulating and plan-ning the city became a major necessity. Thus, after a brief presenta-tion of the legal framework concerning architecture and urbanplanning in Guadeloupe, the present analysis will shift to examinestatistics in order to try to answer the following question: was theequalizing process a total myth?

Under colonial rule, Guadeloupe was already subject to a legalsystem, defined in its general lines by the central government andin detail by local officials. Because of the natural qualities of itssurroundings, ravaged more than once by natural disasters, andthe underlying concepts of French colonization (more interested inprofit than in developing new human settlements), conclusions343

were drawn that colonial urban development was more influencedby local town regulations strongly aimed at resisting the next hur-ricane or earthquake, than by national policy, even though somedocuments prove that the local application of national regulationsexisted. For example, the significant metropolitan law of 1902 onpublic health came into force in June of 1909 in Guadeloupe,344

whereas, after the 1928 hurricane, the various plans of embellish-ment and extension345 made for several of the island’s townsclosely followed the indications given earlier by the Cornudet lawof 1919.346

However, what marked the legal system in the post-colonialperiod was the central government’s complete intervention inGuadeloupean urban development. This actually occurred duringthe period when urban planning acquired its full dimensions onthe metropolitan territory via the post-war reconstruction due tothe necessity of economic revitalization and housing develop-ment.347 The entire metropolitan legislative and bureaucratic sys-

m’ont passionné entretoutes: la politique indigène,l’Urbanisme. La politiqueIndigène, condition pre-mière de notre vie colo-niale, de notre progression,de la pacification, de l’ad-hésion des populations, denotre union de plus en plusétroite avec elles, de tout cequi fait la grandeur et lanoblesse de cette actioncoloniale, constructrice etnon destructrice, ainsi queje l’ai si souvent proclamé.L’Urbanisme, entendu dansson sens le plus large, est dela même famille que lapolitique indigène. Ilapporte l’aisance de la vie,le confort, le charme et labeauté. Sauvegarde de l’ArtIndigène, conservation scru-puleuse des monuments dupassé, leur appropriationaux nécessités de la viemoderne avec un souci con-stant du respect des tradi-tions, recherche pour lesconstructions nouvellesd’un art approprié à ladiversité des pays, luttequotidienne contre les for-malismes administratifs,contre les routines arro-gantes, contre les laideursdes «Modèles-type», cetteénumération seule suffit àfaire comprendre tout leprix qu’il y a pour un chef àse donner à cette actioncréatrice.»342 For a more political andeconomic approach, see,for example, Miles, W.(“Fifty years of Assimila-tion”) and Daniel, J. (“Theconstruction of depend-ency”): both articles inIslands at the Crossroads,Politics in the non-indepen-dent Caribbean, Rienner,2001, pp. 45-79.343 More developed inDupré, K. “Urban planningand globalisation in Gua-deloupe” in The EuropeanCity in Transition, F.Eckardt & D. Hassenpflug(eds.), P. Lang, vol. II, 2004.344 Source: BNF. Durant, G.“Règlement concernant laconstruction des habita-tions dans les colonies dela zone tropicale”inCongrès des AnciennesColonies, Paris, 1909, op.

152

tem was put in place in Guadeloupe. Whether in France orGuadeloupe, the same procedures and regulatory tools governedhousing and urban developments.

Yet, the principal regulatory tools, that would dominate theplanning and the development of the entire country until just re-cently were not produced before 1967.348 Based on a zoning system,the three main regulatory tools were:

-the Schéma Directeur d’Aménagement et d’Urbanisme (SDAU),an optional strategic plan for the general direction ofdevelopment within an area encompassing severalcommunes, with the commune as the basic administrativeunit of local government;349

-the Plan d’aménagement de zone (PAZ), an optional documentestablishing the specific conditions of land-use within agiven area to be developed;-the Plan d’Occupation des Sols (POS), a municipal land-useplan aiming at defining the rules and constraints that governland use and construction, and which is applied at the levelof the individual commune and enforceable towards thirdparties.

However, the decentralization law of March 2nd, 1982 brought sig-nificant change because it signaled the end of the central govern-ment’s omnipotent control over urban development. Communes,departments and regions were offered the possibility of preparingand administering their own urban documents. Concretely, in-stead of being set up by the services of the central government, thePOS, for example, was devolved to the communes although centralservices remained accessible. Furthermore, in the specific case ofGuadeloupe and of the other French overseas departments, the de-centralization law (or regionalization) generated a particular sta-tus that set them apart from other departments, for it is unusualthat a department and a region exactly cover the same territory.

Finally, when examining the implementations of nationalregulations controlling spatial transformations in Guadeloupe,one can only be amazed at the quality of the process. While it is truethat in the early 1970s Guadeloupe was still characterized by a lackof legislative framework (the 1967 Act coming into force inGuadeloupe only in 1971), as well as the lack of an official depart-ment devoted to urban planning or urban development (the firstreal operating organization [ADUAG] was founded in 1972,whereas the field services [Direction Départementale de l’Equipement]of the central government were still in embryonic form), as muchon the island level as on the communal. Moreover, in addition to

cit., p. 1048. This law wasparticularly significantbecause it introduced therequirement to submit abuilding permit thatneeded to be approved bycommunal authorities andin conformity with sani-tary regulations.345 The most famous beingthose of Ali Tur for thecommunes of Sainte-Anne,Le Lamentin and of coursethose of Basse-Terre andPointe-à-Pitre (in coopera-tion with Urban PlannerDanger R.)346 The law of March 14th,1919 precisely set theconditions for developing,embellishing and exten-ding cities.347 Although the firstattempts to create a gene-ral codified set of rules forurban planning in Francecould be traced back to the19th century, actualfeatures of the contempo-rary legislation come fromthe post-war period. By1955, the land-use pat-terns, modalities of theland appropriation and itsconstructability are de-fined by a code (Code del’Urbanisme), as well as theprinciples of hygiene andmodernization in the buil-ding process. Source:Journal Officiel. Decrees onAugust 25, 1955 creatingthe national urban plan-ning regulation and onOctober 27, 1955 issuingthe national constructionregulation.348 The main changesappearing with the SRUlaw of 2000. SRU standsfor Solidarité et Renouvelle-ment Urbains, which cameinto force on December 13,2000 and aimed at restruc-turing procedures andregulatory tools to “rein-force the coherency ofterritorial and urban poli-cies” as well as “to sup-port the town policy”.Source: Journal Officiel.349 Kropf, K «An alterna-tive approach to zoning inFrance: typology, histori-cal character and develop-ment control » in EuropeanPlanning Studies, Vol. 4,

153

the lack of the effective production of urban documents (the firstSDAU documents being approved only in 1976), the slowness ofthe process cannot have been attributed to all local applications ofnational regulations; nor can it contradict the existence today of awell established legal framework in Guadeloupe.

Nevertheless, in its details and its practices, one should empha-size that the implementation of the national system of bureaucracyand regulations has more than once been riddled with contradic-tions. If it is not the purpose here to list them, at least two points areworth noting. First, the consequences of the “Old Colonies’specificities” (a reminder of the 1946 and 1958 constitution article)need to be recognized because of the influence they had on theapplication of the legal framework. It was indeed a double-edgedsword, since it often generated a delay in the implementations oflaws, for the texts in France were not automatically passed inGuadeloupe. Yet it also sometimes produced a surprising rapidityof application (see, for example, the case of the 1955, 1986 and 1996Acts, all put into force in Guadeloupe within the year of their ap-proval in France)350 or exceptions to the general framework. Forexample, Guadeloupe is the only French region where inhabitants(even the lots non-owners) are compensated for the destruction oftheir houses within the context of a renovation program. On theother hand, the establishment of an administrative system, oftencriticized for its rigidity and its complexity, can be thought to havepartly contributed to an urban development that did not necessar-ily suit local needs,351 and in the worst case, to violations and ille-gal behaviors.352 However, only a comparative study with otherregions of France could prove whether this is specific toGuadeloupe.

Finally, despite the slowness of process and local specificities,perhaps what should be kept in mind is that equality and moderni-zation had been definitively achieved through legal frameworkand enhanced by a reorganized international context (for example,the loss of Algeria in 1962 directly introduced a transfer of themonetary support towards French Overseas Departments).

What about more materialistic considerations? As previouslyevoked in Part III, after 1946, Guadeloupe’s modernization cameabout through the implementation of numerous programs con-cerning various aspects of daily life in order to match theGuadeloupean standard of living with that of metropolitan citi-zens. Modernization, perceived from the architectural and urbanangle, was equally characterized by a desire to level housing con-ditions as by the central government’s implication in the process.For the assimilation process, France was the absolute referent;

#6, 1996, p. 718.350 Those laws shared thecommon goal of encoura-ging economic develop-ment through differentincentives regarding thehousing and constructionsectors.351 Here the allusion con-cerns the first renovationprogram of Pointe-à-Pitrein the 1950-60s: by its scale(107 hectares, 7,000 hou-sing), the introduction ofnew urban morphologyand architectural vocabu-lary (e.g. tower or bar-likeshape, concrete and prefab-ricated buildings, empha-sis on hygienic building,etc.) and most of all, itssimilarity to Parisiansuburbs, the urban renova-tion of Pointe-à-Pitre wasto indelibly mark theGuadeloupean landscape.Today, the demolition of alarge part is planned.Source: Service d’Urban-isme de la mairie dePointe-à-Pitre.352 Constructions withoutbuilding permits are partof the Guadeloupean urbanlandscape. If we look at a“higher” level in 1995, forexample, despite the decen-tralization law and 11years of work, the Statehad to supersede theGuadeloupean RegionalCouncil in elaborating theregional plan document(Schéma d’AménagementRégional) because theRegional Council wasconvinced of fraudulentactivity. Source: Sept Mag.nº 871, 29 février 1996 andJounal Officiel, June 30,1995.

154

French norms were the absolute standards to reproduce. Compara-tive statements, statistics and reports support this theory, whiletoday the French National Statistic Agency (INSEE) still bases itsassessments of overseas department development on a compari-son with metropolitan standards.

NOTE: IN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING TABLES, THE NUMBER IN BRACKETS (..)CONCERNS FRANCE.

Table 18: The level of housing facilities. Source: Annuaire Statistique de laGuadeloupe & INSEE.

1961 1967 1974 1982 1990 1999 (1997)

Persons/family 4.1 4.2 4.2 (2.9) 3.7 (2.7) 3.4 (2.5) 2.9 (2.5)

Rooms/housing 2.5 3 3.4 (3.6) 3.5 (3.8) 3.7 (4) 3 (2.5)

Table 17: Housing comfort. Source: Annuaire Statistique de la Guadeloupe & INSEE.

Table 16: House-building materials. Source: Annuaire Statistique de la Guadeloupe &INSEE.

Building Material Before 1940 1940-1954 1955 1974 1982 1990 1997

wood 85 79 66 39 33 19 16

“hard” (stone, concrete) 3 8 18 23 29 64 75

mixed 8 10 11 31 19 12 7

1961 1974 (1973) 1982 (1984) 1990 (1992) 1999 (2002)

Water in the house 7 32 (77) 68 (93) 83 (95) 97 (99)

WC 47 (88) 55 (91) 78 (93) 94 (97)

Shower, bathtub 38 (84) 52 (88) 74 (92) 92 (96)

Sewer - 24 36 33 (88)

Electricity 25 55 77 89 96

1984 1995 (1996)

Fridge 42 93 (98)

Freezer 16 54 (49)

Phone 52 87 (96)

TV 77 93 (95)

Car 43 54 (80)

Table 19: The level of housing appliances. Source: Annuaire Statistique de laGuadeloupe & INSEE.

1974 1982 1990 1999 (2002)

Individual housing 97 (50) 85 (54) 82 (56) 72 (57)

Collective housing 3 (50) 15 (46) 18 (44) 23 (43)

Table 20: The distribution of main residences. Source: Annuaire Statistique de laGuadeloupe & INSEE.

155

1974 (1973) 1984 1997 (1996) 1999

Owner - (45.5) 60 (51) 63 (54) 61 (55)

Tenant - (43) 31 (41) 30 (40) 34 (41)

Table 21: The status of housing occupancy. Source: Annuaire Statistique de laGuadeloupe & INSEE.

Table 22: Housing classification depending on the use. Source: Annuaire Statistique dela Guadeloupe & INSEE.

Guadeloupean migration Part in the whole population

1962 367 4%

1967 10,382 3%

1974 27,557 8.5%

1981 42,689 13%

Table 23: Guadeloupean migration to France and the percentage of persons living inFrance that it represents compared to the Guadeloupean population. Source: Rapportd’activités du BUMIDOM on December 31, 1981 and INSEE.

1954-1960 1961-1966 1967-1973 1974-1981 1982-1984

-4,150 -11,800 -34,150 -35,950 -7,880

Table 24: Migration balance between 1954 and 1984 in Guadeloupe. Source: AnnuaireStatistique de la Guadeloupe & INSEE.

1954 1961 1974 1982 1990 1999 (2002)

Main residence 87 92 84 (84) 84 (83) 83 (82) 81 (83)

Second home 1 1 6 (7) 7 (9) 4 (9) 6 (9)

Empty houses 6 6 9 (8) 9 (8) 10 (7) 13 (7)

Years Main residence: Guadeloupe

1954 59,511

1961 68,277

RV 1954-1961 15

1974 71,357

RV 1961-1974 4.5

1982 85,629

RV 1974-1982 (1973-1984) 20(19)

1990 112,478

RV 1982-1990 (1984-1992) 31(9)

1999 144,818

RV 1990-1999 (1992-2002) 29 (11)

Table 25: Evolution of housing numbers and their relative variation (RV in %). Source:Annuaire Statistique de la Guadeloupe & INSEE.

156

The latest statistical assessments from both 1999 and 2002clearly reveal that in the case of housing, Guadeloupe has todayreached the same level as France in most cases, such as in the formalaspects of housing as well as the more economic ones. For example,in both places concrete buildings are in the majority (Table 16);housing tends towards the same standards (e.g. number of rooms,size, equipment, etc., Tables 17, 18 and 19), while, in bothGuadeloupe and France, one-family housing stock is superior tocollective housing stock (Table 20), and ownership is more fre-quent than renting (Table 21). A statistical review can deepens theunderstanding of this process and its results.

First, concerning housing standards, what is striking is the slow-ness of the process. In every case, it took more than 40 years toreach the standards of the late 20th century, with a boom in the1990s. For example, if we look at housing facilities, we can see thatin 1961, 77% of the metropolitan French had running water in theirhouses, while only 7% of Guadeloupeans could say the same (Table18). More surprisingly, barely half of Guadeloupeans had toiletand sanitary installations (shower or bathtub) in 1982, whereas inmetropolitan France more than 88% of the population had both. Itis only in the 1990-2000 decade that the numbers were equal. At thelevel of housing appliances (TV, refrigerator, phone, and car), thesame tendency is observed: a progressive evolution that finallyattains equality with French standards in the last 10 years, exceptfor the case of television. By 1984, 77% of Guadeloupeans alreadyhad a TV set, whereas on average, less than half the populationpossessed other facilities (Table 19).

On the other hand, the analysis also demonstrates that housingevolution is strongly characterized by local conditions. Indeed,once more, the statistical review comparing France andGuadeloupe clearly reveals that both places were far from evolv-ing from the same existing conditions. For example, if in absolutevalue, owners in both places represent a larger group than tenants,and followed the same increasing curve during 20 years, histori-cally, owners in Guadeloupe were always a very dominant group(at least from the first statistics in our possession, 1984) whereas inFrance, in the same year, they had only started to be distinct fromthe tenant group (Table 21). Similarly, the dominance of one-fam-ily housing stock is now a common characteristic in both Franceand Guadeloupe, yet a major difference lies in the fact that, at leastsince 1974, this has always been the case in Guadeloupe (despite anaccentuated decrease in numbers over the years), 353 whereas inFrance the opposite phenomenon was observed (Table 20). By 1974,one-family and multifamily housing stocks were equally repre-

353 And here, the historicalsocial context once againproves to be significantbecause two specific ele-ments of land regulation inGuadeloupe can partlyexplain this high level ofownership. The first con-cerns the fact that the samelot can have severalowners (“indivisibilitylaw”), hence a building onthis lot can also be co-owned. Whereas thesecond element refers tothe existing practice ofbuilding and owning ahouse, with the underlyingpromise not to built inhard materials, on a lotthat may be for rent or freeuse. In both cases, itappears that those prac-tices favor the ownershiptradition. For more preci-sion on those practices, seeLuce, M. C. «La routed’argent», op.cit., pp.60-69.

157

sented but thereafter, one-family housing stock became predomi-nant, while the amount of multifamily housing dropped.

Furthermore, the dependency of housing evolution on thesocietal context is even more apparent when one compares hous-ing numbers and the distribution of housing in France andGuadeloupe. If main residences form the dominant type of housingin both places, differences can be made among the evolution ofsecond homes and empty houses (Table 22). While in France, thepercentage of second homes consistently increased since 1974, areflection of an incentive policy towards private ownership,354 inGuadeloupe there is a slight irregularity in the evolution of secondhomes and empty houses. This irregular process could be seen as acorollary of the housing policies developed in France by successivegovernments, as well as one of the consequences of the boom intourist activity during the same period in Guadeloupe. Yet, an-other factor could also be invoked to connect the understanding ofthe main residences’ evolution to its local context: the creation ofthe BUMIDOM program.355

In October 1961, the central government finalized the generaldirectives of a new program that aimed at the transfer of the over-seas population to France. Officially elaborated to oppose thenegative effects of a steadily increasing population in the FrenchOverseas Departments356 as well as a poor economic situation (thesignificant increase in the number of the unemployed and conse-quent decrease in purchasing power), this new program, entitledBUMIDOM, was in effect for 19 years (from 1962 to 1981) duringwhich 42,689 Guadeloupeans moved to France.357 The idea here isnot to ponder the legitimacy of such a program or its hiddengoals,358 but rather to explain its significance for the evolution ofsecond homes.

Indeed, since the sudden increase in second homes occurredright at the launching period of the BUMIDOM program, it seemsplausible that this increase actually reflected a process in which anumber of main residences were turned into second homes, in di-rect proportion to the number of people who went to live in France(Table 23). The simultaneous drop in numbers of main residencesand growth of empty houses seem to corroborate this hypothesis.In the same way, the decline in numbers of second homes duringthe years 1982-1990 could be seen as corresponding to the return ofa portion of this emigrant population, (nicknamed the“negropolitain”)359 which is also acknowledged by statistics (Table24). However, other factors also need to be considered after theBUMIDOM period, for the new increase in second homes (after1999) and the persistent growth of empty houses, cannot only beconsidered to be simply a consequence of BUMIDOM.

354 Bourdieu, P. Les struc-tures sociales de l’économie,Ed. Seuil, 2000.355 BUMIDOM stands forBUreau pour le dévelop-pement des Migrationsintéressant les Départe-ments d’Outre-Mer.356 This is corroborated bythe population perspectivesestablished by INSEE. Itseems legitimate that thecentral government wasworried. In March 1965,INSEE predicted that theGuadeloupean populationwould double by 1985,reaching the 555,924inhabitants. Source: Annu-aire Statistique de la Guade-loupe. Today, with approx-imately 440,000 inhabi-tants in 2003, the predic-tion becomes an anecdote.357 Anselin, A. L’émigrationantillaise en France, la trois-ième Ile, Karthala, 1990.358 Some critically com-pared it to “a genocide bysubstitution”.359 A contraction of twowords: negro (black) andmétropolitain (metropoli-tan) that designated theGuadeloupean citizenfrom mainland France.

158

Finally, the evolution of the number of housing further demon-strates the importance of local features while studying the housingsector. Once more, the statistical review shows an irregular evolu-tion, very different from that of France in its details. Perhaps theindirect effects of the BUMIDOM program can partly explain thesmall increase in housing numbers from 1961 to 1974 (the launch-ing period of the program), and the continuous expansion between1982 and 1990 (end of BUMIDOM program). Yet, they do not ex-plain the revival of housing construction between 1974 and 1982, ata time when migration towards France reached its peak (Table 24).It is actually by looking at the quality of the housing stock (Table20), that we arrive at an interpretation. Indeed, the 1974-1982 pe-riod was characterized in Guadeloupe by the significant rise ofmultifamily housings (five times what existed in 1974), reflectinghow the departure of a portion of the population was compensatedby the central government’s policy of promoting housing com-plexes. Another possibility for explaining the augmentation ofmultifamily housing is the land-speculation process, which by re-straining the individual access to land ownership and privatehomes, reinforced the need of multifamily housings built by thestate or the municipalities.

Furthermore, comparison with metropolitan figures supportsthe specificity of local practices. Indeed, if by the early 1980s statis-tics for Guadeloupe and France reveal a similar variation in theirhousing numbers, the two following decades show a profoundlydifferent evolution. While Guadeloupe’s housing sector is markedat first by growth and the persistence of a relatively high variation,in France the same sector is at first characterized by a slump andthen by a very small revitalization (Table 25).

On the other hand, in Guadeloupe multifamily housing hascontinuously increased since 1974, whereas in France, it has con-tinuously decreased. Thus, it becomes evident that housing poli-cies implemented in France and Guadeloupe could be of a differentnature, adapting to (or perhaps compensating for?) the localspecificities.

In conclusion, it is obvious that the realization of equality andmodernization was a slow process, influenced by local situationsand the strong position of the central government. Moreover, intheir general context, the form taken by implementation programsreveals that, at first, the transition from colonial to departmentalgovernance was not a rupture, but rather a continuity of colonialpractices. The general level of modernization was still consideredto be the dominating priority, rather than the modernization levelof individuals: the same programs were in use, word-for-word,before and after 1946.360 The budget distribution (Table 26)361,moreover, seems to confirm this. However, the 1970s marked a

360 For example, one recallsthe program developed inthe aftermath of the 1928hurricane, the same priori-ties were articulatedrespectively in 1941 and1946. Roads and paths, theport of Pointe-à-Pitre andsecondary ports, hygieneand assistance, govern-mental buildings, electrifi-cation of Guadeloupe,education, new plans ofurban development andembellishment in thecommunes, were still theworks to be undertaken.Source: CAOM, fm,1tp/623 and fm,1/affpol/2640.Note: The recent Loid’orientation pour l’Outre-mer law on December 13th,2000 aimed at the econo-mic, territorial andemployment developmentin overseas departments,still puts, for example, thechapter on traffic organi-zation before the chapteron housing rights. Source:Journal Officiel. Loin°2000-1207, Titre Ier andTitre V.361 Looking at both theresults of the work accom-plished by 1940 and the1946 budget distribution,it is easy to note that whatconcerns the island’s gene-ral development is favoredto the detriment of whatconcerns personal develop-ment. Source: idem.

159

turn because parallel to the clear loss of French colonies, the im-plantation of supportive governance362 led to a specific form ofdevelopment, whose forms are still visible and in use today.

Yet, if the previous analysis proposed a general survey of the phe-nomenon, a more detailed approach is now needed, for 2 elementscome to reinforce the idea that further contradictions might exist.

The first lies in the fact that the study of general figures does notprovide a precise image of the local existing reality. For example,in the analysis of the evolution of main residences and population(Table 8), the agglomeration Pointe-à-Pitre/Abymes/Gosier/Baie-Mahault/Lamentin/Petit-Bourg is without doubt the one thathas developed the most in continental Guadeloupe. Nonetheless, acase-by-case study discloses how the communes of Pointe-à-Pitreand Lamentin are far from following the agglomeration’s globalevolution: Pointe-à-Pitre is actually the city growing the least in

Percentage of realized works by 1940 (%) Budget’s repartition for 1946 (%)

The port of Pointe-à-Pitre 100 9.5

Electricity 99 6

Hygiene and assistance 80 6

Roads and paths 62 28.5

Administrative buildings 42 16

Secondary ports 35 2

Drainage and water systems 19 18

Other 13 4

Table 26: Comparison between results in 1940 and budget distribution for 1946.Source: CAOM, fm,1tp/623 and fm,1/affpol/2640.Note: When looking at the results of the work accomplished by 1940, it seems understand-able that a small part of the budget was dedicated to the “port of Pointe-à-Pitre”, “electric-ity” and “hygiene and assistance” programs because they averaged 90% success. Moresurprising is the remaining budget distribution. Indeed, despite their evident lack of results(all together less than 50%!), the “secondary ports”, “urban planning” and “education”programs still individually received less budget than that attributed to the three programsranked first for their results. Furthermore, if the budget’s emphasis on the “roads andpaths”, “administrative buildings” and “drainage and water system” programs was un-derstandable, for none of these programs were fully successful, their themes, mainly relatedto the development of the island’s equipment and governmental assets, makes us wonderabout the scale of improvement at which level the development was desired. Thus, could itbe suggested that what made the island work from the trade, economic and institutionalperspectives was firstly developed (and mostly around the main cities Pointe-à-Pitre andBasse-Terre), whereas what concerned the development of smaller towns (concerned byboth “secondary ports” and “urban planning” programs) and the access for all to educa-tion was definitely relegated to the last priorities.

However, the high results carried by the “hygiene and assistance” programs, as wellas by its “honorable” rank (fifth) in the budget distribution of 1946 also prove that anyclear-cut statement needs to be nuanced. Many minutes of municipal meetings are relatedto the donation of clothes, money, books for “miserable families” by the municipalities. Yet,similar to 1935, in 1941 22 health care centers were still planned to be built.

Furthermore, when looking at the sources of the document, it also appears that anotherinterpretation could be given. Indeed, the numbers from 1940 are issued from the govern-ment of Guadeloupe, from the public works departments, whereas the numbers from 1946are a law. Could it be that some results were overestimated?

362 Not only presentthrough administrativestructures but also by theamount of money that ispiped in yearly, compen-sating for Guadeloupe’sdeficient trade balance.

160

Table 27: The evolution of the number of main residences compared to the populationevolution, 1961-1999 (dependencies not included). Source: INSEE.

Guadeloupe, even losing population (Table 27).On the other hand, the inhabitants’ practices and their ways of

considering and living space constitute a second element worthy offurther consideration. Indeed, if the town of Gosier, for example,figures at the top of the list of towns for its increasing number ofmain residences (1st rank) and that of its population (2nd rank)from 1961 to 1999 (Table 27), there is a reality that is not repre-sented by the numbers. Indeed, the numbers do not reflect the fol-lowing facts such as roads that are not necessarily tarred orconcreted; waste waters that do not necessarily go to the appropri-ate sewer, as well as the fact that the electricity does not necessarilycome from the right transformer, or that small wooden houses canbe adjacent to brand new multistoried concrete buildings, etc. Forthis reason, it is now time to return to the case studies for a betterappreciation the of modernization’s impact on the ways on living.

By order of importance 1961-1999

Communes with the highest evolution in the count of main residence in population

Gosier 4.1 2.4

Baie-Mahault 4 3.2

Les Abymes 3 2

Petit-Bourg 2.9 2.1

Goyave 2.8 2.6

Saint-Francois 2.6 1.7

Sainte-Anne 2.3 1.6

Petit-Canal 2 1.5

Sainte-Rose 1.7

Communes with slower evolution

Vieux-Fort 1.9 1.3

Deshaies 1.2

Lamentin 1.8 1.5

Le Moule 1.3

Bouillante, Morne-à-l’Eau 1.1

Capesterre 1.7 1.2

Saint-Claude, Gourbeyre 1.6 1.1

Vieux-Habitants 1.2

Pointe-Noire, Baillif 1.5 1

Trois-Rivières, Port-Louis 1.3 0.9

Basse-Terre 0.8

Anse-Bertrand 1.2 1

Pointe-à-Pitre 1 0.7

161

9. TYPOMORPHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS

This chapter focuses on a typological analysis to obtain a moreaccurate picture of the bourg’s built space as shaped by moderniza-tion.

At the same time, the analysis of modernization processesshould not hide the fact that, actually, even if plans, maps, archivesprovide information on the built space of the bourg, the bourg, likeevery place, possesses a special alchemy based on social relationsthat gives life to its typomorphological realities. Thus, it is notonly an understanding of one town’s design and production that isproposed, but also a glimpse into its uses, into the meaning attrib-uted to its space by its inhabitants.

However, due to the lack of available documents on the earliestyears of the time span under scrutiny, more than once the follow-ing analysis is restricted to the last 30 years (1970-2000) and relieson conjectural plans, thus considerably limiting shrewdness andprecision.

After the results of the morphological analysis, temporal cross-sections, that are extracts of the Cadastre on a 1/2000 scale, arecombined with governmental archives as well as construction andurban planning texts to conduct the typological analysis. Most ofthe typological considerations have been made possible by per-sonal site survey, as well as by interviews with the owners of thebuildings. The typological analysis starts with an examination ofthe plot patterns and the building position within the plot layout,to end with the analysis of building plans.

Finally, it has been decided to narrow the presentation of theanalysis results to a restricted area of the bourg in each case, withthe chosen area being representative enough of the bourg’s mor-phological patterns and typological characteristics. In the firststage, it was thought best to select a similar area size in each bourgto facilitate the comparison between the two bourgs, yet veryquickly it became clear that it was not a necessary condition. In-deed, the main reason lies in the fact that the aim of this part is toexplore the spatial transformations that have occurred over timeaccording to specific local dynamics. Thus, the selected areasshould not necessarily depend on criteria that would be commonto the two bourgs (such as a strict similar size of analyzed area or astrictly similar dissection of the time span) but rather, would de-pend on criteria that would reflect the spatial configurations ofeach bourg. Thus, the comparison makes it possible to answer theinitial questions about transformations and dynamics by examin-ing the “simple” intention of documentation.

In each selected area, every single existing building has been

162

systematically visited or documented,363 except in the case of re-fusal or absence by the owner. Finally, in both case studies, Gosierand Trois-Rivières, it can be estimated that less than 10% of thebuildings in each restricted area have not been visited. Yet, theinaccessibility of some buildings cannot be considered as havingan impact on the generalization of the results, for it concerns onlya small amount of them, and most importantly, it remains possibleto recognize which type those unvisited buildings fall into.

Finally, for materialistic considerations it was not possible todisplay all the plans obtained from the site survey (over 700). Themain condition used for selecting the buildings that would be pre-sented in this work once more refers to their representative qual-ity. As such, it is not only the material of a building, its height, size,aesthetic or function that matters, but rather its spatial configura-tion and transformations through time. This is the reason why thisstudy avoids categorization into functions, because each selectedarea is considered to be undivided and indivisible whole.

For a better reading of house plans, the distinction amongbuilding materials is emphasized in the displayed figures,whereas the abbreviation of functions are given for each room.

9.1 Gosier

As in all of Guadeloupe, the development of infrastructure andurban services in Gosier became a priority in the late 1960s, en-hanced by a governmental policy centered on tourist developmentand by the first attempts to execute the new planning regula-tions.364

On average and over the years, statistics show how the com-mune improved its public facilities,365 its road network (from 38km. in 1974 to 81 km. by 1983);366 access to electricity, runningwater, and a sewer system (by 1999 reaching better results thanthose of Guadeloupe as a whole).367 Similarly, with regard to thehousing sector, the characteristics and type of evolution observedfor the whole Guadeloupe are identical to those observed inGosier: a housing sector marked by continuous growth, gettingcloser and closer to metropolitan standards, dominated by strongownership and one-family housing.

However, few numbers are available to depict the situation inthe bourg. Similarly, little information exists to explain moderni-zation precisely at the typological level. This is what the next fewlines are all about.

As previously seen in Part III, the bourg of Gosier is characterizedtoday by settlement along a main axis, parallel to the seashore and

363 Indeed, in the case of arepetitive house plan, suchas row housing or block ofapartments, one samplewas sufficient.364 For example, in 1968,one strategic plan for thegeneral direction ofdevelopment (SDAU)within the area encom-passing the communes ofPointe-à-Pitre/ LesAbymes/ Gosier isapproved by the Prefectand the General Council.Source: Arch.Dép.Gua.Fonds ADUAG, 1246W49.365 For example, theconstruction of a newhealth center, new schoolsand the renovation of theoldest buildings, as wellas the building of astadium, a House forYouth and Culture, etc., inearly 1970s. Source:CAOM, bib, som, d3905.366 Source: INSEE.367 Source: idem.

163

spreading south and north, specifically in the shape of a comb onits northern part. Morphologically, the bourg’s historical develop-ment led to three principal residential urban areas, different inform and manner of development, namely the coastal, central andinland areas (Fig. 128). The central area is the oldest settlementarea, followed by the development of the coastal area in the mid-1950s. It is only in the 1960s that the inland area significantly devel-oped, its eastern part (Mangot) being comprehensivelyredeveloped in the 1990s into its present form.

Since the condition of selecting an area to conduct a precise sitesurvey was that this area should be representative of the bourg; inthe case of the bourg of Gosier, the selected area took the form of across-section including each three distinct above-mentioned mor-phological areas. On the other hand, the location of this cross-sec-tion in the bourg was determined by the accessibility of historicaldocuments (e.g. cadastral plans or building permits prior to the1990s) which were necessary to be able to draw conclusions on thetransformation of building types and of the whole area over theyears. This explains why the eastern side of the bourg has beenchosen: it is the most recently developed and best documented, aswell as displays each three distinct urban areas (Fig. 129). Further-more, it is equally representative of the diversity of types met, forexample, in the center or the eastern side of the bourg.

Besides, since it appears that within the study’s time span, mor-phological periods were revealed (1928-1954, 1955-1989 and 1990-2003), the typological analysis of Gosier relies on three temporalcross-sections, which reflect these periods and simultaneously takeinto account the main phases of modernization displayed by statis-tics: a non-return change in the building material after 1955 and aconstant increasing level of housing facilities after the 1970s.

9.1.1 The pre-1955 period

In the 1950s, the bourg was reduced to a line of settlements andpublic buildings on both sides of the main street, although theseeds of development towards the seashore had already beenplanted. The A. Clara Boulevard was not yet finished, but a fewbuildings stood in this southern part of the bourg, among them thePergola Hotel.

In the same way that cadastral maps were not available,368 veryfew plans or drawings were found to describe the type of buildingsexisting in Gosier between 1928 and the mid-1950s. However, theaccounts given by inhabitants and archival materials indicate thata dwelling was most often a single-storey wooden house dividedinto several communicating rooms, with external kitchen and wa-

368 Because of the time spanof this study, which is verycontemporary, suchdocuments, when they doexist, are protected by alaw that guarantees theprivacy of third parties.

164

Figure 128: The morphological organization of the bourg of Gosier, 2003. Source:Based on the cadastral map and asite survey. (KD)

Figure 129: The bourg of Gosier and the selected area. Based on the cadastral map of1991. (KD)

165

Figure 130: The plan of the Billy House, Gosier (1929). Source: Based on Arch. Dép.Gua. Sc 6265, Municipal minutes of Gosier, March 27th, 1929. (KD)

ter space (“case-à-eau”) located in the backyard. This is confirmedin the two documents found, which are property selling deeds be-tween third parties and Gosier’s municipality. In the first case, thedeed concerns the construction of a new school after the 1928 hurri-cane, while the second is concerned with creating the new A. ClaraBoulevard in the early 1950s:

“It is a wooden house with a main body of 4.10 metres by3.55 metres. It is divided into 3 communicating rooms of4.10x3.55m, 4.10x2.30m, and 4.10x2.40m. At the southern end,there is a small room in the form of a shed of 4.10x2.35m. Onthe eastern, northern and western sides of the main body, anopen gallery was built. It was destroyed by the hurricane,except for the 3.5m long part that was built as a kitchen andwater space at the gallery’s south end.”369 (Fig. 130)

“The construction of new streets in Gosier’s bourgnecessitated the moving of one house (…). This houseincluded:A - The dwelling in wood of 8.40 x 5.25, with masonryfoundations, metal sheet roof, ceiling, divided in 4 rooms.Good shape.B - A wooden kitchen-cabin of 4.50 x 2.40 with floor, metalsheet roof. Good shape.C - A wooden shed of 3.60 x 2, without floor, metal sheetroof. Bad shape.”370

369 Source: Arch. Dép. Gua.Sc 6265, Municipalminutes of Gosier, March27, 1929. «C’est une maisonen bois dont le corps princi-pal est de 4,10x8,20. Elleest divisée en trois piècesayant 4,10 x 3,55, 4,10 x2,30, 4,10 x 2,40 se commu-niquant entre elles. A l’ext-rémité sud, se trouve unepetite pièce en formed’appentis de 4,10 x 2,35.Sur les côtés est, nord etouest de ce corps principalétait construite une galerieouverte. Démolie par lecyclone, sauf la partie de3,50m de longueur aména-gée en cuisine et case-à-eau,à l’extrémité sud de lagalerie ouest.»370 Source: Arch. Dép. Gua.Sc 2226, Municipal mi-nutes of Gosier, February4, 1955. «Les travaux deconstruction de rues nou-velles dans le bourg duGosier ont nécessité ledéplacement d’une maison(…).Cette constructioncomprenait: A- Une maisond’habitation en bois de 8,40x 5,25 avec soubasse-menten maçonnerie, toiture entôle ondulée, sous-plafond,divisée en 4 pièces. Bon état.B- Un cabanon- cuisine enbois de 4,50 x 2,40 avecplancher, toiture tôleondulée. Bon état. C- Unappentis en bois de 3,60 x 2sans plancher, couverturetôle. Mauvais état.»

166

Figure 131: The location of the houses built before 1950 in the bourg of Gosier.Source: Based on a site survey and IGN 1956 map. (KD)

Figure 132: Similarities in building structures and techniques in pre-1950 buildings. 1:foundation detail; 2, 3 & 4: roof and wall structures; 5 & 6: wooden pegs. (KD) - Seecolour plates.

1 2 3

4 5 6

167

Although no documents refer to systematic proportions or the or-ganization of rooms in the bourg of Gosier, one witness alluded tothe existence of a preconceived type:

“Every house was built on site, following the same model,with a sloping roof. We were looking for qualified workersto build and other people to help. We were buying thematerials in Pointe-à-Pitre and paying by the month. Thetraders, whites from Martinique, were touring thecountryside, offering to work. They were looking forclients.”371

Furthermore, the 12 houses listed by the site survey as built before1950 seem to confirm this existence of a preconceived housing type(Fig. 131). Recent building transformations are present in eachhouse, yet the ease of spotting them and the overall permanency ofthe initial buildings make it possible to compare the plans. In eachcase, what stands out is the similarity found in the building’s gen-eral shape (rectangular two-sloped roof construction), in the choiceof material (wooden structure), in the building method (absence offoundations, relying on a mortise-and-tenon technique, woodenpegs) and in the shaping of the interior space (Fig. 132).

Based on a rectangular plan, the narrow side of the house wasparallel to the streets, rooms were usually connecting (with nocorridor between them) and possessed symmetrical openings intheir 4 walls (either doors or door-windows), thus providing com-municating spaces and natural ventilation (Fig. 133 & 134). Nokitchen or bathroom was included in these plans, for, as alreadystated, they belonged in the backyard. Moreover, neither electric-ity nor running water were installed in any of these buildings atthe time of their construction. The main front room usually servedas a semi-private space (visitors were allowed in), whereas backrooms (and sometimes the smaller front room) were used as bed-rooms.372 Even if one of these buildings is distinct from the othersby its unusual side gallery (Fig. 135),373 it nonetheless presentssimilarities in plan configuration with the other buildings, as wellas building details such as shutters (Fig. 136) and corbelled vaultsto divide the space (Fig. 137). If these examples are too few innumber to establish a generalization, they nonetheless confirm theidea of a building method and spatial design that followed somecommon criteria, but also, as Charré & Flagie, for example, havealready stated,374 obeyed a socio-cultural hierarchy. The gallerywould serve as a public space, then comes the semi-private space(the main room) where one could welcome guests, then the bed-rooms, the core of familial privacy, and finally the kitchen and the

371 Interview with Mrs. C.(born 1912), Gosier 2001-2003. «Chaque maison étaitfaite sur place, selon unmême modèle avec un toit enpente. On cherchait desgens de métier pour con-struire et des personnespour aider. On achetait lematériel à Pointe-à-Pitre eton payait au mois. Les com-merçants, les blancs marti-niquais, allaient dans lescampagnes et proposaientleur travail. Ils étaient à larecherche du client.»372 Actually, because of thefamily’s size (30% of thefamilies had over 6 mem-bers in 1961, source:INSEE), one room hadseveral functions, depen-ding on the time of day: atnight, it served as a bed-room, and when daylightappeared, the bed wasfolded and the room hadother functions. Manyinhabitants mentioned thishabit, as well as novels(see for example,Schwarts-Bart S, Pluie etvent sur Télumée Miracle,Ed. Seuil, 1972, p.23).373 This building appa-rently being the oldest ofthis part of the street (builtaround 1900 in theowners’ opinion), this sidegallery could be explainedas a reminder of the four-side gallery, which haddisappeared when trans-formation occurred. Beingone of the oldest buildings,the side gallery could alsobe built because strongcontiguity did not exist.374 In “Living in the FrenchTropics”, in Europandom,2000, pp. 26-27.

168

Figure 133: An example of a wooden house in Gosier (“la case”). (KD)

169

Figure 134: An example of a wooden house in Gosier (“la case”). (KD)

170

Figure 135: An example of a wooden house in Gosier (“la case”). (KD)

Note: Despite its goodcondition, this building iscurrently vacant,illustrating very well theproblem of co-ownershipin Guadeloupe. Indeed,this building belongs to aman and his sister butnothing can be done unlessboth agree to the samedecision. This becomeseven more complicatedwhen one of them diesbecause the house will thenbelong equally to thechildren of the deceased.The indivisibility law – loisur l’indivision- is asignificant issue inGuadeloupe, explainingwhy there are many vacantlots and buildings.

171

Figure 138: The conjectural plan of the bourg of Gosier, c.1955. Source: Based on asite survey. (K.D)

Figure 136 (above): Wooden shutters, Gosier. (KD) - See colour plate.Figure 137 (below): Wooden inner corbelled vaults, Gosier. (KD) - See colour plate.

172

water space which were hidden and protected (both from view andfrom bad intentions)375 in the backyard, which was also importantas a subsistence provider.

The conjectural plan of circa 1955376 appears to confirm thisspatial organization because it displays a dominance of smallfloor-surface buildings (averaging 40m2), with the smaller sideparallel to the street, a gallery on the street side and smaller con-structions (kitchen, water space) in the backyard (Fig. 138). On thechosen site, only one building (the largest building in the south-west area) is separate from the others, but its use explains thisparticularity (it was dedicated to educational activities),377 whileall the other buildings were used as housing (although the sellingof goods was a registered activity in some of them, most often inthe gallery). Finally, building type seemed relatively homogene-ous in the pre-1955 period, reflecting what statistics showed (e.g.dominance of one-family wooden houses) and what previous re-search conducted in Guadeloupe378 tended to state, namely, theexistence of a specific housing type. The major reference on thissubject remains the work of Berthelot & Gaume,379 who describedthe traditional “case” (the name for this housing type) as a “Basictwo room hut, (…) rectangular volume surmounted by a two-sloped roof,[such as] the most common construction measures 6 by 3 metres, themeasurement of the hut being nonetheless variable.”380

9.1.2 The 1955-1988 period

As shown by the morphological context, the next decades were toradically transform the bourg, for the first impact of seashore de-velopment’s policy could be felt. Even if morphologically thethree distinct urban structures were set up in the late 1950s, it wasonly in the 1980s they achieved maturity through a considerabledensification. Thus, shifting between two temporal cross-sectionsfor the 1955-1988 period (1972 and 1986 cadastral maps) wasthought to provide a better understanding of the evolution ofbuilding types.

During this period, modernization such as access to electricityand water networks was undertaken. Although a plan of electrifi-cation for 1955 displayed the existence of a real network along themain axis of the bourg (Fig 46), whether this network providedelectricity inside each house or only for the street remains uncer-tain at this time. When corroborating the statistics (Table 18)through interviews, most informants insisted on the fact that it wasnot before the mid-1960s that electricity came into their houses, 381

and, a decade later for running water. One inhabitant, living in thecentral block, recalls:

375 In practice, due to thedanger that fire posed towooden houses, the sepa-ration of the kitchen fromthe main body is easilyunderstood. At the sametime, Charre & Flagie givea social dimension to thisseparation: “The kitchenrelated to the intimacy andwhatever was preparedthere, directly concernedthe family and its health. Ithad to be protected from themalevolent interventions ofpersons with bad inten-tions” in “Living in theFrench Tropics”, op.cit. p.26.376 Drawn after the encoun-ter between the morpho-logical evolution surveywith interviews and a sitesurvey, it was purposelyestablished just before thestart of the significant sea-shore communal planning.It explains why this plan isunfortunately lacking incadastral information.377 Despite its larger size,this building presents thesame building characteris-tics: wood as the mainmaterial, pig and mortisebuilding method, organi-zation en suite, symmetryin the openings.378 For example, Berthelot& Gaume, Kaz antiyé janmoun ka rété, op.cit., or Gio-rdani La Guadeloupe face àson patrimoine, op.cit.,Bégot (dir), La GrandeEncyclopédie de la Caraïbe,op. cit.379 In Kaz antiyé jan moun karété, op.cit. (translation:Bowie, K.)380 Idem, p. 92.381 This is also confirmedby the numbers used byCasimir: in 1967, 68% ofthe main residences didnot have electricity inGosier, whereas the largeportion of the communalbudget attributed to elec-trification in 1974 (20%)proved that there was aneed. Source: Casimir, G.«L’urbanisation de lacommune du Gosier: latransformation d’un bourgrural en une ville touris-tique », op.cit., pp. 245, 258.

173

Figure 139: The cadastre of Gosier for 1972. Source: Based on a site survey andcadastre. (KD)Figure 140: The cadastre of Gosier for 1988. Source: Based on a site survey andcadastre. (KD)

“Until 1960, there was no running water; we were fetchingwater from the ravine. Before, instead of the prison therewas a water container. Otherwise, there were fountains inthe main street (near the cemetery, in iron) and water in thecity hall. In 1976, there was only one tap in the backyard.But afterwards, it all came at once.”382

Yet, the opposite situations existed in the bourg of Gosier, for whatcharacterized the seashore development was that water and elec-tric access were included in the early stage of planning and real-ized in parallel to the building-up of the area. Thus, the questionimmediately arises as to whether modern features are also visiblein the housing design. Actually, through typomorphological evo-lution during the 1955-1989 period of the three urban blocks, itappears that housing typologies differed: the coastal area stoodapart from the other blocks for it remained unchanged (Figs. 139 &140), whereas all the other areas went throughout significant trans-formations in the 1970s.

382 Interview with Mrs. C.(Gosier, 2002). «Jusqu’en1960, il n’y avait pas d’eaucourant[e], on allait cher-cher l’eau dans la ravine.Avant, à la place de la pri-son, il y avait une citerne. Ily avait sinon des fontainesdans la rue principale (prèsdu cimetière, en fer) et del’eau dans la mairie. En1976, il y avait juste unrobinet dans la cour. Maisensuite tout est arrivé enmême temps.»

174

9.1.2.1 The coastal area

More precisely, in the coastal area, homogeneity was noticeable inthe area’s organization: almost all lots were divided according to asame size (around 1800m2), of the same shape and perpendicular tothe street. All the buildings on a privately owned parcel also had asimilar position in the lot, slightly off the street but in line with it,and they were surrounded by space, in the front and in the back.

Homogeneity was again visible in the architectural features ofthe area’s buildings. The floor surface was generally more than120m2, usually repeated on two or three floors (Fig. 141). Almostall designed by the architects Corbin and/or Amarias, these build-ings echoed, in many aspects, a modern architectural bias, not onlyin the choice of material (mainly glass and concrete), but also in thedesign proper.

Although not a single owner in this area allowed me the oppor-tunity to look at their house’s plan,383 a sketch was made in accord-ance with one owner’s own description (Fig. 142) and I visited oneabandoned house (Fig. 143). This information together with theexternal observation384 of the inaccessible buildings suggest thatrupture with the wooden type observed for the pre-1955 periodhad occurred. Indeed, the white box-shape type of house with a flatroof, large balconies and large glass windows towards the sea, astaircase-like back facade and big proportions surrounded by aheavy fenced garden was strongly represented in this area (Fig.144). But most important is the fact that this type of building,through its general aspect as well as in its details, shows independ-ence from the socio-spatial context. The change in the traditionalrelationship to the yard, from a subsistence garden to a purelyornamental one (in fact, those lots were sold as uncultivablelots),385 is evident, also reflecting the change in the composition ofthe population (to one that does not need farming).

383 Actually, only architectCorbin Michel graciouslysent me the plan of hishouse. Unfortunately,although his house is alsolocated on the shore, itdoes not belong to thechosen area. However, theinaccessibility of thosehouses cannot have animpact on the generaliza-tion of the results becausethe type to which theybelong is known throughneighborhood site survey.384 Observations weremade from land, but alsofrom the sea from whichthe back facades of thesehouses are visible.385 Source: Boutrin, formerhead of ADUAG,interview 2002.

Figure 141: Examples of the main fronts of buildings in the coastal area of Gosier.(KD) - See colour plates.

175

Figure 142: ‘Sketch plan’ of the first floor of a house in the coastal area of Gosier. (KD)

176

Figure 143: The first floor of a house in the coastal area of Gosier. (KD)

Note: The building was under construction when Hurricane Hugo hit in 1989, whichshut down the construction site.

177

Figure 144: Some back facades of the coastal houses in Gosier (KD) - See colourplate.Figure 145 (right): Examples of the architectural modern style. (KD) - See colour plate.

At the same time, even though alignment with the street was re-spected, the position of the building in the lot, the fence surround-ing the lot and the diversity of the plans (from square to T-plan)differ from a consensual building orientation. In fact, the relationto the street did not seem as primordial as that to the panorama. Inthe three available plans, the main room faces the sea. This phe-nomenon bears some influence on the way the coastal area is expe-rienced and viewed from the street, for the transition space, beforerepresented by galleries, had disappeared. On the contrary, fencesand the position of the house (in the middle of its lot) isolated thebuilding in a 100% private space, making it inaccessible.

In some cases, this separation was even more emphasized whensome architectural principles dear to Le Corbusier were inte-grated, such as pillars which separate the built space between acreated open space and the above living unit (Fig. 145).

Since the function of the coastal area’s buildings was mainlyresidential, as in the other areas, the explanation for this phenom-enon is to be found in other criteria such as the specific populationthat these houses were intended for (mostly “upper” social classindividuals),386 the parallel with a growing interest in tourist-linked activities and the early implementation of strict urban regu-lations.

9.1.2.2 The central block

On the central block, the heterogeneity of lots, their transforma-tion over the years as well as visible building changes were themain features and processes emerging from the general observa-tion of 1972 and 1988 cadastral maps (Fig. 139 &140).

Although the form of the block remained unchanged duringthe time span studied, lots were irregular in size (from 90 m2 to1200m2), in shape (except in the eastern end of the block), but weresimilar in their private ownership, except for one parcel that be-

386 Recall the unofficialmunicipal incentive, PartIII, p. 113.

178

Figure 146: The reduction of block crossings in Gosier, 1972-2003. Based on a sitesurvey. (KD)

longed to the central government (that of the health care center). Ifthose features remained almost identical throughout the 1980s, thedensification of the built space and the intensification of the divi-sion of the lots modified the block’s inner organization. Unlike1972 when small proportions of the lot were built (less than 1/3),thus allowing north-south gateways from one boulevard to an-other and east-west passages within the block, by 1988 lots wereentirely or largely built, depriving the block of its transversal ac-cesses (Fig. 146).

The major feature that emerged during the 1955-1988 periodwas the increase in building size, horizontally (doubling of thefloor surface) and vertically (one or two extra stories). Neverthe-less, in order to better understand the transformation of housingtypes in the 1980s, it is necessary to explicitly describe them as theywere in 1972.

By 1972, built space on the central block was characterized by amixing of two main housing types aligned with the street: on theone hand, there was the dominant group of small floor surfacesingle-story wooden buildings (around 40m2) and on the other, thelarge floor surface multistoried concrete buildings.

179

Figure 147: An example of a wooden house built after 1950 in central Gosier. (KD)

180

In the first group, buildings showed little space at their sidesand much more behind them, with the persistent feature of severalconstructions on a given lot (kitchen and water space in thebackyard).387 This group included the remaining houses built be-fore 1955 (whose type had been previously described), as well asmore recent buildings, which, surprisingly, returned to the samebuilding type (Fig. 147). However, a certain simplification in thedetails (e.g. disappearance of the corbelled vault and gingerbreaddecoration), in the building method (e.g. regarding the loadingstructure and the paneling) and the quality of the wood employed(standardized boards of smaller size) clearly draw the distinctionbetween pre and post-1955 buildings.

Yet, this distinction was erased when confronted with a newbuilding process: the introduction of concrete in the house throughextension by the addition of new rooms with concrete walls orsolidification by the replacement of the former wooden walls byconcrete ones.

Although such changes remained rare in 1972 (less than 10% ofthe buildings were concerned), by 1988 they concerned all of thebuildings. Extended or solidified388 by concrete (Fig. 148), mostoften in the interest of “progress” (shower room, new kitchen) orto resist better hurricanes, the plans of these buildings clearly sub-stantiate the transformations that occurred since 1972.

Nonetheless, the initial spatial organization was not ques-tioned but rather supported by the successive filling-up of the lot.All of the formerly separate elements were now gathered into onebuilding, which explains why in many cases the kitchen and bath-room remained in the back of the building (Fig. 149, or 134 & 135).However, it is not possible to state whether the encirclement or theextension in length of the initial building was preferred. There is alack of precise data concerning the history of lot and the logging ofchanges is often lacking.

Figure 148: Some examples of housing solidifications on their main façade in centralGosier. (KD) - See colour plates.

387 According to Casimir,in 1967, 50% of the mainresidences had an externalkitchen working with oil,coal or wood. It is unlikelythat 5 years later thisamount had drasticallydecreased. The 1972 mapconfirms this. Source:Casimir, G. «L’urbanisa-tion de la commune duGosier: la transformationd’un bourg rural en uneville touristique», op.cit., p.258.388 For ease of language, theterms «solidify» or «soli-dification» of a house willbe used henceforth, despitethe false interpretationthey may introduce: awooden house is not neces-sarily less solid than aconcrete one (as evidencedby the amount of woodenhouses that resisted hurri-canes better). Rather, theseterms refer to the end ofhousing mobility: withconcrete, houses could nolonger be lifted up andcarried to a new spot, ahabit frequently describeduntil the late 1970s inGuadeloupe.

181

Figure 149: An example of housing transformation in central Gosier. Plan courtesy ofthe owner / (KD)

182

Figure 150 (left): An example of housing transformation inGuadeloupe. Source: Berthelot & Gaume, Kaz antiyé jan moun karété, op.cit., p. 160.Figure 151 (below): Extensions of the initial wooden houses (upperwestern corner of the central block) in the bourg of Gosier. (KD) -See colour plate.Figure 152 (bottom): Street facades of the 1972 concrete housingtype in the central block of Gosier. (KD) - See colour plates.

183

Nevertheless, these transformations were also very visible in theoverall appearance of the building (Fig. 150). Apart from the mate-rial (concrete bricks) that inevitably introduced a different build-ing method, the general impoverishment of details and themastering of the material made even more striking the coexistenceof two building methods and designs. For example, the diminutionof the roof’s slope, while maintaining the initial roof in the case ofhousing extension, reveals the compromise resulting betweenfrom the lack of material mastering, the hope for better days (wheneventually an upper floor could be built) and the desire to attain acertain model (terrace-roof) (Fig. 151).

Knowing that in the central block, concrete became the domi-nant material at the end of the 1980s, one can appreciate its typo-logical influence, for buildings did otherwise conserve the sameattributes in their use, land ownership, and overall inner organiza-tion.

On the other hand, there was the group of multistoried concretebuildings. This other group displayed in the central block in 1972 isstrongly reminiscent of seashore housing: multistoried concretebuildings, with a large floor surface, settled in the middle of the lot(Fig. 152), although a true typological similarity cannot be con-firmed due to the lack of plans. Perhaps these houses were actuallypart of the development program initiated in 1955 on the coastalarea, for they are all located on the block’s southern side, but nodocument could confirm this hypothesis and the owners wereuntraceable. The only plan available is that of the health carecenter, which cannot really be compared with the neighboringhousing type because of its public use (Fig. 153). Yet its resolutelymodern architectural vocabulary was in harmony with the coastalhousing type.

In 1988, new389 concrete buildings represented 20% of the hous-ing stock. Most of them gave the impression of maintaining a cer-tain typological continuity with the coastal housing type by theirexternal look (again multistoried box-shape concrete houses allfacing the sea, see Fig. 154). This idea has its limits, however, forsome houses were actually designed from the start as mixed struc-tures with a concrete basement, wooden and concrete first floor,and with clear references to the old wooden type.

If some buildings presented plans with few connections to thewooden type due to an inner space divided by corridors and theirassociation of comfort (e.g. sanitary or balcony) to individual use,they nevertheless presented some similarities (e.g. in the positionof the kitchen, relegated to the back façade or in the position of themain room as a transitional space, Fig. 155). Others were moreobviously organized after a succession of rectangular rooms com-

389 As already noted, everysingle building of thecentral block used concreteby 1988; here the focus isprecisely on buildings,which are not extensionsor transformations of aninitial wooden building.

184

Figure 153: The plan of the health centre of Gosier, its placement in the bourg, and aview of the main facade. (KD)

Figure 154: New concrete houses built between 1972 and 1988 on the central block inGosier. (KD) - See colour plates

185

Figure 155: Concrete house based on a wooden type (Gosier’s inland area). Plancourtesy of the owner / (KD)

186

municating with each other and relegating kitchen and bathroomin the back, or after the encircling process of an original core (Fig.156). Thus, it becomes evident that a certain permanency in thetraditional spatial organization was realized, while the adjunctionof modern attributes (indoor bathroom and kitchen as the expres-sion of access to water and electricity networks) were integratedinto the design.

Yet, another significant feature concerning these new concretebuildings was the emergence of multifamily housing (Fig. 157).The multifamily housing, built in 1981, at first seemed to respectwhat was usually displayed: the smaller façade is parallel to thestreet and the building in alignment with the other buildings.Nonetheless, the multifamily building’s proportions (basement,ground floor and two upper floors) clearly contrasted with theneighborhood’s one-floor houses (Fig. 158).

Furthermore, since the building filled up the entire lot, it wasdistinct from the others, for it eliminated the traditional yard’s use(as a means of subsistence or later as an enhancement), as well asthe potential in every smaller house to extend. At the same time,since the building was conceived for mixed use as housing with abusiness on the ground floor in the early design, the new functionbrought significant change to the area, which was dominated byresidential housing.

On the other hand, the fact that several families were living in asame building was also another major differentiation factor, notonly for the new kinds of relationships it created but, more impor-tantly, in the manner of occupancy. If the bigger housing unitswere designed so that the main room served as a transition spacebetween the private and semi-private space, and the location of thebedroom referred to the traditional design (in the private corner ofthe apartment, see Fig. 159), the location of the bathroom and thekitchen in a middle block showed some contrast with the moretraditional organization. These plans reveal a different concept ofspatial organization, which becomes even clearer when looking atthe smaller unit. There, traditional order was totally reversed withthe bedroom and bathroom right at the entrance, while the mainroom and kitchen side by side opened up onto the street via abalcony (Fig. 159). Yet, the fact that one wall of the bedroom isactually a movable partition brings to mind the possibility that thearchitect, living in Guadeloupe, intentionally designed it that wayin order to leave the choice of usage up to the occupant. Indeed,when this partition is open, the room can very well serve as a semi-private space, and the room behind it as a private one, which isreminiscent of an already existing socio-spatial hierarchy.

187

Figure 156: Concrete house in the central district of Gosier, 1988. Plan courtesy of thetown / (KD).

188

Figure 157: The first multi-family housing in Gosier’s central area. Plan courtesy ofDoctor Duhamel / (KD)

189

Figure 158: Contrast between single-family housing and multi-family housing inGosier. (KD) - See colour plate.

Figure 159: The two types of living units in the multi-family housing, Gosier. Plancourtesy of Doctor Duhamel. (KD)

190

9.1.2.3 The inland area

Regarding the last area, some typological processes were identicalto those found in the central block, yet the lots’ specificities ini-tially present in the inland area introduced also a morphologicaldifferentiation that was not without consequence to the housingtype.

To begin with, what characterized the area, whether in 1972 or1988, was the coexistence of very large-sized lots, over 4000m2,marked by an absence of regularity in their division, with smallerlots (less than 100m2), concentrated in areas having direct contactwith the street (Figs. 139 & 140). Lots continued to be divided overthe years, but without any regular patterns.

Another element persisting throughout the 1955-1988 periodwas the relationship between the position of the buildings withregard to their lots and the plot pattern. Indeed, whether along themain street or at random positions, the choice of settlement re-flected the fact that the street network (if one dares to call the sandypaths such) and structure of land use were organized without anyreference to plot pattern. Historically, land organization into plan-tations rather than town districts explains this specificity. Twoother factors however keep it alive: the fact modernist planningpractice was concerned with the estate rather than with the plot,390

and, a locally-specific reason, the fact that the area lacked munici-pal management.

Furthermore, the status of the owner (private or public) and thebuilding did not seem to have great influence on the building andlot layout. Indeed, the construction of a school in 1976, in an areawhere lots were 100% privately owned, did not disturb either ofthe building production or the lot layout. Rather, the position ofthe new school and its annexes, as well as the shape of the lot itself,are testimonies to the randomness observed in the inland area as awhole.

Regarding the building typology in 1988, what characterizedthe area was a housing stock equally represented in wood andconcrete, as well as equally mixed in size. These are surprisingfeatures, for the building statement of 1972 (dominance of smallwooden houses, reference to the same old wooden type) couldhave suggested an evolution parallel to the one observed in thecentral block. On the contrary, in this case, if a similar process ofhousing solidification and extension was recognizable between1972 and 1988, two factors actually withstood extensive generaliza-tion. The first refers to the persistence of a small floor surfacewooden type, and the second to the new building interpretationsprovided by the use of concrete.

390 For more on the changein planning before andafter World War II, seeCherry, G. Cities and Plans,Edward Arnold, London,1988, for example.

191

Figure 160: The permanency of wooden housing in Gosier’s inland area. (KD)

192

Although by 1988, wooden houses no longer represented thebuilding majority, they still represented 37% of this area’s housingstock.391 Taking into account that 26% of the 1972 wooden houseshad gone through a partial solidification process, it appears thatwooden core and concrete extension, or sole wooden core, repre-sented the majority of building types. In both cases, the woodencore referred to the same type that was already observed in thecentral block, namely, a simple two-sloped roof case set on stonesof two or more rooms leading into each other, with an externalkitchen and water space (Fig.160). However, as in the central block,building simplification can be observed: gallery and decorationwere missing for the newest wooden constructions.

In comparison, the school, also built of wood (prefabricatedpaneling) was typologically different because its proportions andthe disposition of rooms (one after the other, without communica-tion between them) did not refer to any existing type. The questionremains as to whether this building type could be seen as the earlysign of an underlying municipal urban policy, or a lack of trueplanning, especially if one recalls that it was built in emergencyconditions in 1976 (“Soufrière school”).392

The second element bringing typological specificity to the in-land area concerns the concrete buildings. More than once, the ob-server was surprised by their architectural style, as well as theirdiversity in size and plan, be it in 1972 or 1988. Actually, it wasimpossible to find coherence among the different final plans, and itwas only by being aware of building methods that a reading ofthese plans became possible.

“Step by step building” is the main feature observed in thebuilding process (for 90% of the new buildings).393 At first, a basicdwelling is set up, that may have only one room and sanitary facili-ties, and then other rooms are added over the years, in length,around the initial core, or even on top of it, depending on theneighborhoods, the owner’s financial status as well as on the lot’sparticularities (Fig. 161).

Thus, the result appears to be a compromised version of severalhousing typologies to different degrees. Indeed, in some cases, it ispossible to find spatial organization similar to that of themultifamily housing, which is the division of the spaces accordingto their function. In other cases, concrete houses were built accord-ing to a wooden type (Fig. 162). But most dominant are the “com-promised” versions, where several elements of the coastal housingtype (for example, the building size; the introduction of a corridorproviding access to all the other rooms, or the kitchen’s position inthe front façade) meet with elements from a more traditional hous-ing type. For example, in this two-floor house built in 1978 (Fig.

391 Source: SEMAG,Aménagement du QuartierMangot (Gosier), Etuded’impact, p. 20.392 For a precise reminder,see Part II.393 Actually, this characte-ristic is as relevant forwooden as concrete con-struction.

193

Figure 161: An example of a concrete house built between 1972 and 1988 in Gosier’sinland area. (KD)

194

Figure 162: A concrete building based on an old wooden type, in Gosier’s inland area.(KD)

195

Figure 163: Mixed type in Gosier’s inland area. Plan and facade courtesy of theowner

196

163), the material, size and the importance of the corridor thatclearly separates all of the different first-floor spaces, strongly sug-gest a coastal type. However, the position of the kitchen-bathroomblock (in the back) and of the main room (in the front) is quitereminiscent of the traditional wooden type, as well as the front andside gallery.

Taking into consideration that not a single owner that was in-terviewed had used the services of an architect to design theirhouse in the inland area, and very few (less than 10%) the servicesof a building professional, to build, it becomes evident that self-made design and building was prevalent. This is an important factbecause it confirms another point of similarity with the woodentype initially observed and one of rupture with the mastering de-veloped for the coastal concrete housing type.

Finally, the 1955-1988 period analysis is typologically significantbecause it became possible to pinpoint several distinct housingtypes: original and transformed wooden housing types, multi-family or one-family concrete housing types, wooden or concretepublic buildings. Yet, rather than emphasizing the materials, itwould seem more accurate to talk about these different types interms of appropriation and interpretation for, as previously seen, aconcrete housing type might actually be the exact replica of anoriginal wooden type, apart from the material.

Thus, it is then possible to say that in 1988, except for those inthe coastal area, most of the buildings in the other two areas aremixed products, in which the influence of the traditional woodentype as well as that of the concrete type are visible at various levels.Indeed, the clear persistence of this traditional wooden type on theone hand, and its transformations on the other hand (simplifica-tion, solidification and extension) reveal the impact of its influ-ence, despite a recognized loss of skills (carpentry mastering) andthe change in material (from wood to concrete). At the same time,the nature of its transformations also reflects the influence of an-other type, the one developed in the coastal area, for in many casesthe new concrete housings, whether single or multifamily, couldbe seen as a “reinterpretation” of the coastal type, deprived of itsoriginal social content.

Thus, there is no doubt that the weight of mental representa-tions (e.g. the house facilitating identification with a higher socialclass or with what existed in France, or, another possibility, withwhat is visible on TV) and the appreciation of the owner’s socialstatus as well as his/her perception of architecture have playedtheir part in the building design process. Perhaps this explains thecomplexity of some plans, combining modern standards (e.g. in-

197

Table 28: Housing condition in Gosier’s inland area at the end of the 1980s. Source:SEMAG, Aménagement du Quartier Mangot (Gosier), Etude d’impact, p. 20.

% Wooden house Mixed house Concrete house total

Good 3 25 67 30

Intermediate 11 36 28 23

Bad 86 39 5 47

door kitchen, bathroom, separate bedrooms) and reminders ofmore traditional ways of building and living (e.g. communicatingrooms, galleries).

However, the location of these different types reinforces theimportance given to financial status and to the existence or non-existence of municipal planning in the typological understanding.Indeed, the fact that in the late 1980s inland area was dominated bypoverty (46% of the inland population had a monthly income lessthan € 660 in 1986), poor housing conditions (47% of the housingstock was registered as in poor shape, of which 86% were woodenbuilding, see Table 28), and by a lack of running water and access toelectricity provides some insights into the typological diversitymet in this area, officially declared a “self-built illegal settle-ment”.394

Furthermore, keeping in mind how those buildings were origi-nally developed by inhabitants without any urban regulations, thecoastal block’s homogeneity, born out of a regulatory decision-making process, reflects the contrast between individual and pub-lic involvement in urban development.

On the other hand, the fact that the majority of concrete build-ings (95%) existing in 1988 in the inland area were in good shape,and made reference to the traditional housing spatial organization,proves that the transformation of the initial type is not alwayslinked to social conditions, but rather to a common cultural con-text.395

Therefore, although public development in the coastal area wasdependant on some building imperatives (mainly the position ofthe house in the lot and the restriction of building only one houseper lot), the observed typological difference, despite similarities inuse with the other areas, can also be understood culturally beyondthe financial distinctiveness. Indeed, their allocation to a certainelite, (e.g. lawyers, medical doctors, architects), meant that the newlots were actually assigned to a certain population that had spentmany years abroad (mostly in France) at least for their studies,since Guadeloupe had no university before 1976. Confronted witha different urban surrounding there, it seems plausible that uponreturning to Guadeloupe they wanted the best for their homes.

394 Numbers andconclusion in SEMAG,Aménagement du QuartierMangot (Gosier), Etuded’impact, pp. 20 & 30.395 This is confirmed, forexample, when visiting the400m2 houses built in thecountryside of Gosier (e.g.Grands Fonds). A systema-tic study would be of greatinterest to confirm thepermanency of the tradi-tional spatial organiza-tion, independently fromone’s own resources.

198

9.13 The 1989-2003 period

The 1989-2003 period, after Hurricane Hugo, symbolized an era ofurban renewal for the bourg of Gosier which coincided with a pov-erty eradication program. It took the shape of a redevelopmentprogram (RHI) and housing improvement programs under mu-nicipal management that aimed to offer minimum standards ofliving and a better quality of life to the population. At the sametime, the confirmation of the commune’s status as one of the largertourist towns of the island modified the town’s urban landscape.The combination of these different elements influenced the devel-opment of the three morphological areas.

9.1.3.1 The coastal block

By 2003, the permanency of the coastal block was not questioned ingeneral (Fig. 164), yet the slight change observed in building usebrought some innovation.

If the two buildings now combining private business and resi-dential use had not been externally transformed, the constructionof a hotel brought a new type into this area because its design wasbased on the renting of small studios (Fig. 165).

9.1.3.2 The central block

In the central block, the same process of use diversificationemerged on a block dominated by morphological permanency(Fig. 164): private business and services represented 20% of theblock’ function by 2003. This feature reveals a change in the func-tion usually attributed to the existing building stock (housing), forthe lack of building growth (only 2 new buildings during the 1989-2003 period) proves that it is within houses themselves that diver-sification occurred. Only in three cases were the buildings entirelydevoted to functions other than housing.

On the other hand, one could think that morphological perma-nency might have introduced an ageing of the housing stock, aswell as typological permanency. This seems evident when examin-ing it in detail as it appears that an early process of plot clearancestarted (eight buildings disappeared after Hurricane Hugo). Yet,another process was a counterbalance: the supremacy of concrete asbuilding material for 96 % of the constructions by 2003, whereas in1988 mixed material houses were dominant. This not only meantthat progressively almost all the wooden cores were transformed,but also that new buildings or extensions were entirely built inconcrete, clearly reflecting what statistics revealed (the dominance

199

Figure 164: The cadastre of Gosier of 2003, based on earlier cadastres and a sitesurvey. (KD)

Figure 165: The introduction of new form and use in the coastal block, Gosier. (KD) -See colour plate.

200

Figure 166: A new concrete building, built in 2003 in the central block of Gosier, basedon a traditional housing type. (KD)

201

of concrete after 1990, Table 16). Typologically, it meant the solidi-fication of the traditional housing type and in the case of exten-sions, the transformation of the later type into a new“compromised” version (see again, Fig. 133, 134 & 135).

This phenomenon supports what emerged in the precedent pe-riod and, by extension, shows that no new types were introduced.Even the two new buildings confirm this impression: one bearsstrong resemblance to the traditional housing type although itfunctions as a private business (Fig. 166); whereas the other appearsmore like a mixed housing type (Fig. 167). However, since thebuilding is obviously not what is stated on the building permitdocuments,396 and since the author could not visit it, it was notpossible to determine which building type it most closely resem-bles with the help of plans.

Figure 167: Building in the central block of Gosier (2003) and a building permit façade(1989): a gap between design and reality. Source: Municipal Archives of Gosier. (KD)

396 On the building permitdocuments, the building isintended for one family’suse, with the ground levelserving as a garage andthe upper floors beinginhabited. In reality, thegarage has disappeared,and the building houses atleast two differentfamilies.

202

Finally, in comparison with the last period, the 1989-2003 perioddoes not show major changes. However, the perception of theblock as a whole was transformed, for the systematic fencing ofeach lot considerably modified its external aspect. For example,although new crossings were created by the clearance of someplots, in practice these crossings were limited (Fig. 146). Thus, theblock reflects a new social climate, aiming at more privacy andrevealing a greater fear of insecurity. The residents are findingsolutions spatially.

9.1.3.3 The inland area

By opposition, the inland area is characterized by a strong modifi-cation of plot layout and housing during the 1989-2003 period (Fig.164). Furthermore, the efforts made to develop the area’s infra-structure (construction of a public day care, Fig. 168, and House forYouth, Fig. 169) due to the municipal desire to consider this area asa residential district within the bourg,397 introduced a change in theuse of buildings that also had consequences on the area’stypomorphology: specialized tissue emerged.398

The modification of the land ownership due to the renovationprogram (RHI) had great impact socially and on the plot pattern.Indeed, it not only divided a territory belonging to mostly onefamily (from 97% privately owned in 1973, it became almost 20%public in the 1990s),399 but it also introduced new types of buildings(multistoried buildings, Fig. 170), even if a precursor to apartmenthousing existed in the previous period in the central block.

Although the renovation program is marked by regularity inplot division, as well as the creation of a real street system, the plotlayout remains quite confused as a whole because it lacks homoge-neity. The new streets lack true functionality since they were madeaccording to a restricted vision of the inhabitant use (Fig. 171).Furthermore, if new buildings represent almost 40% of the builtspace, their position in the plot layout refers to the modern plan-ning approach (absence of regular pattern in the lot division).

Smaller scale dwellings (maximum two-storied row houses)are slightly off the road, with their smaller façade perpendicular tothe road, but larger scale buildings do not present the same siteinsertion. This can be understood by the scale of the program (four-storied bar-like social housing) and because of the existing decliv-ity. Yet, it becomes obvious that the planning process (in fits andstarts) as well as the financial means at stake have played a part inthe built results. The observation of the lots reveals the planners’difficulty in working with a plot layout, which does not favor a“rational” planning. The shape of the lots, often due to specific

397 SEMAG, RHI Mangot,op.cit.398 To be understood in theway Caniggia explains itas “aggregate codified byspecialized buildingtypes” (displaying notonly settlement –basictissue- but also shops andservices, for example).Caniggia, G. & Maffei, G.L.“Interpreting BasicBuilding”, op.cit., p.119.399 As one can imagine, thedivision of the familyproperty weighed a lot inthe present relationshipsamong all the members ofthat family. Some wantedto sell their share, othersdid not. Today the conflictis still palpable, forexample in the way thosepeople talk about therenovation: “it is verygood” or “it is all ruined,it is her fault she sold herlot”.

203

Figure 168: The municipal public daycare centre of Gosier’s bourg in Mangot. Plancourtesy of SEMAG. (KD)

204

Figure 170: New types of building introduced through the renovation of Gosier: row-housing and apartment blocks. (KD) - See colour plates.

Figure 169: Mangot Youth House in Gosier. Plan coutesy of SEMAG.

205

Figure 171: The new street patterns in Mangot (inland area), Gosier, 2003. Source:Based on SEMAG documents and a site survey. (KD)

Figure 172: The specific plot layout of the renovation program in Mangot (inland area),Gosier. Source: SEMAG.

206

(dis)agreement with private owners,400

their limits with neighbourhood housingresult in a lot layout that presents manydisadvantages (Fig. 172). Moreover, thefact that all the parcels, which were nottouched by the renovation program,maintained their initial features as ob-served in the previous period. This rein-forced the impression of a lack ofcohesion in the general lot layout.

As far as typology is concerned, at firstglance the result is more homogeneous.As in the central area, the dominance ofconcrete as the building material becomesone characteristic, although somewooden houses are still noticeable,mostly along the Général de Gaulle Boul-

evard. These wooden houses were all built prior to 1989, except fortwo cases located in the southern end of the area. This again con-firms the general phenomenon observed in the whole ofGuadeloupe via statistics (Table 18).

The division of the renovation program into two types of hous-ing program (small scale housing and larger scale housing) alsohad positive aspects because it integrated the new housing into theexisting urban fabric (especially in the western and eastern sides ofthe area). The central multistoried houses, however, appear lessappropriate for the site, for being located at the highest part of area(in altitude); they reinforce the impression of over-scaling withinthe neighborhoods. Nevertheless, the size evolution of privatebuildings nuances this contrast for the doubling of floor surfaces(up to 350m2) via the building of several stories became a signifi-cant element characterizing new buildings, whether privately orpublicly built (Fig. 173).

At the same time, the examination of house plans reveals thatsimilarity also existed in the inner space design of the housing,whether born of the renovation program or private initiative, re-gardless of the reference (traditional or newer).

Indeed, if the design of the housing renovation program clearlyreflects a rationalization of the space brought about by the neces-sity of reducing building costs (for example, the same plans beingsuperimposed on top of each other, showing little variation evenfor bigger families), it also draws a clear distinction from the de-

Figure 173: Buildings in Mangot (inland area), Gosier,with at least one upper floor. Based on site survey.(KD)

400 This area could be acase study by itself for allthe events linked to therenovation program areworthy of a novel.Regarding the lot division,having a family member inthe municipal councilhelped some to keep theirlot untouched (whichexplains, for example, thepersistence of a privatehouse in the midst of socialhousing) and others toreceive a “free” buildingpermits.

207

Figure 174: A new housing type in Mangot (inland area): social housing. Source:SEMAG / (KD)

208

sign observed earlier. Based on the concept of a main room thatserves simultaneously as an entrance, living room and corridor, allthe other rooms are dispatched around that room and accessiblefrom it. The combination of kitchen and bathroom is found insome housing (clearly for the convenience of water distribution),yet it is not a general feature. In most cases, on the contrary, sepa-ration between the two “water” spaces is emphasized (Fig. 174).Surprisingly, the same spatial concepts are visible in the privatehouses built after 1989 (Fig. 175), although reminiscences of tradi-tional design introduce variations in the more modern design.This double reference can be explained by the fact that a multi-floor house was often built in several stages, which means possiblyover several decades, thus reflecting the influence of the evolutionof building design on their owners (Fig. 176). Furthermore, oneshould acknowledge the influence of building regulation on thedesign (and particularly the law of 1977)401 for it generated thebuilding of specific floor-surfaces exactly fitting the requirementsto build without an architect.

Actually, it is in this type of building (built in phases) and insmaller-scale social housing that stronger references to a tradi-tional design are found. For example, the gallery still serves as atransitory space, allowing direct access to different rooms (Fig.177), or the principle of communicating rooms is reinterpreted(Fig. 178). With regard to the latter element, the question actuallyarises as to whether it refers more to economic law than to tradi-tional design, for the open space plan featured in the smaller socialhousing can be compared to another tradition of building typewithout any reference to Guadeloupe.402 In this sense, perhaps theassumption that this type would belong to a specific period (themodern architectural period) could be suggested.403

Finally, the 1989-2003 period reveals significant typomorpho-logical changes, because, in the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo, thethree sub-areas are still very distinct from each other.

The central area remains quite similar, despite the change ofmaterial, and still presents typological variations and exact repro-duction of the oldest wooden housing type.

In the coastal area, typological permanency is again dominant,yet the emergence of one hotel in this specific area also reflects theboom of land prices. From 1970 to 1990, the price of the squaremeter on the shore in Gosier doubled404 and it then becomes easyto understand the benefits realized from selling one lot of this areato a tourist consortium.405

On the other end, in the inland area, municipal involvement todevelop the district anew brought about new elements in the man-

401 The law that defines themaximum floor surfacethat can be built withoutan architect. Source:Journal Officiel.402 It returns to the samequestion concerning theboom of the “Americankitchen”(la cuisine améri-caine) in France in the1980s: should the insertionof a kitchen corner in awide open space (usuallythe living room) only beconsidered as a culturalway to emancipate thewoman from her closedkitchen or can it also be afinancial way to gathertwo functions in a smallersurface and thus make theresidence more affordablefor future owners?403 Only a comparison tometropolitan French casescould test it.404 From 150FF/m2 to400FF/m2. Source: Luce,M. C. «La route d’argent»,op.cit., p. 85.405 On the other hand, sincethe area was exclusivelyaimed at housing (the lawof 1955), one could won-der about the legitimacy ofsuch a procedure.

209

Figure 175: The new housing type in Mangot (inland area): private housing. (KD)

210

Figure 176: Several decades of building works, Mangot (inland area). (KD)

211

Figure 177: An example of a post-1989 private housing type in Mangot (inland area)with reference to traditional housing elements. (KD)

212

Figure 178: An example of an open-space plan; social housing in Mangot (inlandarea). Source: SEMAG / (KD)

213

ner of designing and living in the space. For example, the emphasison vertical and large scale design provoked the disappearance ofthe traditional relation to the garden, while influencing the wayprivate owners may extend their house later on (e.g. also verticallyinstead of horizontally). Clearly, the introduced typologies markthe turn of a design period. Because the same types can simultane-ously be found on the privately owned lots, one could wonderwhether this phenomenon symbolizes a deep cultural changerather than simply copying a “modern” model. The issue is signifi-cant for it questions the tendency to jump to the conclusion thatpublic social housing is a western housing type imposed locally.406

However, the forms taken by the inland area’s development alsoconfirm what was emerging in 1988: an urban development closeto autonomous and local specificities.

9.1.4 Typomorphological conclusions in Gosier

As stated in the introduction to this chapter, the results of the re-stricted site analysis have been presented as an indicator of whathappened in the bourg as a whole, although the speed of transfor-mations may vary from one district to another and even within oneblock from one plot to another. However, it is possible to drawsome typomorphological conclusions.

As far as Conzen’s concept of the burgage-cycle is concerned, itappears applicable in many districts of the bourg. The case studyproves that the concept as a tool is useful but needs a specific appli-cation for some particular cases (inland area).

Indeed, the four main phases of the burgage-cycle (1. plot pro-gressive infilling, 2. maximum building coverage, 3. plot clearanceand 4. redevelopment) are visible in the central area of the bourg.Similar to the observations made regarding the restricted site, cul-minating and recessive phases are spotted respectively before andafter 1989, whereas punctual cases of plot redevelopment are alsovisible here and there. The fact that they all concerned public-voca-tional activity (e.g. schools, municipal equipment) or tourist-ori-ented activity (in one case) actually shows the stable state of theprivate market.407

With regard to the coastal area, it seems the cycle has not beencompleted and remains today between phase 1 (plot progressiveinfilling, on the eastern end) and phase 3 (plot clearance, aroundthe municipal beach, for example), the second phase (maximumcoverage, on the middle and western end) being currently the mostprevalent.

Nevertheless, the inland area’s case arises to question the appli-cability of Conzen’s concept, for redevelopment occurred (case of

406 This absolutelycontradicts my earlierfindings (“Meaning of cityplanning in Guadeloupe”,op.cit, p.415) which weresolely based on morpho-logical analysis.407 At the same time, thisphenomenon confirms thetypological processesdescribed by Caniggia,namely, the specializationof types and the perma-nency of basic types.

214

Mangot, eastern end) or will occur (case of Arrière-Bourg) before thesecond phase of the burgage-cycle is even reached. Furthermore,analysis showed that this area did not develop after the concept ofplot system but, instead, was based on new morphological forms:this, once more, questions the applicability of the burgage-cycle.Three reasons could explain this process, thus confirming the sig-nificance of social context: the historical lack of regulative con-straints, which has generated an absence of plot pattern and limitsto urban sprawl; the characteristics of planning at this time (mod-ern planning has offered no possibilities for extensions in thelarge-scale program) and the economic cycle of the area deter-mined by the increase in land value while building value de-creased. Symbolically, it is only when the municipality decided toredevelop the area from a settlement area to a proto-urban corethat the area acquired boundaries and urban regulations as well asinfrastructures.

It is then possible to conclude that urban morphologies in thebourg of Gosier are shaped by the status of decision-makers.408 Un-der municipal or governmental management, urban morpho-logies present regular patterns in most cases (in lot division or lotshape), as well as a certain permanency over the years (for exam-ple, the allotment of the coastal shore and the inland area’s renova-tion program). In contrast, when decision-makers are mainlyprivate owners, urban forms are more subject to the block’sspecificities (enclosed or not, flat or hilly, etc), as well as continu-ous development over the years. This process becomes obviousonce the permissive attitude towards the creation of not alwayslegal housing was replaced by legal controls over it (in the case ofMangot), or when financial interests replaced the legal control ofan area (in the case of coastal shore). The same kind of duality existson the typological level.

Although the analysis focused on a rather contemporary pe-riod, it has been easy to immediately distinguish two basic typesfrom which, according to Caniggia’s typological concept, varia-tions and extensions were recognized.

The first and oldest type (“la case”) is initially characterized bya single-storey wooden core with gallery and based on the princi-ple of communicating rooms, distinct from the kitchen and waterspace. This model successively adapted itself to the introduction ofconcrete and housing equipment (electricity and running water), aswell as, more recently to land speculation. In many cases, the two-floor concrete houses existing in the bourg of Gosier is derivedfrom this earlier spatial design.

The second, more recent type, is based on a central distributionof rooms, taking little account of traditional spatial uses because,

408 This result would havecertainly greatly benefitedfrom a series of maps onthe evolution of landownership covering thestudy’s time span, yet thelack of documents for thatpurpose makes itimpossible.

215

on the contrary it proposed a new definition of housing usecentered on the individualization of space. The few available plansof the first houses built in the 1950s on the coastal shore clearlydisplay this tendency (the loss of multi-use rooms and the preva-lence of specialized distinct rooms), but it is through the plans ofsocial housing and of public buildings that this second type findsits full expression. Furthermore, the same spatial logic is visible inthe tourist-vocational constructions based on financial benefitgained by the repetition of the smallest unit possible.

Therefore, the influence of the decision-makers in the designprocess becomes evident, motivated either by the regulation ofurban sprawl, the containment of population growth or by finan-cial interests. Actually, economic interests should be considered tobe significant because at the individual level more than 80% ofhousing dedicated to renting activities (in part or in entirety) andbuilt after 1989 followed the second type.409 Recognizing the factthat the second type is nonetheless quite recent in the Gosier land-scape now allows us to affirm how similar types of facades can hidedifferent types, thus again calling into question the preconceivedidea of a western domination in the housing field.410 Furthermore,it confirms the importance of social changes and urban uses in theproduction of space.

Although another chapter would be needed to describe in de-tail the use attributed to each individual building and to preciselyset the influence on space (lived and to be produced), it has beendecided that a short insight into the evolution of public space wasnecessary to conclude the present chapter, for it provides a goodlink between the way buildings are (typomorphology) and theway they are used (function).411

The analysis of a restricted area within the bourg presents somedisadvantages because it sometimes represents only a pale reflec-tion of a more developed feature, specifically in the case of publicbuildings. It nonetheless allows a good understanding of the evo-lution of public space within the bourg.

To start with, in the 1940s, the chosen site was dominated byresidential use, with the road being used as a transitory publicspace between the different blocks. Shops along this main roadtraditionally sustained social exchanges, and the house galleriesensured semi-public/semi-private relationships. Lots were notbuilt and backyards were accessible to everyone allowing access towater, fruits, and the sea.

After the construction of the second boulevard and the coastalhousing development in 1955, private areas emerged, redefiningthe use of space. On the shore, access to the sea disappeared, while

409 Estimation made aftersite survey on the bourg asa whole (2001-2003).410 So that there is noconfusion, I am talkinghere exclusively aboutGosier’s bourg.411 The concept form-function-space was largelydeveloped by Markus, T.in Buildings and Power,Routledge, 1993, forexample.

216

in the central block the progressive infilling of the lots reduced thenorth-south transversal accesses. The A. Clara Boulevard was re-stricted to a communicating role (car traffic), totally deprived ofsocial functions because the back facades of the central block’shouses and the fenced front facades of the coastal block did notinclude commerce or semi-private spaces. At the same time, be-cause the inland area remained almost untouched by municipalmanagement until the early 1990s, the area was experienced as ahuge “labyrinth” in which every house was clearly a private spacewhereas the space around then represented semi-private areas forcirculation, talks, meetings, and so forth. The same situation canstill be observed today in the Arrière-Bourg district of the bourg.412

Although the chosen site as a whole remained largely in resi-dential use, after 1989 the redevelopment of the inland area con-firmed what had started with the southern part: the architecture ofthe new buildings favored the limited role of the road (as circula-tion space) whereas semi-private spaces disappeared (no more gal-leries, smaller amount of open backyards, few sidewalks). Yet, theadaptation of the inhabitants to their new type of dwellings showsthat housing changes do not necessarily accompany culturalchanges. The most flagrant examples today are the daily passionatedomino games played by seniors in the late afternoon inside theshadow of a fenced ground-level balcony, instead of being playedin the evening on the sidewalk; or the progressive physical trans-formation of an initial social housing. Less than 10 years after theirconstruction, the LES in Mangot413 have been greatly modified andextended by their owners.

Yet, if this shrinkage of the traditional role devoted to roads isclearly observable, the emergence of new public spaces such aspublic buildings and playgrounds nonetheless reveals the munici-pal attempt to compensate for this phenomenon by locating anddesigning contemporary places of social exchange, thus directlyparticipating in the reattachment of the site to the bourg’s territory.In this sense, the district is no longer a unit independent from asocial and territorial whole, but rather part of it, obeying the inter-nal rules that are the foundations of every society.

At the level of the bourg, the same phases are observable (Fig.179). The “uncontrolled” public spaces (green space, beach, roadnetwork) have slowly disappeared in profit of public blocks or up-to-date facilities that have structured the bourg, and over the yearsnuanced its apparent dichotomy. For example, the construction of ahealth care center, a public square, a municipal police station, andmultimedia library along A. Clara Boulevard in theory414 permitsthe inhabitants to appropriate a larger part of the bourg instead oftheir sole district. However, the permanency of the location of the

412 Because of the housingdensity in this district, theterm “labyrinth” is evenmore accurate. At the earlystage of my research, whenlooking for a house to rent,it was impossible for me tofind the house correspond-ing to the newspaper’sadvertisement: only withthe help of a young guidedid I find the house afterhaving walked throughmany gateways that my“European” education hadinitially considered to beprivate, despite the absenceof fences.413 LES stands forLogement Evolutif Social(Evolutive Social Housing)and aimed at giving peo-ple access to ownership.414 78% of the adultpopulation of Mangot hasnever been inside themunicipal library!Questionnaire 2001-2002.

217

Figure 179: The evolution of public space in thebourg of Gosier (1930s-2003). (KD)

commercial activities (mainlyaround the old colonial road and thepresent General de Gaulle Boul-evard), the fame each district pos-sesses, and each district’s uniquepopulation composition prove thatthe bourg is today conceived of as thegathering of unmixed entities andthus of an unmixed group of inhabit-ants. Could the nature of the develop-ment of the bourg of Gosier, along amain road, without a real bourgcenter, and historically lacking fullmunicipal management explain thisphenomenon? To what degree is spa-tial production necessarily cohesive with town planning commit-ment? The analysis of Trois-Rivières might provide an answer bycomparison.

9.2 Trois-Rivières

The modernization of the bourg of Trois-Rivières is not just a recentprocess: as already demonstrated, historically the town had al-ready many times taken the opportunity posed by financialwealth, reconstruction periods and governmental incentives tomodernize buildings, facilities and urban life. 415

Yet, if Trois-Rivières was perhaps in the avant-garde concern-ing some aspects of modernization at certain periods (for example,the church’s full electrification in 1937, at a time when the electric-ity network had not reached all Guadeloupean towns), the long-lasting dichotomy existing between the facilities of public andprivate buildings416 and the bourg’s slow adaptation to nationalbuilding norms (a centralized sewer system and water cleaningsystem, for example) show that Trois-Rivières was not distin-guished from the island’s other towns and followed more or lessthe same steps towards the late (present?) modernization.

On the other hand, because of its historical background as awealthy town, it would appear that in details the specificities ofTrois-Rivières (as much socially as in building terms) would divertthe course of modernization. The following typological analysis isan attempt to prove this.

The morphological context revealed that although Guadeloupe

415 Part III.416 For example, in 1961,less than 2 % of Trois-Rivières houses hadrunning water inside thebuilding (source: INSEE).In 1995, still 49% of thebourg’s buildings weredeclared requiringamenity improvementssuch as sanitary,electricity, etc. Source:Municipal Archives ofTrois-Rivières, SEMAG“Requalification duBourg” (report), 1995, p.16.

218

Figure 180: The chosen site in the bourg of Trois-Rivières. Based on 2001 IGN map.(KD)

219

went through significant changes since 1928 which considerablymodified the urban landscape, Trois-Rivières’ urban forms hadmore or less been untouched. Only the immediate post-departmentalization brought some innovation in the bourg. Thus,it explains why the typological analysis relies on only two mainmorphological periods: 1928-1950 and 1951-2003, although the sec-ond period is divided into two, from 1951 to 1976 and then 1977-2003, in order to take into consideration the impact of the volcanoeruption in 1976, and, more practically, to cover the period in amore detailed approach.

On the other hand, because one major feature displayed by thebourg’s historical development is the importance of the municipalmanagement, the restricted site, chosen to be representative of thebourg, is actually the bourg’s center which was noticeably shaped bymunicipal planning. Originally, the limits of the chosen site wereset in order to provide an appreciatively similar size area toGosier’s case study, however, as already noted (see the preamble tothe typomorphological operations); it proves not to be necessaryfor the potential restricted area would have had many empty lots.Thus, the final restricted site in Trois-Rivières is in terms of sizesmaller than the one for Gosier, yet it presents the main attributerequired. Limited in the north by the city hall and in the south bythe Convent of Notre-Dame, the east and west limits were arbitrar-ily set (Fig.180).

9.2.1 The pre-1950 period

During the 1928-1950 period, morphological stability marked Tr-ois-Rivières’ bourg once the post-1928 reconstruction was com-pleted. The street blocks faced little change and the same processapplied to the building lots that remained identical before thechange of the 1950s (construction of the new city hall and otherpublic facilities). Typologically, the same statement of permanencycan be made because the geographical position of the bourg, thetraditional use of stones as building material and the specific mu-nicipal management ensured the durability of many buildingsbuilt before 1950 until the present day. Actually, it is not only aninsight into the 1928-1950 housing typology that follows here, butalso into the pre-1928 typology, because half of the observed build-ings were constructed before 1928. Almost 100 years after a post-card immortalized the bourg of Trois-Rivières, a contemporarypicture of the same place shows that the same buildings exist (Fig.181). Could this have influenced the process of modernization?Only a typological analysis during the successive morphologicalperiods can possibly provide an answer, but let us first have a look

220

Figure 181: The main street of the Trois-Rivières bourg 100 years later: all thebuildings in the background still exist today. Source: See Figure 8 / (KD) - See colourplate.

Figure 182: The interior of the parish church in Trois-Rivières. (KD) - See colourplate.

221

at the pre-1950 typologies of Trois-Rivières.Except the church, designed by Ali Tur, and the parish house

realized the same year (1937) that have little connection with thesurrounding buildings (aesthetically, the functionally –to gatherpeople- and in terms of inner space, Fig. 182), the main trait charac-terizing pre-1950 buildings is a relative homogeneity despite thevariety in size and shape of lots (from 300m2 to over 8,000m2; fromrectangular to hexagonal, to lots of sinuous sides, Fig.183).

Indeed, although the chosen site displays a diversity of build-ing use, from public-vocational buildings (school, city hall, prison,police station, presbytery, church, parish house) to housing andprivate businesses, and a diversity of land-ownership (10% belongto the municipality, the rest to private owners), typological catego-rization is quickly possible and reveals how, in most cases, it is notonly uses that determined house plan but also a specific buildingmethod and a specific culture of space.

Practically, two main types stand out -the single-storey house(“la case”) and the multistoried building (“maison haute-et-basse”)which are much more defined by their height than by other criteriaat first glance, since they otherwise offer many similarities.

Equally numerous by 1950 (Fig. 184), at a time when electricityand running water had not reached the inside of homes, both typeswere actually based on a common lot organization and buildingfeatures.

By their position, parallel to the street (whether short or longfaçade to the street) on the lot’s edge (independent of the lot size),single-storey and multistoried buildings not only contributed to

Figure 183: The repartition of single-storey and multistoried buildings before 1950 inTrois-Rivières’ bourg. Based on a site survey. (KD)

222

the creation of an elaborated street façade but also expressed acommon way of land-use within the bourg.

Although most of the time several houses coexisted on thesame lot side by side, a regular pattern for each lot is met: in thestreet front of the lot stood the main building, while the backyardwas divided in inner yard-and-kitchen or inner yard-kitchen-and-backyard sequence.417 The reasons to explain this specific organiza-tion are not only found in terms of security (fear of fire) but also ina social understanding of space, the inner yard hosting the mostprecious attributes of the household: food. This is an important factfor it shows the weight of cultural habits, independent of one’sfinancial status or activity.

Concerning the single-storey and multistoried buildings

Figure 185: Examples of attics in Trois-Rivières’ bourg. (KD) - See colour plates.

Figure 184: The chosen site before 1950. Conjectural plan based on a IGN map andsite survey; plot layout with the collaboration of G.Siarras from the Municipality ofTrois-Rivières. (KD)

417 For simplicity ofexpression, I have reducedthe sequence here to“kitchen” although othersmall buildings wereusually combined with thekitchen such as a storageor a water space (“case-à-eau”).

223

proper, four elements reveal how their construction seems to indi-cate a common cultural basis and building practice.

It is striking that whether single-storey or multi-storied build-ings included an attic with dormer-windows (“galetas”, Fig.185);up to 90% had them in both cases. One could see this as a proof ofcarpentry mastering or a building practice to cool down the build-ing. However, this fact immediately brings back the issue of finan-cial wealth, for it cannot be assumed that all inhabitants wereskilled carpenters. In one way or another,418 inhabitants must haveused the services of a carpenter, whereas the influence of an exist-ing local model needs to be suggested here: otherwise how else toexplain the systematic presence of an attic with dormer-windowsfor single-storey buildings in Trois-Rivières and not in otherbourgs, like Gosier for example?

At the same time, the observation of the floor surface area foreach type tends to support the explanation of wealth. Indeed,whether for single-storey or multistoried buildings, the surfacearea is rarely less than 45m2, most of the buildings having a floorsurface of around 80m2. If this feature seems quite logical formultistoried buildings, because their ground floor was usuallymade of stone and could thus bear more weight and thus be bigger,in the case of single-storey buildings this is more curious. One wayto understand this is to believe in the gradual extension of theinitial house, yet the plan configuration and accounts given byinhabitants suggest that houses were designed to accommodatelarge floor surface from the start. This is, for example, the case ofthe building hosting a fruit and vegetable shop in the bourg (Fig.186). It was built before 1906 and initially functioned as a privateschool: although the gallery is not original, the size of 81m2 is.Thus, when combining the two latter elements (attic with dormer-windows and large floor surface) the hypothesis of financial pros-perity influencing building practice seems plausible.

The regularity of the facade openings, the regular division ofthe inner space with decorated partitions (Fig. 187), and the princi-ple of communicating rooms (Fig. 188) constitute another group offeatures commonly shared by single-storey and multistoriedbuildings,419 although it was not possible to set a precise logic inthe division of the rooms. Often buildings have been altered and inthe worst case abandoned. The inaccessibility of original owners oroccupants deprived the analysis of the explanation of the originaldesign. Yet, the fourth feature shared by both types provided moreinsight in the observed typologies through another perspective,that of building uses.

Unexpectedly, 40% of the buildings were mixing activities. If itis true that within this percentage, the majority of combinations

418 This sentence refers tothe different ways to buildone’s house: either theowner paid for the servicesof skilled workers, or,another possibility, thesame services were“exchanged” amongfamily members, neigh-bors, etc, and the owner.As such, there is no moneycirculating between peoplebut the skills of eachperson.419 The wrought ironbalconies, which todaymake the charm of thebourg, have not been listedhere because I did notmanage to ascertain withprecision their systematicbuilding from the start.Indeed, postcards andpictures from the start ofthe 20th century until 1970reveal they did not existearlier. One could thenimagine that thosebalconies are actually alate feature.

224

Figure 186: A wooden single-storey house in Trois-Rivières’ bourg. (KD)

225

such as private business/inhabitation, social services/ inhabita-tion was met in multistoried buildings (up to 95% for this type),10% were nonetheless single-storey buildings. This not only ex-plains partially the large floor surface met in this building type,but also demonstrates the vitality of the entrepreneurship in thebourg. Once more, a relative financial wealth could explain thelarge size of the remaining single-storey buildings.

Nevertheless, despite these common features, typological dif-ferences among single-storey and multistoried buildings existed.The most visible one concerns building material use, while themost significant is the difference within plan organization intro-duced by the necessity of a staircase.

Indeed, what clearly distinguishes single-storey from multi-storied buildings is their external look, underlined by a differenttreatment of facades.

Built directly on the ground or slightly elevated by isolatedstone foundations, single-storey buildings with their horizontalwood planking, sometimes covered with metal sheets, were farfrom the visual hierarchy depicted by multistoried building. In thelatter, large stone walls usually composed the ground level, whilea wooden upper floor (sometimes covered with metal sheets) andan attic with dormer-windows would lie on top of it. In some rarecases (for 3 buildings), the thick stone walls were extended to thefirst floor, yet floor and ceiling were constructed in the traditionalwooden building method. One case however resists this descrip-tion (Fig. 189). Constructed after the 1928 hurricane, this specificbuilding was fully built in reinforced concrete, discarding the tra-ditional mixed material use employed for multistoried building.Although the building offers similarities with the architecturalstyle developed by Ali Tur (terrace-roof, white sober facades, etc.),the plan reveals little creativity because it is strongly reminiscent

Figure 187: Interior decoration in two different houses in Trois-Rivières’ bourg. (KD) -See colour plates.

226

Figure 188: Plan based on the principle of rooms ‘communicating’ with each other;Trois-Rivières. Plan courtesy of G. Siarras / (KD) [See also Figure 206]

227

Figure 189: A building from the 1930s in Trois-Rivières’ bourg made entirely fromconcrete. (KD) - See colour plate.

228

of a wooden single-storey building. Yet, this fact and the outsideposition of the staircase are quite significant for the typologicalunderstanding.

In fact, the essential typological feature that differentiates single-storey buildings from multistoried ones is the space devoted to thestaircase and to its access. Although variants exist for the access tothe staircase (either through a central corridor or via the mainroom), the position of the staircase within the building and usuallyon the back facade or on one side remains intact (Fig. 190 & 191).This specificity is significant for it gives a new insight in the spatialorganization as well as on the social control exercised through it:the staircase, as access to the upper floors (the dwelling proper), issymbolically hidden. The same hierarchy existing in the plan be-tween building-yard-kitchen is here reproduced vertically: build-ing-corridor-staircase-private area. In this sense, returning to the

Figure 190: Wooden multistoried building, built before 1906 and demolished in 1951(Trois-Rivières). Source: Arch. Dép.Gua. sc 1026, municipal minutes on February27th, 1951.

229

Figure 191: Multistoried building (stone and wood), built before 1928 (Trois-Rivières).(KD)

230

full reinforced concrete building, the external staircase proves de-finitively to be an innovation. However, since it has not been pos-sible to determine whether the upper floor of this concretebuilding was historically used for business activities (which couldthen explain the external position), the question remains open con-cerning the reason for such a change.

Furthermore, it is not only the existence and position of thestaircase that drastically introduces typological differences be-tween single-storey and multistoried buildings, but also the com-bination with a corridor or space, serving the same purpose oftransitional space. As such, if rooms are still communicating witheach other, the transitional space clearly reorganizes the innerspace, not without evocating some European designing practices invogue during the same construction period. This typological as-pect did not appear in single-storey buildings apart from one case.

In this exception (Fig. 192), the house plan is organized after aclear division of the floor surface into two equal parts. In the front,there is a row of three small communicating rooms and in the backone single room. The plan as a whole is quite characteristic of thesingle-storey building type, but it is unusual in the fact that actu-ally only one of the front rooms (the middle one) communicateswith the back room. As such, this small middle room, being theonly room through which access to the three other rooms is possi-ble,420 could be considered as a “transitional space”, equivalent tothose met in the multistoried buildings. Once more, the questionremains about the reasons for such a plan (copy of bigger house’splans?) but one assumption could be made that would be valid formultistoried houses as well: the hypothesis that one floor mighthost several families or be partially rented. In this case, the separa-tion of space might be easier understood, as well as the small aver-age room size (rarely over 15m2), although the building floorsurface oscillates between 60 and 80m2. Unfortunately, no realproof was acquired to verify this assumption, apart from contradic-tory testimonies from the inhabitants

Finally, what emerges from the 1928-1950 analysis is the fact thatindependent of the status of building ownership (private or public)and building use (a school, a shop or a house were built with thesame type), building was based on the work of professional build-ers combined with a financial prosperity, as well as an establishedconcept of space. For these reasons, the two types discussed hereappear independent from each other and at a rather finite phase: noelements suggests that the wooden single-storey would suddenlyturn into a multistoried building with stone ground floor. At thesame time, one should notice that because of the natural building

420 Of course, the analysisis depicted from the insidepoint of view because fromoutside all the rooms areindependently accessible.

231

Figure 192: Wooden single-storey building, today abandoned, in Trois-Rivières’bourg. (KD) Note: The surroundings of the building are currently maintained by aneighbor while the building itself slowly deteriorating. Indeed, as another consequenceof economic and social changes, as well as the indivisibility law, all of the ownersreside in France and do not agree on the fate of the building.

232

resources (stone) and of the town’s past prosperity, buildings’ char-acteristics within the chosen area in Trois-Rivières were far fromthe traditional habitat usually depicted in Guadeloupe (“a basictwo room wooden hut”) and shown in statistics: while inGuadeloupe buildings with mixed materials (wood and stone orconcrete) represented still less than 12% by 1955, in the case studythey accounted for half of the building stock.421 The next interestingpoint lies in knowing how the building typology of Trois-Rivières’bourg reacted to the gradual and irreversible introduction of con-crete: this is what the analysis of the next time period will discuss.

9.2.2 The 1950-2003 period

After the remodeling of the bourg’s center by municipal manage-ment in the 1950s (construction of the new city hall, market, theofficial classification of a lane, etc), street blocks remained mor-phologically unchanged during the next 60 years. As the morpho-logical context showed, Trois-Rivières’ bourg was characterized byan overall stability. However, one could wonder whether typo-logical permanency existed because the analyzed period repre-sented for Guadeloupe as a whole at a time of drastic change inbuilding methods and access to housing facilities (mainly runningwater, sewer and electricity). It would be curious that Trois-Rivières “resisted” a modernization that was largely demandedand organized by central government.

Due to the length of this period, it has been decided to providetwo cadastral sections to cover this time span in a more detailedapproach.

9.2.2.1 From 1950 to 1976

Between 1950 and 1976, the southern area was restructured by theimplementation of city hall and public square program, yet thebourg stayed morphologically unchanged despite the doubling ofits building density. The plot layout faced few changes comparedto the earliest period and irregularity of lot shape and size was stilldominant, although a process of regular lot division perpendicularto the streets emerged subsequent to building multiplication (Fig.193). New buildings continued to be located along the street, al-though a backyard-filling process slowly emerged. At the typo-logical level, it however appears that some significant changesoccurred along with the persistence of former types.

The most flagrant new types emerging during the 1950s to1970s were those introduced after municipal management focusedon public buildings. Although historically, the municipality had a

421 Of which 95% werewood and stone buildings.

233

long tradition of concentrating public buildings (schools and cityhall) in one block, typologically those buildings presented littledistinctiveness from multistoried buildings: their ground floorhosted the activity while the upper floor served as a dwelling forcivil servants.422 With the construction of a new city hall and acovered market in the early 1950s, the municipal buildings ac-quired typological specialization.

Born from the municipal engagement towards new buildingmaterial and design, the new city hall followed on a two-storey T-plan, remarkable by its size (Fig. 194). With almost 600m2 per floor(1.5 times the church’s floor surface), emphasis was given to transi-tional spaces (halls, corridors and a staircase) that actually countedfor half of the floor surface and that were valorized by the visualeffects of transparency (glazed partitions, columns, the height ofthe ceilings, the length of the corridors). The concrete use com-bined with specific architectural vocabulary (terrace-roof, whitefacade, etc) also contrasted with the former typology, but a signifi-cant novelty lied in the fact that the building was entirely devotedto municipal activities: no dwellings were included in the project.As such, a new type was definitively introduced aiming at fulfill-ing municipal functions and gathering people.423

Yet, one element of the new city hall’s architectural bias makesone wonder whether a feature of former multistoried building ty-

Figure 193: The chosen site in 1977. Source: Based on Municipal archives, «Schemad’extension des voieries du bourg» and a site survey. (KD)

422 Read again thetestimony of Mr. Sainte-Luce, p.175.423 Remember, for example,that Trois-Rivières’ popu-lation used to go to the cityhall to watch the eveningprogram on television (seeanecdote p. 169). Thisattribute would be worthfurther research for itseems unusual among cityhall projects (at least inGuadeloupe). If all the cityhalls have a large room tocelebrate weddings, veryfew have extra rooms toperform shows and gatherthe whole population.

234

Figure 194: The new concrete city hall of Trois-Rivières (2nd floor, organizationprinciple). Architect Chérubin. (KD) - See colour plate.

235

pology had not been maintained. Indeed, considering that the un-derlying desire to ascertain municipal power existed through theconstruction of the new city hall, the little accent that was placed onthe main interior staircase is very surprising. It suffices to lookaround at past and present “prestigious” buildings to see how thestaircase has often played an active part in the desired prestige.This was not only expressed by the staircase size but also by itsposition within the building: for example, central (like the case ofthe city hall of Basse-Terre or some modern schools, Fig. 195) ordivided into two side flights joining at the final landing. Here,despite the considerable size of the U-turn staircase, this architec-tural element is not however fully emphasized for it is almosthidden in a side corner. Thus, one could wonder whether culturalhabits have influenced this choice. Since all the main protagonistsof the city hall program are unreachable (of advanced age or dead,respectively for architect Chérubin, mayor Siméon and other mu-nicipal team’s members), the question remains open. Neverthe-less, what remains known is the will of the municipal team toinscribe their urban management under the sign of modernity,strongly emphasized at that time by the use of concrete, and thesuccess of their aspiration.

The covered market is another project that brought new elementsinto building practice and typology, for it dedicated plenums andvacuums to a function (selling) usually met in the multistoriedbuildings’ ground floor or in the streets (Fig. 196). Built as an at-

Figure 195: The staircase as an architectural element of prestige: the secondaryschool of Terre-de-Bas (Guadeloupe): Architects G. Alexis, J. & S. Kalisz. Source:Architecture méditerranéenne architectural magazine, 1995, p. 222.

236

tempt to satisfy elementary health normsvia the use of concrete and ceramic tiles, thisnew type (an empty space with a roof) actu-ally also represented a way to institutional-ize the way of life (open air market), as themunicipal council had expressed.424 Thus, itwas not only a question of modernization

but also of social control, for sellers became legalized under themunicipal regulations (they had to pay a fee).

Finally, it becomes evident that the municipal involvementplayed an important part in the introduction of new typologies.However, in the general context, one should also acknowledge thatwith regard to municipal buildings, the incentives of the centralgovernment had their share in the building specialization too: al-ready by 1884 the French law stipulated that every communeshould have a city hall and that “the city hall should not be thehouse of the mayor, municipal secretary or school teacher”;425

whereas the departmentalization in 1946 promoted the moderni-zation of facilities and buildings under the norms of hygiene, well-being and rationalization.

Concerning domestic architecture, it seems that typologies did notface such drastic transformations, although the time span repre-sented a period of significant change in Guadeloupe as a whole.The pace of modernization appears to have been slower in Trois-Rivières than in Guadeloupe on average. For example, when in1974 almost half of Guadeloupean houses were equipped with run-ning water, electricity and sanitary facilities,426 this kind of mod-ernization (and most of all concerning the water/sewer system)was just starting in the bourg of Trois-Rivières.427 The examinationof the municipal budget supports the assumption of late develop-ment, for it reveals how, from 1961 to 1975, 39% of the municipalloan was attributed to the construction of electric and water net-works, mostly used in 1970-1975.428 This considerable chunk of thebudget attributed to this specific works reveals the deficiency ofthe existing networks. Furthermore, when in Guadeloupe 54% ofthe buildings were fully or partly built with concrete or stone by1974,429 in the chosen area only one-third of the buildings were, ofwhich half were built before 1950. Returning to single-storey andmultistoried buildings, let us examine the potential cultural influ-ence on their typologies.

Figure 196: The covered market of Trois-Rivières’bourg today, designed by architect Chérubin. (KD) Seecolour plate.

424 Source: Arch. Dép.Gua.Sc 1027, municipalminutes on June 9, 1956.425 Law on April 5, 1884.Source: Agulhon, M. “Lamairie” in Les lieux de lamémoire, op.cit., p. 182.426 Source: INSEE.427 Underlined by severalwitnesses.428 Source: Trois-Rivières’municipal archives;«Detteset créances à long et moyenterme, 1961-1975».429 Source: INSEE, see table18, p. 154.

237

Single-storey buildings represented 45% of the 1977 housing, ofwhich half were constructed before 1950.

Surprisingly, despite the ageing of one part of the single-storeybuilding stock, only one case of concrete extension around anoriginal wooden core was detected. The other old single-storeybuildings remained untouched, only perforated here and there toallow electric cables or water pipes. Some buildings were aban-doned.

The newest single-storey buildings presented other features.Some exactly reproduced the traditional typology (Fig. 197), al-though they were built in concrete (walls) and wood (roof struc-ture); whereas others definitively introduced new design, thatcould be related to the innovation of building material for concretewas the main component. Instead of the traditional position of thekitchen and other annexes in the backyard, kitchen and bathroomappear in the plan composition, as integral parts of the building(Fig. 198).

The position of the kitchen in the front façade of the building isalso a new feature, even underlined by the indentation of thefaçade. Yet, the underlying function of the main room as a transi-tional space is clearly reminiscent of the former single-storeybuilding type. A third group of single-storey buildings shows evenmore persistence of the old type’s features.

In this group of single-storey buildings, what immediatelystands out is the material employed (wood) and the small size.Indeed, for 80% of the new wooden single-storey buildings, thefloor surface rarely reached over 50m2 (instead of the 80m2 aver-age). Although the smaller size is expressed by the reduction ofroom number, the basic principles of single-storey building werereproduced. The separation of the main building from the kitchen,rooms simply communicating with all the others (Fig. 199), or dis-tributed around a transitional room,430 and the regularity of open-ings are easily discernable. But on the other hand, the lack of innerdecoration (such as wooden arches, gingerbread, etc.), the missingattic with dormer-windows (in half of the cases), the quality of theopenings (one door instead of the usual two) are elements thatsuggest a less fortunate financial situation. Another interpretationof these new smaller buildings is to consider them as an intermedi-ate step in the family life project, that is, a basic house in which thefamily would live while awaiting the second house to be realized,much bigger and in concrete. Although only two persons men-tioned this practice, it is worth noting for this habit is still in usetoday in Guadeloupe.431 Whatever the reason attributed to eachcase, the result is a new type that could reasonably be considered asa “short version” of the former type. This new type had great

430 Unfortunately, most ofthese houses are today inruins, and if I manage tovisit them it wasimpossible to get goodpictures or precise survey.431 One recent form of thispractice is to live in socialhousing while the homeproper is being built.

238

Figure 197: Single-floor building, built after 1959, Trois-Rivières. Divisions drawnaccording to witnesses’ description. (KD) Note: The building today is in ruins, whichnot only reveals the lack of urban renewal in the bourg but also shows the stagnationgenerated by the indivisibility law.

239

Figure 198: A new type of single-storey house built in Trois-Rivières’ bourg during theperiod 1950-1977. (KD) - See colour plate.

240

Figure 199: A wooden single-storey house in Trois-Rivières’ bourg. (KD)

241

potentials for the next decades.Confronted with new technologies and modernizations, one

could wonder whether this type would extend back to the initialsingle-storey building type or introduce new types (e.g. verticalextension).

Finally, the initial single-storey building type remained quitepersistent even if modifications through building material (the mi-nor cases’ amount) and social criteria occurred. This result regard-ing the building activity between 1950 and 1977 is in one way quitesurprising, though only a more detailed analysis could set an exactchronology of each building and set with more precision the im-pact of social change and building material evolution.432

Multistoried buildings represented the other half of the 1950-1977period building stock, with once more half of these buildings con-structed before 1950. Concerning the oldest multistoried build-ings, it was surprising to see that apart from electric connectionsand such, few backyard extensions (whether in wood or concrete)and the change of use they remained unchanged. The typologicalanalysis of the most recent group proved the influence of the initialtype but always nuanced by slight modifications. Among thesenew multistoried buildings, a rapid division can be made betweenthose, which kept the vertical initial organization (ground floor foractivity and upper floor for dwelling) and those, which modified it.

Concerning the group that kept the vertical organization, itseems that sticking to the initial type is common practice. This is,for example, the case of the presbytery that extended by doublingits floor surface (Fig. 200). Although the additional part is entirelyin concrete (whereas the oldest part is a mixture of stone andwood), the ground floor is devoted to public activities while theupper floor serves as a dwelling.

Furthermore, the same logic of room distribution has been rep-licated, whereas the staircase, primarily on the southern facade ofthe building, has just been moved on the southern facade of thenew part. Yet, a change happened via the integration of kitchen andbathroom within the building. The traditional “main building-cor-ridor-staircase-kitchen and backyard” sequence was then trans-formed because of the external position of the staircase.

On the other hand, it would have been particularly interestingto discover which typology some specific two-floor terrace-roofbuildings (Fig. 201) were referring to, but the present stage as aruin prevented any site survey. However, from the outside obser-vation, it is possible to comment on two features. First, the fact thatthe building is in concrete has not only modified the architecturalbias, but also introduced typological reinterpretation. Indeed, tra-

432 For example, with thehelp of another cadastralsection in the 1960, onecould see more preciselywhen the buildingrepletion had occurred. Ifit was mostly during the1967-1977 period (a timeof population loss inTrois-Rivières andeconomic recession) theshrinking of the formertype for economic reasonswould be confirmed.

242

Figure 200: The presbytery of Trois-Rivières: a case of extension. (KD)

243

ditionally multistoried buildings were characterizedby an upper floor and attic, whereas in this case theattic seems to have vanished in favor of a secondfloor and a terrace-roof. The vertical hierarchy other-wise remained identical, the ground floor serving foractivities and the upper floor for dwellings. Besides,the general spatial organization repeated old typol-ogy, for it was based on a distribution relying on aback façade staircase combined with a central corridor. However,more precision would be needed to ascertain a true typologicalstatement because the inside of the building was not visited

Regarding the new multistoried buildings that transformed thetraditional ground floor to housing use, they were usually builtwith mixed materials (concrete and wood, Fig. 202), thus reproduc-ing a feature found in the oldest buildings. But the main noveltylies in the height of the building, which was only defined by aground floor and one upper floor. If the structure of an attic roofexisted, it was nonetheless transformed so as to be considered as aproper floor.

As such, although these buildings are multistoried buildings, itcould be suggested that their type represents a developed form ofthe single-storey building type (via the development of the attic).Economic restriction and the reduction of the number of familymembers could plausibly explain this phenomenon. Yet, it is sim-ply amazing to notice how the “main building-corridor-staircase-kitchen and backyard” sequence lingered (even if a grouping of thedifferent entities occurred), thus strongly referencing to the tradi-tional multistoried building types. The hybrid character of thesebuildings becomes then evident.

It would have been particularly interesting to discover whichtypes some cube-shape buildings (Fig. 203) were referring to, butthe owner’s lack of cooperation prevented any site survey and anysystematization in the statement is not possible.

Finally, it is possible to say that several typological tendenciesemerged during the 1950-1970 period. While municipal buildingsdrastically acquired typological specialization enhanced by newbuilding material, domestic architecture faced several currents atthe same time. The lack of alteration of the old housing stock (indif-ferently single-storey or multistoried buildings) permitted thepersistence of the two original types, while on the other hand vari-

Figure 201: A ruined three-storied concrete building in Trois-Rivières’ bourg. (KD) - See colour plate. When private rights andpublic interests face off against each other.

244

Figure 202: The hybrid building type in Trois-Rivières’ bourg: sketch based on oraldescription. (KD)

245

ants of both types appeared. Plausibly, thosevariants were the direct consequences of thesocial context: for economic reasons, becauseof aesthetic or building material change, aformer type would shrink, extend, and trans-form the traditional attic. Only in one rarecase, a new type was introduced.

The following years showed the he-gemony of concrete and the leveling of housing facilities to na-tional standards in Guadeloupe: let’s see how these phenomenalanded on the chosen site.

9.2.2.2 From 1977 to 2003

The 1977-2003 period was marked by a strong urban inertia: streetblocks, lots, and building amount remained almost the same (Fig.204). Because of the lot regularization of backyard buildings, apattern of isolated estates without connection to the street wasintroduced. At the same time, the building degradation processsignificantly emerged: 25% of the housing stock was classified asderelict by 1995.433 Yet, a typological examination reveals the trueactivity during the same period. First, the transformation of aninitial building, often subsequent to inhabitants’ access to housingfacilities or the change of use, became a frequent process, whetherin single-storey buildings or multistoried ones. Second, compre-hensive redevelopments existed, dissimulated by designs closelyfollowing the initial morphological characteristics. In the light ofboth processes, one could then wonder how it marked the existingbuilding types in detail.

With regard to municipal buildings, the existing specialized build-ings did not change apart from the city hall’s multipurpose hallthat was divided into small offices. The construction of a commu-nal water department however brought a return to pre-1950 typol-ogy because the building repeats some characteristic features ofthe multistoried building type.

Voluntarily designed as a “traditional urban house”,434 theseparation of use between ground floor and upper floor was takeninto use again: the open plan ground floor hosts the communaltrucks, while the upper floor concentrates the administrative ac-tivities via a row of small offices. The rear position of the staircaseand the central organization of the upper floor via a long corridor

Figure 203: A cube-shaped building in the bourg of Trois-Rivières. (KD) - See colour plate.

433 Source: Trois-Rivières’municipal archives,SEMAG «Requalificationdu Bourg» (report, 1995).434 Source: Municipalmagazine, Notre Trois-Rivières, 1992, op.cit.

246

Figure 204: The chosen site in 2003, Trois-Rivières. Source: Based on a site surveyand cadastre. (KD)

is another repeated element.But like the evolution of some multistoried buildings in the

1950-1977 period, the traditional “ground floor- upper floor andattic” disappeared in favor of the sole ground floor and upperfloor, although the roof indentations play as the reminders of dor-mer-windows. Had the architectural experience of the city hallbeen too ambitious? Is it possible to say that the contemporaryregionalism influences the design of municipal buildings? Only asystematic study of all the Trois-Rivières’ municipal buildingswould confirm whether the abandonment of specialized typologyis really effective.435

On the other hand, the 1977-2003 period did not display consid-erable changes in the single-storey building typology. Extensionof the initial building (very rare) or its solidification were the onlyprocesses, involving little typological transformations.

Indeed, in the case of extension, which usually meant the addi-tion of a kitchen and/or bathroom, the original core remainedidentical (Fig. 205). Sometimes, of course, inner reorganizationoccurred and the extension was actually only the solidification ofan existing space (Fig. 206), thus referring to a process already met:the gathering of different entities within the main building. It is,nonetheless, remarkable that those transformations and the accessto housing facilities succeeded in preserving initial building struc-tures, some of them being over 100 years old today. However, the

435 The new library,however, seems to supportthis idea: the design isagain based on producinga modern version oftraditional urban house.

247

Figure 205: An example of extension over the period 1977-2003 in Trois-Rivières.(KD)

248

Figure 206: An example of inner reorganization and extension in Trois-Rivières’bourg. Plan courtesy of G. Siarras / (KD).

249

extension cases were rare compared to the buildings under solidi-fication.

The complete solidification of the main building offered, incontrary, a complete renewal of the building because, in general,there was no intermediate phase: the initial building went directlyfrom full demolition to full rebuilding with new materials.

If, in most of the cases, the process involved floor surface exten-sion and the integration of the kitchen, sanitary and bathroom inthe new design, surprisingly the initial typology would remain.As one inhabitant mentioned

“The house was fine, there was nothing to change. It is justthat I was fed up with electric wires hanging everywhere,termites eating my walls and ceiling and having my toiletsoutside: I decided to reconstruct it the modern way, inconcrete.”436

Sister Elisabeth articulates the same reason in explaining thedemolition and reconstruction of a wooden building in the Con-vent of Notre-Dame: “it was too old, it needed to be modernized”. Oncemore the building however kept its traditional architectural fea-tures, as well as its exact position on the lot (Fig. 207).

Finally, it appears that during this period of morphologicalinertia, single-storey building types remained unchanged, despitethe new dominance of concrete as building material.

Building reorganizations or comprehensive developments charac-terized the typological evolution of multistoried buildings.

The building reorganization usually followed two options: ei-ther an inner reorganization that would modify little the externalbuilding appearance or the adding of new rooms or full wings thattransformed the facades but also the impact of the building on thelot. Whatever the chosen option, the permanency of previouslyexisting typology dominated.

Perhaps the most convincing example of the inner reorganiza-tion option is the tourist office (Fig. 208). Built before 1906 and laterused as a police station and then fire station, among other func-tions, this building was redesigned in 1984 to serve the purpose ofa tourist office on the first floor and municipal bed and breakfastfor tourists on the upper floors. The most important changes werethe introduction of centralized electric and water networks, butalso the splitting of the original roof to provide better light on thetop floor. Nevertheless, the traditional roof proportions werekept, as well as most of the original building features such as theoriginal facades with their wrought iron balconies, the structural

436 Source: Interview withTrois-Rivières’ inhabit-ants, 2001-2002. «Ma caseà moi elle était bien, il n’yavait rien besoin de changer.C’est juste que j’en avaisassez des fils électriques quipendaient partout, des ter-mites qui mangeaient mesmurs et mon plafond, d’alleraux toilettes dehors. J’aidonc décidé de la recon-struire de façon moderne, enbéton.»

250

Figure 207: The modernization of one building in the Notre-Dame Convent in Trois-Rivières. Plan courtesy of the Town.

251

Figure 208: An example of inner reorganization: the tourist office of Trois-Rivières.Plan courtesy of the Town / (KD) - See colour plate.

252

Figure 209: An example of multistoried building built during the period 1977-2003 inTrois-Rivières’ bourg. (KD)

253

elements and the back façade staircase. The fact that the first floorwas designed for activities, whereas the upper floors functioned asoccasional dwellings, and that on each floor, the organization wasbased around a central corridor providing access to each room,conclusively proves the continuity of the multistoried buildingtype.

In the case of privately owned buildings, the same process isobserved, even if sometimes the mixture of materials, the qualityof the work and the poor maintenance hide the spatial logic. Oneexample is a building from the early 20th century in which thestone walled ground floor traditionally served entrepreneurialactivities -and still does, while the upper floor divided into twomain rooms, hosted the inhabitants and led to the backyard wherethe kitchen was located (Fig. 209). Following the family’s exten-sion and the housing equipment improvement, the owners succes-sively divided one of the main rooms into smaller bedroomswhile the kitchen naturally integrated the inside of the house, oc-cupying the former transitional space. Although the lack of parti-tion between the present living room and the kitchen prevents itfrom exactly reproducing older typologies, the basic principle isthe same.

Yet, because in other buildings serving as multifamily housingthe same plan configuration is met again, it could be assumed thata new type variant has emerged. Despite the irregular contours ofthe new facades that proposed a reinterpretation of the traditionalarchitectural elements found in the bourg of Trois-Rivières (over-hanging balconies, multi-sloped roof, dormer-windows, etc.) andcontrasted with the traditional rectangular aspect of the buildingsin the bourg, the renovation of the present pizzeria in 1986 and itslarge extension perfectly confirms the existence of a new type vari-ant (Fig. 210). The position of the staircase in the back façade andthe way to access the different apartments, as well as the use distri-bution depending on the floor (ground floor for activity and upperfloor for dwelling), show that reference to the older multistoriedbuilding type persisted. Moreover, the apartment plans reveal adesign based on a direct entrance into the main room, which pro-vides access to the kitchen on one side and to another wing ofbedrooms and a bathroom.

However, close reproduction of the original type also occurredeven when the building went through major changes. This is, forexample, the case of a privately owned house built before 1928(Fig. 211). Since its construction, the building faced several trans-formations with each new generation and for this reason, it is notpossible to state the type of the original building. Yet, the latestrenovation by adding a back façade staircase and two new wings in

254

Figure 210: An example of a new type variant in Trois-Rivières’ bourg. Plan courtesyof the Town / (KD)

255

Figure 211: An example of building transformations in Trois Rivières’ bourg. Plan andfacades courtesy of the Town and the owner.

256

which kitchen, garage and bathroom are gathered, is singularlyreminiscent of multistoried building types met in the previousperiod. Although in this specific case the ground floor does notserve business purpose, its open plan is reminiscent of the tradi-tional ground floor.

Alternatively, the most important comprehensive redevelop-ment program broke the traditional typology. Built on the site ofthe old schools, the SIG multistoried social housing, inauguratedin 2001, is morphologically notable by keeping the same propor-tions and situation of the former buildings, though typologically itshows some novelty (Fig. 212).

First, the program composed of three buildings did not system-atically provide the traditional dichotomy met in multistoriedbuildings such as ground floor for business and upper floors forhousing. Only one building refers to it, but not the two other.Second, the design is based on a duplex, favoring large rooms ontop of each other, instead of the more classical room divisionwithin one floor. The idea was to provide a logical progressionbetween loggia, living room and bedrooms.437 Third, each apart-ment has its own entrance, although it is a multifamily house, andthe front position of the staircase revolutionizes the traditionalorder. This architectural bias can be understood as a way to pro-vide more freedom for the inhabitants, but at the same time theimportance given to the entity staircase-balcony, which representsone-third of the total floor surface, combined with vertical organi-zation, perhaps shows the change in the cultural value attributed tospace. Should it be considered as an attempt to counterbalance atoo intensive individualization of ways of life under economicrestrictions and, at the same time, be seen as an answer to theindividualization? Further research is needed to evaluate this as-sumption.

Finally, what emerges from the 1977-2003 period analysis is thatthe modernization of Trois-Rivières, along with that ofGuadeloupe, did not bring significant typological changes even ifvariants and new types were introduced: the overall permanencyof the oldest types remains the most significant phenomenon. In-deed, although concrete as a building material was and is mostoften preferred in case of reconstruction or new construction, sin-gle-storey building types and multistoried building types stillconstitute references in spatial organization and, most original,stood the test of time.

437 Source: Lamin, S(architect) in Architectureméditerranéenne (architec-tural magazine), June2000, p.78.

257

Figure 212: A new type of multi-family housing in Trois-Rivières’ bourg. Plancourtesy of the Town / (KD) - See colour plate.

258

9.2.3 Typomorphological conclusions on Trois-Rivières

In conclusion, the typological analysis demonstrates that in thesame way there was a morphological permanency there was alsoan overall typological permanency. It remains now to be discussedhow the theoretical approaches have served their purpose.

Conzen’s concept of the burgage-cycle appears to be fully applica-ble, even if the four phases of the cycle438 are not always expressedin great detail.

In the case study, the plot progressive infilling might neverreach the next phase (maximum building coverage) because themorphological permanency not only revealed the stagnation andslowness of plot development but also the small amount of build-ing multiplication. In the same way, although some plots currentlyshow a phase of plot clearance (though restricted to one building),this is not necessarily an observed phase prior to redevelopment.Some projects just jump from Phase 1 to Phase 4.

However, what is striking is how the logic based on plot pat-tern has usually been respected (except in the case of the city hall)thus showing the applicability of the Conzenian approach. Al-though historically the plot pattern of Trois-Rivières’ bourg wasdefined by estates of various size and shape, their successive divi-sion in smaller lots organized after the street system and the spe-cific implementation of the building along the street show that thehistorical plot layout , as well as the modernist open plan, had littleinfluence on the bourg. Nonetheless, remembering that this specificlayout has not always been built in the order “street and thenbuildings” but also “buildings and then street” with the same re-sulting pattern (houses along the street), it seems plausible to sug-gest that town planning played an important role in promoting theidea of an urban whole, organized after specific patterns, andmaintaining it over the years.

On the other hand, through Caniggia’s typological concept, twobasic types were pinpointed that have the originality to appearsynchronic. Although they presented common features (floor-sur-face size, the principle of communicating rooms, kitchen in thebackyard, existence of an attic), some major differences existed al-lowing to be rendered distinct from one another. The internal dis-tribution of rooms, combined with a back facade staircase, as wellas the separation of function between ground and first floor are themain elements differentiating the multistoried building type fromsingle-storey building type.

438 1. lot progressiveinfilling, 2. maximumbuilding coverage, 3. plotclearance and 4. redevelo-pment. Source: Larkham &Jones, A Glossary of UrbanForm, op.cit., p.4.

259

For both types, modernization in terms of housing equipmentand building material was the main reason to improve everydaylife and comfort but it did not automatically mean questioninghistorical building practice and the traditional culture of space. Thefact that in the chosen site, concrete buildings were barely a major-ity (55%) in 1995, whereas they represented the majority inGuadeloupe (75%), proves the cultural tradition of mixed materialbuildings over concrete hegemony: the mixed material buildingsrepresented 37% in the study area compared to 7% inGuadeloupe.439

At the same time, over the periods, typological variants wereintroduced that reflected the social context and underlined howhistorical settings would influence typological evolution: for ex-ample, when an economic slump dominated the town’s life, theshrinkage of the single-storey and multistoried buildingsemerged. In the same way, how to expect the buildings of Trois-Rivières to follow the general solidification of Guadeloupe, whenalready half of the building stock was partly solid before 1950 inthe bourg of Trois-Rivières? Furthermore, how to follow the gen-eral increase of the floor surface per house, when already before1950, 80% of the buildings in the bourg of Trois-Rivières hadreached the 1980 Guadeloupean average? The analysis of typologi-cal processes clearly helped to point out the coincidences betweenthe urban structures and the town’s history.

Moreover, in the same way that municipal management was atthe origin of morphological modifications, municipal manage-ment introduced new types: specialized type (public buildings)and new basic type (social housing). As such, it becomes evidentthat the influence of a certain category of decision-makers hasgreatly controlled the typomorphological evolution of the bourg.Even the recent comeback of a traditional housing type for publicbuildings (that include no dwelling function) might not actuallycontradict the underlying control exercised by the municipality. Infact, the personality of the present mayor (Albert Dorville) in officesince 1995, famous for his ambition to improve inhabitants’ livesand who defines his duty as “to develop the collective ambition,the general interest,”440 makes more understandable the recent ar-chitectural actions in light of the slump dominating Trois-Rivières’economy. Rather than a great project that would symbolically bestrong (as much in the memories as in the urban landscape, e.g. thecity hall), the mayor favors a policy of smaller size projects thatdirectly benefit the inhabitants. However, only the comparison ofthe economic aspects (cost) among the different projects could con-firm this assumption.

439 Numbers concerningTrois-Rivières fromSEMAG, “Requalificationdu bourg”, op.cit., p. 19;and those concerningGuadeloupe from INSEE.440 Except of an interviewwith Albert Dorville in the“Notre Trois-Rivières”municipal magazine,January 2000, p.5. «Unmaire doit avoir uneambition collective, le sensde l’intérêt général (…)»

260

Finally it can be stated that the weightof history and the cultural valueswithin one society have a strong in-fluence on the town typomorpho-logy, when from the start a certainidea of urbanity is developed. Theevolution of public space within thebourg of Trois-Rivières clearly em-phasizes this idea.

Historically, the public space ofTrois-Rivières’ bourg could be delim-ited to encompass the main street, thetraditional “public block” (city halland schools), the church surround-ings and the sides of the ravine (Fig.213). Although in the analysis the ra-vine received little comment, its so-cial importance among thepopulation should not be dismissedbecause it was the place to fetch water

and to empty fecal buckets. As a daily meeting point, inhabitantsrecalled it as a place to exchange news and ideas.

After 1956, the construction of the new city hall considerablyextended the bourg’s public space, for the program included thecreation of a public garden. Because of the development of morepublic buildings over the years in the northern area of the bourg,public space was not only restricted to a strip following the streetcontours but also became a distinct entity.

The typomorphological permanency allowed the maintenanceof older features of social relationships (to meet under a balcony, totalk in the shops, to sit at the church’s front square, etc), and, alter-natively the rare typomorphological ruptures broke some of them,although (it must be underlined) they were always compensatedfor by the creation of new ones. For example, the reorganization ofthe street network in the late 1970s and the comprehensive redevel-opment of the traditional public block considerably damaged thetraditional social activity around the ravine because both actionspractically covered parts of the ravine. Today, the ravine has totallylost its function as a get-together space but the municipal gardenand the fountain in front of the SIG social housing have taken itsplace. As such, once more, the influence of municipal managementneeds to be underlined in this process.

Figure 213: The evolution of public space in thebourg of Trois-Rivières (1930s-2003). (KD)

261

10. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS

Although, in their general lines, the bourgs of Gosier and Trois-Rivières followed the same features of modernization asGuadeloupe (e.g. late access to electric and water networks, theslow transformations of the dwelling) in detail the analysis dem-onstrated how local specificities considerably influenced the dif-ferent phases of modernization.

The natural resources of one site, the vulnerability to naturaldisasters, the urban culture of one town and its economy, for exam-ple, are elements that have been significant to the typologicalchanges in the case studies. Yet, despite those dissimilarities, thetypological analysis demonstrated not only common traditionalelements existed (e.g. the “building-yard-kitchen” sequence or thewooden single-storey building type) but also common moderncharacteristics such as the gathering of all the housing functions inconcrete buildings, and the emergence of multifamily buildings.More broadly, the typological analysis also revealed similaritieswith regard to the response of the two sites to the social, culturaland economic changes.441 One example is the contemporary pres-ence in both bourgs, independent of their background, of emptylots (“dents creuses”) and abandoned buildings. This phenomenonnot only reflects the present difficulty of Guadeloupean communesto plan their town as an urban whole in the face of legislation thatdirectly favors this state, but also makes visible the consequencesof changes. Indeed, empty lots and abandoned buildings certainlyexisted in the past (see Table 21), yet they were less visible. Today,changes in activity, population growth, and the systematic fencingof one’s house render such irregularities in the urban fabric morevisible.

Nonetheless, perhaps what needs most to be emphasized hereis not the results by themselves but their chronological construc-tions; that is, the ways to modernize. At various degrees in eachcase, solidification and adaptation could be spotted as the mainprocesses, whereas the transformation of the traditional buildingtype tended to create a functional individualization of each space.The later component being as much valid for housing as for spe-cialized buildings (e.g. administrative buildings, etc.) not only re-flects changes in individual mental representations on ways todwell, but also those of one society on its ways of life. This is whatthe final conclusion of this work will try to develop.

441 This result would havecertainly greatly benefitedfrom a series of maps onthe evolution of landownership covering thestudy’s time span, yet thelack of documents for thatpurpose makes itimpossible.442 Definition from Charre,L & Flagie, A. in Tendancesde l’urbanisation enMartinique, unpublished,2000, p. 3.

262

11. CONCLUSION

The primary goal of this work was to find out how the town centersin Guadeloupe historically developed and to discuss whether aduality in their modernization existed. Although a systematicanalysis of each bourg of Guadeloupe would be needed to enlargethe methodological approach of this study, based on solely on thecomparison of two case studies, some results emerged that notonly concerned general but also theoretical knowledge .

As elsewhere in the world, the topography of the site, its climate,human beings’ various activities (economic, political), and humandemography greatly influenced the urban transformations of thebourgs. Whether the bourg was that of Gosier or Trois-Rivières, theprevious statement was more than once tested: to populationgrowth, the bourgs answered with urban extension; to hurricanesthey answered by renewal (small or large programs); to economicchange of they answered by revival or decline. Yet, one featureslightly nuances the final judgment: the gap between the formercolony and the contemporary French department with its builtimpact, in other words the gap between social components andspace.

To continue, the bourgs of Gosier and Trois-Rivières initiallydeveloped along a single axis, with houses on both sides. Althoughthe pre-1928 period shows that both bourgs were at different levelsof urbanization when the 1928 hurricane hit them (Gosier beingjust an “embryo”, whereas Trois-Rivières offered true developedtypomorphological urban patterns), both places have in commonthe most extensive phase of their development during the 1950-1960s, as well as a phase of comprehensive redevelopment sincethe 1990s. In short, their urban development is recent, highly influ-enced first by population growth and then by the change (or stag-nation) of the economy. Of course, during the different intervals,each bourg presented specific changes, not always similar and de-pendent on local features, which led to the contemporary urbanforms. But it remains striking is to see in a detailed approach howmorphologies and typologies did not necessarily follow the socialcontext.

PART V

263

Indeed, to be under colonial rule did not necessarily mean thatthe urban realities of the bourgs would stick to the colonial concep-tion of space. To be assimilated did not necessarily mean that theurban realities of the bourgs would closely reflect metropolitanurban language. On the contrary, far from the grid plan that wouldcontrol, regulate and represent the colonial power, the bourgs ofGosier and Trois-Rivières were before 1946 morphologically ex-empt from the traditional colonial urban symbolism. Instead of atown-planning that would reflect the application of the major con-cepts of colonial urban planning such as segregation, hygiene, cir-culation and aesthetic, the forms observed in the bourgs most oftenreflected the gradual urbanization of an early settlement based onagriculture. This is well illustrated by the evolution of the plotlayout of both bourgs, which were originally set on a combinationof large estates and smaller ones along the main street, the sizereduction being proportional to the closeness to the street: it didnot appear to have been constrained to follow some wider colonialtown development scheme. Furthermore, although typologically,in both places buildings with a strong representative meaningwere built in the post-1928 period (e.g. the church for Trois-Rivières and the city hall for Gosier) and were ensuring colonialrepresentations of power, their individualistic character in thebourg among another dominant typology (housing) that was neverrecognized as colonial (but considered as local) allows for thereevaluation of the impact of colonial rule. Thus, even if the rela-tions of colonial domination had many other ways to permeate thecolonized population (such as through the social inequalities ofdaily life, etc.), from the spatial perspective two questions immedi-ately arise: what is it then that precisely defined a colonial smalltown and a colonial house in Guadeloupe? This study suggests thatthere was actually little distinction with non-colonized smalltowns during the same period (1928-1946): only other comparativestudies could confirm this.

On the other hand, the immediate post-colonial period, a timeof great cultural assimilation, did not prove that the bourgs re-flected this considerable change in their urban fabric and in theirbuildings. In fact, some urban patterns (e.g. housing developmentprogram on the seashore of Gosier) reflected the significant roleplayed by central government and municipalities to define urbanpolicies and their involvement in their realizations. Yet what wasa period marked by the myth of equality, growth, economic devel-opment, improvement in the way of life and more comfort for allin France was little echoed at first in the development of the bourgs.Although in France and in the bigger cities of Guadeloupe (mostlyPointe-à-Pitre) the state developed numerous programs to manage

264

housing, directly or through municipalities, in the bourgs therewas no such action until the late 1990s. In the bourgs, housing re-mained a private initiative with all the consequences it implied interms of town development. Although modernization was the keyword concerning the French urban management of the post-WorldWar II and of the next decades, the analysis showed that its imple-mentation was rather slow in Guadeloupe and in the bourgs. Onlyin the late 1990s would Guadeloupe once again reach the samelevel as mainland France. Thus, the delayed impact of moderniza-tion on urban forms and typologies can be explained by the factthat modernization was a slow process. Nonetheless, because ofthe very visible aspect of the changes, due to their spatial physicalnature, nuances should be made. Specifically in the case of Gosier,it became evident that the introduction of a new housing type inthe 1950s (the concrete multistoried building) influenced the pro-duction of the next generation of buildings. Yet, the variations ofthis building type over the years, its hybridizing with the moretraditional types and most of all the fact that in the bourg of Trois-Rivières variants were found without the existence of the originalmodel proved that it was more the techniques (concrete), the ele-ment of comfort (kitchen and bathroom within one building) thatwere developed rather than a model proper. But isn’t it after allwhat characterized the process of creolization, this historicalmovement of continuous creation after endogenous and exog-enous elements?442

Finally, the analysis of the development of the bourgs demon-strated that the visibility of spatial characteristics does not auto-matically generate the readability of social relationships: in termsof space, local features have more influence in the shaping of spacethan global ones. Thus, the initial hypothesis of duality in the mod-ernization process is not entirely valid, for the assumed dichotomybetween institutional-provoked urban development and indi-vidual ones rarely occurred until the late 1990s. This fact is evenmore obvious at the light of the morphological and typologicalanalysis: the form does not always reflect the content (type). Thisbrings us to the methodological conclusions.

As typomorphological objects, the bourgs appeared to follow themajor concepts developed on urban morphology by M.R.G.Conzen and on typology by G. Caniggia. However, under closerscrutiny it seems that some of these tools need local applications.

This is specifically the case of the Conzenian concept of theburgage-cycle, which was not fully applicabile. In each bourg it waspossible to observe how the four main phases of the Conzeniancycle were not always expressed, disturbing not only the validity

265

of a cycle but also that of the plot/building/street block analysis.What the analysis of the bourg’s development actually illuminatedis that the temporal transition between the historical land-estatesand the more recent open plan lots was too short to ascertain a trueplot conceptualization. This is specifically valid for Gosier where,in its most recent operation (RHI Mangot), the forms of the build-ings, and the amount of the resident population shaped the area: itwas not the traditional plot layout that defined the future emplace-ment of the buildings. More broadly, the late land regularizationsin both bourgs (after the 1950s in general) once more show theadaptation of the lot to an existing building rather to a plot pattern.As such, it could perhaps be suggested here that a focus on formswould be more specified to Caribbean spatiality.

On the other hand, the concepts of Caniggia on buildingtypologies were perfectly relevant for the case studies: basic types,specialized types and variants were of great interest to step by stepreveal on which principles not only buildings but also the bourgswere transformed.

Furthermore, the confrontation between the morphologicaland the typological permitted the understanding of how the spacesof representation and the representations of space were createdlocally. The difference on that matter between Gosier and Trois-Rivières proves once more how much the historical context is nec-essary. It is in the historically most urbanized and wealthy bourg(Trois-Rivières) that the spaces of representation are the most im-portant, despite a contemporary decline. It is in the bourg of Gosierthat post-colonial representations of space were the closest to seg-regation (inaccessibility to the seashore housing), hygiene (at theorigin of Mangot’s tabula rasa), communication and aesthetic (themodern concrete cube-shape building) as if mental representationsstuck to a colonial idealism that otherwise never affected the bourg.

Thus, it becomes obvious that to consider the bourgs as histori-cal objects highly relevant to understanding Guadeloupean soci-ety. Indeed, in addition to a reconstruction of past events, key datesand cultural habits, this work tried to reveal some of the mecha-nisms through which all these features came to us, allowing now toreinsert the whole analysis in its general context.

Born from the mixing of people from various origins on a commonland, Guadeloupe, like other Creole societies, was initially charac-terized by a population that shared a geographical distance from itscultural roots. Yet, very quickly, due to the strong social inequali-ties installed in the early days of colonization (the slavery system),the reference to the dominant group became the only one to bereferent. However, after many significant social changes during

266

the studied time span (1928-2003), it seems that the early meaningof the Creole society might not be updated today, not only becauseof the generations and centuries that followed it, but also becauseof the dichotomy observed between discourses (whether colonialor post-colonial), numbers and realities.

Certainly, there is no doubt that the government power ex-isted, yet the analysis showed how it would be wrong to believethat it permeated every corner of the island: from municipal toindividual decision-making, whether they concerned a new build-ing or a group of buildings, the absolute reference to a Frenchmodel was rare. Decisions were on the contrary much more influ-enced by local specificities that would actually very rapidly appro-priate and adapt any new architectural and urban feature (see, forexample, the architecture of Ali Tur in Trois-Rivières in regard topublic buildings or the evolution of the earliest concrete cube-shape houses in Gosier concerning domestic architecture). What-ever the reasons explaining this phenomenon (7,200 km. betweenFrance and Guadeloupe, the difficulty of the site, the lack of profes-sionals, etc., but, be aware, never the lack of finances from thegovernment), it however remains clear that the successive pro-grams of modernization implemented by the different kinds ofgovernment did not raise questions about their legitimacy, neitherdid it occur with the transition to new values through the image of“more developed” countries (e.g. the modern concrete house, thejoys of consumption, the increase of individualism, etc.).

As such, more than a reduction to a style or to an intellectualmovement, this capacity to build an environment oscillating be-tween imitation, adaptation and pure creation could be seen as oneaspect of a more contemporary Creole identity.

An identity is not only visible in its very physical traces, butalso readable in its history. As this work has tried to show, there isnot only one history of the Guadeloupean bourg, there are manybourg stories.

267

Figure 51: Extension to

the Gosier City Hall. (KD)

Figure 56: The new

church of Gosier. (KD)

GOSIER

GOSIER

268 GOSIER

Figure 58: The new Gosier

health centre, 2002. (KD)

Figure 61: Gosier after Hurri-

cane Hugo (1989). Photo A.

Collineau de Montaguère.

Figure 63: Gosier Police-

station. (KD)

269

Figure 64: Gosier multi-

media library. Photo:

Brochure de la Média-

thèque du Gosier.

Figure 65: Day-care

centre in Mangot (Gosier).

(KD)

Figure 66: Apartment

blocks in Mangot, 2003

(Gosier). (KD)

GOSIER

270

Figure 132: Similarities in

building structures and

techniques for the pre-

1950 buildings in Gosier.

1: detail of foundation, 2,

3 & 4: roof and wall

structure, 5 & 6: wooden

nails. (KD)

GOSIER

1.

2. 3.

271GOSIER

4.

5. 6.

272 GOSIER

Figure 137 (top, middle

left): Wooden shutters

(Gosier). (KD)

Figure 138 (bottom,

middle right): Wooden

inner corbelled vaults,

Gosier. (KD)

273GOSIER

Figure 141: Examples of

building main façades in

the coastal area of Gosier.

(KD)

274GOSIER

Figure 144: Some back

facades of the coastal

housing in Gosier. (KD)

Figure 145 (below):

Architectural modern style

in Gosier. (KD)

275GOSIER

Figure 151: The exten-

sions of the initial wooden

houses (upper western

corner of the central

block) in the bourg of

Gosier. (KD)

Figure 148: Some

examples of housing

‘solidifiications’ on their

main façade in the central

area of Gosier. (KD)

276 GOSIER

Figure 152: Street facades

of the 1972 concrete

housing type in the central

block of Gosier. (KD)

277GOSIER

Figure 154: New concrete

houses built between

1972 and 1988 on the

central block of Gosier.

(KD)

278 GOSIER

Figure 158: The contrast

between a single-family

house and an apartment

block in Gosier. (KD)

Figure 165: The introduc-

tion of new form and use

in the coastal block,

Gosier. (KD)

279GOSIER

Figure 170: New types of

building introduced through

renovation in Gosier: row

housing and apartment

blocks. (KD)

280

TROIS-RIVIÈRES

Figure 71: An example of

a stone house in Trois-

Rivière. (KD)

Figure 75: Salin House in

front of the post office in the

bourg of Trois-Rivière.(KD)

280 TROIS-RIVIÈRES

281TROIS-RIVIÈRES

Figure 76: The present

post-office, designed by

Ali Tur in 1932 (Trois-

Rivière). (KD)

Figure 83: The “Tout

Affaires” shop, built

around 1929 in the bourg

of Trois-Rivière. (KD)

282TROIS-RIVIÈRES

Figure 88: The parish

house of Trois-Rivières,

front and side facades.

(KD)

283

Figure 89: The impact of

the parish house, the

presbytery and the

church on the landscape

of Trois-Rivières. (KD)

Figure 91: Trois-Rivières

church and city hall: the

confrontation of two

symbols? (KD)

TROIS-RIVIÈRES

284 TROIS-RIVIÈRES

Figure 92: The new city

hall of Trois-Rivières.(KD)

Figure 98: The main

facade of the new school

complex in the bourg of

Trois-Rivières. (KD)

285TROIS-RIVIÈRES

Figure 101: Examples of

buildings built between

1955 and 1969 in the

bourg of Trois-Rivières.

(KD)

286 TROIS-RIVIÈRES

Figure 102: The main

building of the convent in

Trois-Rivières.(KD)

Figure 105: The pre-

school of Trois-Rivières.

(KD)

287TROIS-RIVIÈRES

Figure 106: The House of

Youth in Trois-Rivières.

(KD)

Figure 107: The new

health centre in Trois-

Rivières. (KD)

Figure 110: The scout

house in Trois-Rivières.

(KD)

288 TROIS-RIVIÈRES

Figure 112: From school

buildings to Elder Associ-

ation, Trois-Rivières. (KD)

Note: The small concrete

pillars in front of the buil-

dings are remains of other

previous school buildings.

Figure 113: From school

to library, Trois-Rivières.

(KD)

Figure 111: A new buil-

ding housing the muni-

cipal water department in

Trois-Rivières. (KD)

289TROIS-RIVIÈRES

Figure 114: Initiative

Centre of Trois-Rivières.

(KD)

Figure 115: From fire

station to housing and

public services, Trois-

Rivières. (KD)

290 TROIS-RIVIÈRES

Figure 116: From health

centre to children’s

recreational centre, Trois-

Rivières. (KD) Note: The

modifications were made

without building permision,

nor with an awareness of

the patrimonial value of

the building: civil servants

didn’t know the building

had been designed by Ali

Tur.

291TROIS-RIVIÈRES

Figure 118: New housing

in Trois-Rivières. (KD)

292 TROIS-RIVIÈRES

Figure 181: A present-

day view of the main

street of the bourg of

Trois-Rivières. (KD)

Figure 182: Interior of the

parish church in Trois-

Rivières. (KD)

293TROIS-RIVIERES

Figure 185: Examples of

‘attics’ in Trois-Rivières’

bourg. (KD)

294 TROIS-RIVIERES

Figure 187: Interior decor-

ation in two different

houses in Trois-Rivières’

bourg. (KD)

Figure 196: The present-

day covered market of

Trois-Rivières’ bourg,

designed by architect

Chérubin. (KD)

295TROIS-RIVIERES

Figure 201: A ruined

three-storey building in

bourg of Trois-Rivières.

(KD) When private rights

and public interests face-

off against each other.

Figure 204: A cubic-

shaped building in the

bourg of Trois-Rivières.

296

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES[(KD) stands for author contributions]

- Photographs taken before 2000

Figure 8. “La Guadeloupe. Trois-Rivières”, postcard stamped 4C, 1906. Source: MuséeSaint-John-Perse, copyright forbidden.

Figure 9. Le Moule, Jacob Street, 1916. Source: Private collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.Figure 10. Vieux-Bourg, no date. Source: Chopin A. & H. Guadeloupe d’Antan, ed. HC,

1998, p. 39.Figure 11. Saint-Claude, 1920s. Source: Musée Saint-John Perse, copyright forbidden.Figure 12. The bourg of Trois-Rivières, postcard stamped “Collection Caillé, Pointe-à-

Pitre”, c.1907-1908. Source: Musée Saint-John-Perse, copyright forbidden.Figure 13. The bourg of Deshaies around 1920. Source: Desmoulin, M-E. La Côte-sous-le-

vent Guadeloupe/Inventaire général des monuments et des richesses artisitiques de laFrance. Région Guadeloupe, Pointe-à-Pitre: Jasor, 2002, p. 32.

Figure 14. Port-Louis, the main street, 1905-1925. Source: Private collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.

Figure 15. Capesterre, the open market, “La Guadeloupe illustrée”, 1907-1908. Source:Private collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.

Figure 16. Baillif, 1905-1925. Source: Private collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.Figure 17. Bouillante, édition 4C, c1920. Source: La Côte-sous-le-vent, op.cit. p. 32.Figure 18. Le Moule, Le Boulevard Rougé. Collection Caillé, 1907-1908. Source: Private

collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.Figure 19. Le Moule, La rue Jacob, 1914. Source: Private collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.Figure 20. Les Abymes, «La Guadeloupe Illustrée», collection Caillé, 1907-1908. Source:

Private collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.Figure 21. The church of Gosier, no date. Source: Fabre, C. De clocher en clocher, Ed.

Grande Terre Sud.Figure 22. The bourg of Trois-Rivières, 1906, collection Phos. Source: Musée Saint-John-

Perse, copyright forbidden.Figure 23. Pointe-à-Pitre, Rue de Nozières, 1905-1925. Source: Private collection,

Pointe-à-Pitre.Figure 24. Basse-Terre, Grand’Rue du Cours, 1925. Source: Private collection, Pointe-à-

Pitre.Figure 25. Pointe-à-Pitre, Le Faubourg Vatable, «La Guadeloupe illustrée», 1907-1908.

Source: Private collection, Pointe-à-Pitre.Figure 26. Le Hameau du “Bananier”, édition Phos, 1908. Source: Private collection,

Pointe-à-Pitre.Figure 27. Case de Cultivateurs, 1912. Source: Musée Saint-John-Perse, copyright for-

bidden.Figure 28. The ravages of the 1928 hurricane in Pointe-à-Pitre, general view. Source:

CAOM, 2fi2374.Figure 29. The ravages of the 1928 hurricane in Pointe-à-Pitre. Source: CAOM, 2fi2374.Figure 30. Some buildings designed by Ali Tur: the hospital of Pointe-à-Pitre, the square

of Morne-à-l’Eau and the church of Sainte-Anne. Source: La Guadeloupe, Librairie desArts Décoratifs, Paris, 1935.

Figure 35. Gosier after the hurricane of 1928. Source: Album of Gosier-1935. Arch. Dép.Gua. n°1856.

Figure 37. Gosier city hall c.1935. Source: Album of Gosier-1935.Arch. Dép. Gua. n°1856.Figure 38. View on Gosier presbytery c.1935. Source: Album of Gosier-1935.Arch. Dép.

Gua. n°1856.Figure 39. Gosier police station c1935. Source: Album of Gosier-1935.Arch. Dép.

Gua.n°1856.Figure 41. The Main Street of Gosier c1935. Source: Album of Gosier-1935.Arch. Dép.

Gua. n°1856.Figure 43. View on the new club-restaurant in the bourg of Gosier. Source: L’Architecture

d’Aujourd’hui, March 1936. CAOM, bib, som, d/br/7233.Figure 44. Gosier seaside resort hotel, c1936. Source: Musée Saint-John-Perse, copyright

forbidden.

297

Figure 60. La Datcha municipal beach in Gosier, before 1989. Photo P. Giraud.Figure 61. Gosier after Hurricane Hugo (1989). Photo A. Collineau de Montaguère.Figure 70. The bourg of Trois-Rivières, c1910. Source: Martin, R. La Guadeloupe en zigzag,

journal du gendarme à cheval Georges Bonnemaison (1900-1903), Ed. Caret, 2001.Figure 73. The health centre and the church of Trois-Rivières by Architect Ali Tur. Source:

CAOM, bib,som,d/br/8728, «Un ensemble de constructions à la Guadeloupe(1931-34), architecte: Ali Tur.», in L’Architecte, architectural review.

Figure 77. Trois-Rivières church before 1928. Source: Municipal Archives of Trois-Rivières.

Figure 78. Demolition of the old church in Trois-Rivières, and cornerstone laying cer-emony of the new church, April 1931. Source: Municipal Archives of Trois-Rivières.

Figure 80. One picture of the inauguration of the new church of Trois-Rivières, July 1933.Source: Musée Saint-John-Perse, copyright forbidden.

Figure 82. Doctor Siméon’s house in the bourg of Trois-Rivières. Source: Flohic, J.L.Patrimoine des communes de la Guadeloupe, Ed. Flohic, 1998, p. 363.

Figure 117. The old building before the demolition and the model of the redevelopmentproject in the bourg of Trois-Rivières. Source: Municipal magazine Trois-Rivières enmarche, n°7, 1992, p.10.

Figure 122. Some examples of concrete buildings in the French colonies: the Commentry-Oissel house (Tunisia) and the Fillod colonial house (Abidjan). Source: Royer, J.(dir.) Congrès international de l’urbanisme aux colonies et dans les pays de latitudeintertropicale (1931; Paris), op.cit.,Vol. II, pp. 69 & 71.

Figure 123. The International Colonial Exhibition 1931, Paris, the Pavilion of Guade-loupe by architect Ali Tur. Source: Musée Saint-John-Perse, copyright forbidden.

Figure 124. The International Colonial Exhibition of 1931 in Paris, the map of the exhibi-tion and picture of the site. Source: CAOM and Archives de l’Agence Universitairede la Francophonie au Cambodge.

Figure 125. The cover of La Guadeloupe book, edited for the commemoration of 1935.Source: Personal Collection.

Figure 126. The Exhibition of 1937 in Paris, the pavilion of Guadeloupe by architect AliTur. Source: CAOM. “Le Courrier colonial illustré”, November 25, 1937.

Figure 127. The Exhibition of 1937, Paris, Le Bar des Isles. Source: CAOM, agefom 605.

- Photographs taken after 2000All courtesy of the author, except for Figure.64.(colour plates)

Front cover: Sainte-Rose.Figure 51. Extension of the Gosier city hall.Figure 56. The new church of Gosier.Figure 58. The Gosier health centre (2002).Figure 63. Gosier police station.Figure 64. Gosier multi-media library. Source: Brochure de la Média-thèque du Gosier.Figure 65. Day-care center in Mangot (Gosier).Figure 66. Apartment blocks in Mangot, 2003 (Gosier).Figure 71. One example of a stone house in Trois-Rivières.Figure 75. Salin house in front of the post office in the bourg of Trois-Rivières.Figure 76. The post office today, designed by Ali Tur in 1932 (Trois-Rivières).Figure 83. The “Tout Affaires” shop, built around 1929 in the bourg of Trois-Rivières.Figure 88. The parish house of Trois-Rivières, front and side facades.Figure 89. The impact of the parish house, the presbytery and the church on the land-

scape of Trois-Rivières.Figure 91. Trois-Rivières’ church and city hall: the confrontation of two symbols?Figure 92. The new city hall of Trois-Rivières.Figure 95. The market of Trois-Rivières. Source: Flohic, J.L. Patrimoine des communes de la

Guadeloupe, Ed.Flohic, 1998, p.365.Figure 98. The main facade of the new school complex in the bourg of Trois-Rivières.Figure 101. Some examples of building built between 1955 and 1969 in the bourg of

Trois-Rivières.Figure 102. Main building of the convent in Trois-Rivières.

298

Figure 105. Pre-school of Trois-Rivières.Figure 106. House of Youth in Trois-Rivières.Figure 107. New health centre in Trois-Rivières.Figure 110. Scout house in Trois-Rivières.Figure 111. New building holding the municipal water department in Trois-Rivières.Figure 112. From school buildings to Elder Association, Trois-Rivières.Figure 113. From school to library, Trois-Rivières.Figure 114. Initiative center of Trois-Rivières.Figure 115. From fire station to housing and public service, Trois-Rivières.Figure 116. From health centre to children’s recreational centre in Trois-Rivières.Figure 118. New housing in Trois-Rivières.Figure 132. Similarities in building structures and techniques for pre-1950 buildings in

Gosier. 1: detail of foundation, 2, 3 & 4: roof and wall structure, 5 & 6: wooden pigs.Figure 136. Wooden shutters in Gosier.Figure 137. Wooden inner corbelled vaults in Gosier.Figure 141. Some examples of building main façades in the coastal area of Gosier.Figure 144. Some back facades of the coastal housings in Gosier.Figure 145. Architectural modern style in Gosier.Figure 148. Some examples of housing solidifications on their main façade in the central

area of Gosier.Figure 151. Extensions of the initial wooden houses (upper western corner of the central

block) in the bourg of Gosier.Figure 152. Street facades of the 1972 concrete housing type in the central block (Gosier).Figure 154. New concrete houses between 1972 and 1988 in the central block of Gosier.Figure 158. Contrast between one-family housing and multi-family housing in Gosier.Figure 165. Introduction of new form and use in the coastal block (Gosier).Figure 170. New types of building introduced through the renovation: row-housing and

apartment blocks.Figure 181. The main street of Trois-Rivières’ bourg 100 years later.Figure 182. Interior of the parish church in Trois-Rivières.Figure 185. Examples of attics in Trois-Rivières’ bourg.Figure 187. Inner decoration in two different houses in Trois-Rivières’ bourg.Figure 196. The covered market of Trois-Rivières’ bourg today, by Architect Chérubin.Figure 201. A two-floor concrete ruined building in Trois-Rivières’ bourg.Figure 203. A cube-shape building in the bourg of Trois-Rivières.

- Maps

Figure 1. Guadeloupe in the Caribbean region. Source: Giordani, J-P. La Guadeloupe face àson patrimoine, Karthala, 1996.

Figure 2. Relief of Guadeloupe. Source: GEO Magazine, nº 262, December 2000.Figure 3. Cities of Guadeloupe. Source: Tourist Office of Guadeloupe.Figure 7. Map of Guadeloupe by 1758. Source: Editions Exbrayat, 00-D263-C26P009.Figure 31. The 1999 repartition of the population in the island. Source: INSEE.Figure 32. Gosier. Source: IGN 2001.Figure 33. The cadastral map of Gosier in 1732 (detail). Source: Arch. Dép. Gua.Figure 34. Gosier in 1902. Source: CAOM, 1pl297.Figure 36. The map of Gosier in 1935. Source: Album of Gosier-1935. Arch. Dép. Gua.

n°1856.Figure 40. Map of the Guadeloupean road system by Engineer Robert in 1935 (detail on

Gosier). Source: Robert, G. Les Travaux publics de la Guadeloupe, op.cit.Figure 42. Map of the population density by Engineer Robert in 1935 (detail on Gosier).

Source: Robert, G. Les Travaux publics de la Guadeloupe, op.cit.Figure 45. Evolution of building density in Gosier, 1956-2001. Source: Based on site

survey and the IGN maps of 1956, 1969, 1985 and 2001. (KD)Figure 46. The street system of Gosier in 1956, from the electrification plan of May 27th,

1955. Source: Arch. Dép. Gua, sc 2256.Figure 54. The new street block in Gosier. Source: Cadastre.Figure 68. The municipal land-use plan of Gosier (POS), 1986. Source: SEMAG.Figure 69. Trois-Rivières. Source: IGN.

299

Figure 81. Map of the population density by Engineer Robert in 1935 (detail on Trois-Rivières). Source: Robert, G. Les Travaux publics de la Guadeloupe, op.cit.

Figure 84. Map of population density by Engineer Robert in 1935 (detail on Trois-Rivières). Source: Robert, G. Les Travaux publics de la Guadeloupe, op.cit.

Figure 85. Map of Guadeloupe in 1938 (detail on Trois-Rivières). Source: Arch, Dép.Gua. Service Géographique du Ministère des colonies, 1938.

Figure 120. The land-use plan (POS) of Trois-Rivières, (last corrected 1996). Source:Municipal archives of Trois-Rivières.

Figure 121. Land-ownership in the bourg of Trois-Rivières. Source: SEMAG 1985.Figure 172. The specific plot layout of the renovation program in Mangot (inland area),

Gosier. Source: SEMAG.

- Explicative documents(drawn after a site survey; all drawn by the author unless otherwise indicated)

Figure 4. The chosen contour for the bourg of Gosier. Based on 1991 Cadastre.Figure 5. The chosen contour for the bourg of Trois-Rivières. Based on 1986 cadastre.Figure 6. Diagram of the methodology.Figure 47. Impact of the row housing plan in the bourg of Gosier. Source: Based on site

survey and cadastre.Figure 49. Evolution of the streets (classified and non-classified) in Gosier, 1956-2001.

Source: Based on site survey and the IGN maps of 1956, 1969, 1985 and 2001.Figure 50. Backyard filling and building multiplication in the bourg of Gosier, 1956-1969.

Source: Based on site survey and IGN maps of 1956 & 1969.Figure 52. Sub-districts of the inland area (l’arrière-bourg) in 1969 (Gosier).Figure 53. Public buildings in the bourg of Gosier in 1969. Based on site survey.Figure 55. Building evolution in the bourg of Gosier , 1969-1985: evidence of building

clearance and building multiplication. Source: Based on site survey and IGN maps.Figure 62. Building evolution in the bourg of Gosier, 1985-2001: evidence of building

clearance and building multiplication. Source: Based on IGN maps and site-survey.Figure 67. Advertisement for the renovation of the inland area (arrière-bourg in Gosier).

Source: SEMAG.Figure 86. Evolution of classified and non-classified streets in Trois-Rivières, 1955-2001.

Based on site survey and the IGN maps of 1955, 1969, 1985 and 2001.Figure 87. Trois-Rivières’ built space c1955. Source: Based on site survey and IGN maps.Figure 90. Constructing a new street in Trois-Rivières’ bourg. Source: Based on cadastre.Figure 93. Municipal and religious buildings in Trois-Rivières circa 1956. Based on site

survey and Cadastre.Figure 94. The evolution of building density in Trois-Rivières, 1955-2001. Source: Based

on site survey and the IGN maps of 1955, 1969, 1985 and 2001.Figure 96. The chronological location of school buildings in the bourg of Trois-Rivières.

Based on site survey and Cadastre.Figure 99. Successive locations of the gendarmerie in Trois-Rivières. Based on site survey

and IGN mapsFigure 100. Some pattern of early densification between 1955 and 1968 in the bourg of

Trois-Rivières. Source: Based on site survey and IGN maps.Figure 103. Evolution of built space in the bourg of Trois-Rivières, 1969-1985. Source:

Based on site survey and IGN maps.Figure 108. One-way streets in Trois-Rivières.Figure 109. Evolution of built space in the bourg of Trois-Rivières, 1985-2001. Source:

Based on site survey and IGN maps.Figure 128. Morphological organization of the bourg of Gosier. Plan of 2003, drawing

based on cadastral map and site survey.Figure 129. The bourg of Gosier and the selected area. Based on cadastral map, 1991.Figure 138. The conjectural plan of the bourg of Gosier c1955. After site survey.Figure 139. The cadastre of 1972, Gosier. Source: Based on site survey and cadastre.Figure 140. The cadastre of 1988, Gosier. Source: Based on site survey and cadastre.Figure 146. The reduction of block crossings over the years in Gosier. After site survey.Figure 150. An example of housing transformation in Guadeloupe. Source: Berthelot &

300

Gaume, Kaz antiyé jan moun ka rété, op.cit., p. 160.Figure 164. The cadastre of 2003 based on earlier cadastres and site survey, Gosier.Figure 167. Building in the central block (2003) and building permit façade (1989): a gap

between design and reality. Source: Municipal Archives of Gosier. Picture (KD).Figure 171. The new street patterns in Mangot (inland area), Gosier 2003. After SEMAG

documents and site survey.Figure 173. Buildings with at least one upper floor in Mangot (inland area), Gosier. After

site survey.Figure 179. The evolution of public space in the bourg of Gosier (1930s-2003).Figure 180. The chosen site in Trois-Rivières’ bourg. Based on 2001 IGN map.Figure 183. Repartition of single-floor and multi-storied buildings before 1950 in Trois-

Rivières’ bourg. Based on site surveyFigure 184. The chosen site before 1950. Conjectural plan after IGN map and site survey,

plot layout with the collaboration of G.Siarras from the municipality of Trois-Rivières.

Figure 193. The chosen site in 1977, Trois-Rivières. Source: Based on Municipal archives,«Schema d’extension des voieries du bourg» and site survey.

Figure 204. The chosen site in 2003, Trois-Rivières. Source: Based on site survey andcadastre.

Figure 213. The evolution of public space in the bourg of Trois-Rivières (1930s-2003).

- Plans

Figure 48. Plan of the new square in the bourg of Gosier on December 27th, 1956. Source:Arch. Dép. Gua, sc 2226.

Figure 57. Facades of the only 2 buildings permits concerning private house in the bourgof Gosier demanded in 1980. Source: Municipal archives of Gosier.

Figure 59. Transformations of the Pergola Hotel and its surroundings, building permitrequested on May 23rd, 1980 and accepted in 1981. Source: Municipal Archives ofGosier.

Figure 72. The “public block” in 1931 (Trois-Rivières). Source: Municipal Archives ofTrois-Rivières.

Figure 74. The plot of the health center and post office in Trois-Rivières. Source: CAOM,1tp447.

Figure 79. Plan and section of Trois-Rivières’ new church. Source: Conseil Général de laGuadeloupe, Basse-Terre.

Figure 97. Unrealized projects for the new school complex in Trois-Rivières. Source:Municipal Archives of Trois-Rivières.

Figure 104. Plan showing the new emplacement of the war memorial in Trois-Rivières thepublic square behind the city hall in Trois-Rivières (1977). Source: Municipal Ar-chives of Trois-Rivières.

Figure 119. Before and after on the old public block of Trois-Rivières. Source: MunicipalArchives of Trois-Rivières.

Figure 130. The plan of the Billy house in Gosier (1929). Source: After Arch. Dép. Gua.Sc 6265, Municipal minutes of Gosier, March 27, 1929. (KD)

Figure 131. The localization of the houses built before 1950 in the bourg of Gosier. Source:after site survey and IGN 1956 map. (KD)

Figure 133. One example of wooden house in Gosier (“la case”). (KD)Figure 134. Second example of wooden house in Gosier (“la case”). (KD)Figure 135. Third example of wooden house in Gosier (“la case”). (KD)Figure 142. Sketch of the first floor of one house in the coastal area of Gosier. (KD)Figure 143. The first floor of one house in the coastal area of Gosier. (KD)Figure 147. An example of a wooden house built after 1950 in central Gosier. (KD)Figure 149. One example of housing transformation in the central area of Gosier. Plan

courtesy of the owner, picture and schema (KD).Figure 153. Plan of the health center of Gosier. (KD)Figure 155. Concrete house based on a wooden type (Gosier’s inland area). Plan courtesy

of the owner, picture (KD).Figure 156. Concrete house in Gosier’s central block in 1988. Plan courtesy of the town,

picture (KD).

301

Figure 157. The first multi-family housing in Gosier’s central area. Plan courtesy ofDoctor Duhamel, picture (KD).

Figure 159. Two types of living units in the multi-family building (Gosier).Plan: Cour-tesy of Doctor Duhamel, picture (KD).

Figure 160. The permanency of wooden housing in Gosier’s inland area. (KD)Figure 161. One example of a concrete house built between 1972 and 1988 in Gosier’s

inland area. (KD)Figure 162. Concrete building based on a wooden old type (Gosier’s inland area). (KD)Figure 163. Mixed type in Gosier’s inland area. Plan and façade courtesy of the owner.Figure 166. New concrete building in the central block based on a traditional housing

type, 2003 (Gosier). (KD)Figure 168. Municipal public daycare of Gosier’s bourg in Mangot. Plan courtesy of

SEMAG, picture (KD).Figure 169. The Mangot Youth House in Gosier. Plan courtesy of SEMAG.Figure 174. New housing type in Mangot (inland area), social housing. Plan courtesy of

SEMAG, picture (KD).Figure 175. New housing type in Mangot (inland area), private housing. (KD)Figure 176. Several decades of building works, Mangot (inland area). (KD)Figure 177. One example of post-1989 private housing type in Mangot (inland area)

with reference to traditional housing elements. (KD)Figure 178. One example of open space plan, social housing in Mangot (inland area).

Source: Plan courtesy of SEMAG, picture (KD).Figure 186. A wooden single-floor house in Trois-Rivières’ bourg. (KD)Figure 188. Plan based on the principle of rooms communicating with each other, Trois-

Rivières. Plan courtesy of G. Siarras, picture (KD).Figure 189. Full concrete building built in the 1930s, in Trois-Rivières’ bourg. (KD)Figure 190. Wooden multi-storied building, built before 1906 and demolished in 1951

(Trois-Rivières). Source: Arch. Dép.Gua. sc 1026, municipal minutes on February27, 1951.

Figure 191. Multi-storied building (stone & wood) built before 1928, Trois-Rivières (KD)Figure 192. Abandoned wooden single-storey building in Trois-Rivières’ bourg. (KD)Figure 194. The new concrete city hall of Trois-Rivières (2nd floor, organization princi-

ple). Architect Chérubin. (KD)Figure 195. The staircase, as an architectural element of prestige: the secondary school of

Terre-de-Bas (Guadeloupe). Architects G. Alexis, J. & S. Kalisz. Source: Architectureméditerranéenne architectural magazine, 1995, p. 222.

Figure 197. Single-storey building, built after 1959, Trois-Rivières. Divisions drawnaccording to witnesses’ description, picture (KD)

Figure 198. A new type of single-storey building during the 1950-1977 period in Trois-Rivières’ bourg. (KD)

Figure 199. A wooden single-storey house in Trois-Rivières’ bourg. (KD)Figure 200. The presbytery of Trois-Rivières: a case of extension. (KD)Figure 202. The hybrid building type in Trois-Rivières’ bourg, sketch based on oral de-

scription. (KD)Figure 205. An example of an extension during the period of 1977-2003 in Trois-Rivières.

(KD)Figure 206. An example of inner reorganization and extension in Trois-Rivières’ bourg.

Plan courtesy of G. Siarras, picture (KD).Figure 207. Modernization of one building in the Notre-Dame Convent in Trois-Rivières.

Plan courtesy of the Town.Figure 208. An example of inner reorganization, the tourist office of Trois-Rivières. Plan

courtesy of the Town, picture (KD).Figure 209. An example of multi-storied building during the 1977-2003 period in Trois-

Rivières’ bourg. (KD)Figure 210. An example of a new type variant in Trois-Rivières’bourg. Plan courtesy of

the town, picture (KD).Figure 211. An example of building transformations in Trois-Rivières’ bourg. Plan and

facades courtesy of the town and the owner.Figure 212. A new type of multi-family housing in Trois-Rivières’ bourg. Plan courtesy of

the town, picture (KD).

302

- Tables

Table 1. Statement of the loss, estimated according to the communal commissions,whose files have already been centralized in the main town of the colony, January19th, 1929. Source: CAOM, fm, sg, gua252.1518.

Table 2. Assessment of the works realized by 1940, October 25th, 1941. Source: CAOM,fm, 1tp/623.

Table 3. The expenses for the revalorization of Guadeloupe from 1919 to 1929 (detail).Source: CAOM, fm, 1/affpol/2640.

Table 4. The evolution of the importations’ coverage by exports between 1938 and 2002.Source: CAOM bib, som,c/br/9319 & INSEE.

Table 5. The evolution of employment by sector of activities in Guadeloupe from 1954 to2001. Source: CAOM bib, som,c/br/9319 & INSEE 2003.

Table 6. The evolution of the cities and towns of Guadeloupe depending on their popu-lation rate, 1982-1999. Source: INSEE.

Table 7. Development in public infrastructures from 1946 to 1971. Source: CAOM bib,som,c/br/9319.

Table 8. The evolution of the Pointe-à-Pitre/ Abymes/ Gosier/ Baie-Mahault/Lamentin/ Petit-Bourg agglomeration from 1954 to 1999.

Table 9. The amount of land transactions depending on the period in Gosier. Source:Lawson-Body, op.cit., table 3 (extract), p. 57.

Table 10. Classification by occupation on July 1st, 1931 and land-surface per crop inGosier, on January 1, 1935. Source: Robert, G. Les Travaux Publics de la Guadeloupe,op.cit., pp. 34-35 & 224-225.

Table 11. The evolution of the population in Gosier’s bourg, 1926-1999. Source: AnnuaireStatistique de la Guadeloupe & INSEE.

Table 12. The distribution of employment in Gosier (%), 1961-1999. Source: INSEE.Table 13. Land surface per crop in Trois-Rivières on 01.01.1935. Source: Robert, G. Les

Travaux Publics de la Guadeloupe, op.cit., pp. 224-225.Table 14. The evolution of the population in Trois-Rivières, 1926-1999. Source: Annuaire

Statistique de la Guadeloupe & INSEE.Table 15. The distribution of employment in Trois-Rivières, 1961-1999. Source: INSEE.Table 16. Housing building materials. Source: Annuaire Statistique de la Guadeloupe &

INSEE.Table 17. Housing comfort. Source: Annuaire Statistique de la Guadeloupe & INSEE.Table 18. The level of housing facilities. Source: Annuaire Statistique de la Guadeloupe &

INSEE.Table 19. The level of housing appliances. Source: Annuaire Statistique de la Guadeloupe &

INSEE.Table 20. The distribution of main residences. Source: Annuaire Statistique de la

Guadeloupe & INSEE.Table 21. The status of housing occupancy. Source: Annuaire Statistique de la Guadeloupe

& INSEE.Table 22. Housing classification depending of the use. Source: Annuaire Statistique de la

Guadeloupe & INSEE.Table 23. Guadeloupean migration towards France and the percentage of persons living

in France that it represents compared to the Guadeloupean population. Source:Rapport d’activités du BUMIDOM on December 31, 1981 and INSEE.

Table 24. Migration balance between 1954 and 1984 in Guadeloupe. Source: AnnuaireStatistique de la Guadeloupe & INSEE.

Table 25. Evolution of housing number and its relative variation (RV in %). Source:Annuaire Statistique de la Guadeloupe & INSEE.

Table 26. Comparison between results in 1940 and budget distribution for 1946. Source:CAOM, fm,1tp/623 and fm,1/affpol/2640.

Table 27. The evolution of the amount of main residences compared to the populationevolution, 1961-1999 (dependencies not included). Source: INSEE.

Table 28. Housing conditions in Gosier’s inland area at the end of the 1980s. Source:SEMAG, Aménagement du Quartier Mangot (Gosier), Etude d’impact, p. 20.

303

SOURCES

1-CAOM: THE ARCHIVES CENTRE OF OVERSEAS TERRITORIES (AIX-EN-PRO-VENCE, FRANCE)

1.1-Bulletins d’information(bulletin régulier publié par l’agence FOM et portant sur les colonies)-Bulletin d’information #110, 22.9.1947Un Salon d’Art dit «Salon d’Hivernage» en octobre 1947 à Basse-Terre, permet auxArchitectes d’exposer leur maquette et au visiteur de comparer ce que fut, ce qu’est et ceque sera l’habitat en Guadeloupe.

1.2-Fonds des cartes et plans (cp)-cp, 1pl297: Guadeloupe en 1902, échelle de 20 km.-cp, 2pl185: carte de la Guadeloupe et dépendances, d’après divers documents etdessinée à Basse-Terre par M. Clairon, Adjoint Technique principal des Travaux Pub-lics. Girard et Barrere Editeurs, Paris. Au 1/100.000, 1901-1950.-cp, 2pl300: Carte de la partie Sud de la Guadeloupe par Léon Le Boucher, 1900.

1.3-Fonds bibliothèque (bib)a-aom-bib, aom,//7592La Guadeloupe du tricentenaire, 1635-1935, présentée par le Gouverneur L.J.Bouge,Basse-Terre.-bib,aom, //12091L’urbanisme aux colonies et dans les pays tropicaux, communications et rapports du congresinternational de l’urbanisme aux colonies et dans les pays de latitude intertropical (congres tenua l’exposition coloniale de 1931), réunis et présentés par Jean ROYER, architecte eturbaniste, directeur administratif de l’Ecole Spéciale d’Architecture, préface deLyautey, tome 1, 1932, Ed.Delayance-bib, aom, 20341La quinzaine en Guadeloupe, service d’information, préfecture de la Guadeloupe,#1, 15mai 1963-bib, aom 21042Bulletin d’information du CENADDOM (centre national de documentation desdépartements d’outre-mer), numéro spécial La conjoncture dans les Dom, #16, 1973b-som-bib, som, c/br/6327Brochure: Guadeloupe, 1946-1971, 25 années de départementalisation-bib, som, c/br/9319Notes et Etudes Documentaires, 22 novembre 1974, «Les départements d’outre-mer, laGuadeloupe», par La documentation française.-bib, som, d/br/6915L’équipement de la Guadeloupe dans le cadre du Vieme plan, pas daté.-bib, som,d/br/7233L’architecture d’aujourd’hui, numéro 3, mars 1936, «France et colonies», France d’outre-mer, numéro spécial de l’architecture d’aujourd’hui, édité à l’occasion de l’exposition dela cité moderne d’Alger, sous la direction de Pierre Vago, p 87-104-bib,som,d/br/8728«L’Architecte» recueil mensuel de l’art architectural publié avec le concours de la sociétédes architectes diplômes par le gouvernement. Tirage à part: «Un ensemble de construc-tions à la Guadeloupe (1931-34), architecte: Ali Tur», Paris, les éditions Albert Lévy, 2rue de l’échelle.-bib, som,d/br/8728«Aménagements paysagers dans le cadre de l’équipement touristique des Antillesfrançaises», rapport de Daniel Collin paysagiste DPLG, ingénieur divisionnaire de laville de Paris,pas de date.-bib, som, d/br/11552: Le sud basse-terrien, approche géographique, de J.C. Baptistide et M.Etna.-bib, som,e/br/7218

304

Supplément du Journal «Neptune» d’Anvers consacré à l’Exposition Coloniale de ParisSupplément illustré du «courrier colonial» par André Thomarel, La France d’outre-merà l’exposition de 1937, 25 nov. 1937.-bib,som,br/11527: projets de maisons d’habitations, réalisé par le bureau d’étudestechniques du bois(M.Manne, ptp), 4 février 1935, adressé au préfet de la Guadeloupe.-bib, som, d39056 ans de réalisation 1967-1973-bib, som, d5196Brochure de l’exposition du tricentenaire du rattachement des Antilles et de la Guyaneà la France, 1635-1935, 3 cents ans d’histoire commune et l’art contemporain et lesAntilles.

1.4-Fonds ministériel (fm)a-affpol: Affaires Politiques-fm, 1/affpol/2640 : projets d’équipement 1946-fm, 1/affpol/2984, dossier5-fm, 1/affpol/2984, dossier 3b-agefom: Agence France Outre-mer-fm, agefom 100/1: Publicité faite par l’agence économique des colonies autonomes,1936.-fm, agefom100/1: Marchés coloniaux, n 42 du 31.8.1946, Création d’un centre depropagande française-fm, agefom 100:Dossier 4 (Organisation municipale 1887-1947)“La Guadeloupe” par l’Agence générale des Colonies, Melun, imprimerieDossier 8: Document non daté, ni signé : «Conditions actuelles de la vie aux Antilles»Dossier 9 : Extrait de tableau de recensement, actes du gouvernement localDossier 13: «La Presse», 13.10.1937-fm, agefom110.26: carton gua 1927-1950rapport non daté-fm, agefom/110/40«Les travaux publics de la Guadeloupe» de G. Robert, ingénieur principal des TP desColonies, chef du service des TP de la Guadeloupe, Ed Librairie militaire L.Fournier,paris, 1935-fm, agefom111.30: extrait de la revue scientifique, 27.10.1934-fm, agefom111.40:Rapport annuel du chef du Service de l’instruction publique pour l’année scolaire 1933/34, de BOUGE, au Ministre des colonies, fait le 12 mars 1935Rapport sur le fonctionnement du service de santé de Guadeloupe, 31 mars 1939, parmédecin Lt-colonel VERNON>-fm, agefom 112/51Bulletin mensuel d’informations, 1937-1938Service de l’Information, article du 15-10-1946Lettre du gouverneur à M.Prévaudeau sous directeur de l’Agence des Colonie,Paris,datée du 9 décembre 1946 à Basse-Terre-fm, agefom515.181Brochure sur le 1er Salon de la France Outre-mer, du 29 nov. au 15.12. 1935-fm, agefom605: la maquette de la caravelle pour le Bar des isles de l’exposition de 1937et la caravelle achetée.-fm, agefom605/782Commission d’organisation de la France d’outre-mer, séance du 18 février 1936(préparation pour l’expo internationale de 1937, sur l’île des cygnes)-fm, agefom605/782Recueil de photographies et d’article de presse concernant le train-exposition, oct. 1941,semaine de la France outre-mer-fm, agefom612: plan de l’exposition de 1937-fm, agefom612/904c-sg: Série Géographique-fm, sg, gua240/1464

305

Rapport de l’ambassadeur de France aux USA Claudel, 18 octobre 1928-fm, sg, gua 244/1487Nombre de maisons reconstruites depuis le cyclone: 3815 au 30 juin 1930, câble de Piétrià député Candace-fm,sg, gua249/1506Extrait de la délibération du conseil municipal du gosier, séance ordinaire du 6.8.1932Lettre du Crédit Foncier de France à M. le Ministre des finances, Paris le 21 avril 1934,sujet: contentieux recouvrement des prêts, signé du gouverneur du crédit foncier deFranceLettre du gouverneur Tellier à M. l’Inspecteur général, chef de Mission Muller, St Claudele 11 avril 1929.PV analytique de la séance du 12 juillet 1929 du Comité chargé de repartir les subven-tions et secours aux sinistrés de la Guadeloupe.-fm, sg, gua252.1518Rapport de M.Muller et réponses faites par M.COSTAZ, chef du service des TP, 15dec1928Analyse de la reconstruction en ciment arme des immeubles détruits par le cyclone du12 sept 1928.de l’inspecteur Général des Colonies, Muller, chef de la Missiond’Inspection de la gua à Monsieur le Ministre des Colonies.12 janvier 1929-fm, sg, gua252.1519, mission d’inspection Muller,1928/1929de Muller, 3 août 1929 au ministre des coloniesd-tp: Travaux Publics-fm, 1tp/440Rapport de Muller à Monsieur le Ministre des Colonies à Paris, fait le 18 février 1933 àBasse-Terre, portant sur la crise de l’apprentissage-fm, 1tp/441Doc. Du 1er août 1931, «La Guadeloupe», projet de réfection du réseau routier, étudegénéral, dressé et présenté par l’entrepreneur Le bitume liquide.-fm, 1tp/447, 1931-32-fm, 1tp448Service des TP, Guadeloupe, assainissement et adduction d’eau, achat du projetd’alimentation en eau de la grande terre, dressé par la société «eau et assainissement»fait le 1er décembre 1931.-fm, 1tp/449Mémoire: Alimentation en eau de la Grande-Terre, Grands travaux, service des TP, 17février 1933-fm,1tp/623Gouvernement de la Guadeloupe, TP, plan général d’équipement (loi du 6 avril 1941)première tranche décennale, programme et rapport général de présentation(doc. du 25octobre 1941)-fm, 1tp1158Rapport annuel sur les grands travaux sur fonds d’emprunt au 31 décembre 1932, parle gouverneur de la Guadeloupe-fm, 1tp1158Rapport annuel du 31 décembre 1937

2-DEPARTMENTAL ARCHIVES OF GUADELOUPE (GOURBEYRE)

2.1-Fond Série Continue-n° 79, 80: documents portant sur l’administration générale de la Guadeloupe.-n° 1026, 1027, 1031 : délibérations du conseil municipal de Trois-Rivières, 1928-1955.-n° 2226, 6265: délibérations du conseil municipal de Gosier, 1928-1955.

2.2-Fonds de l’Atelier d’Urbanisme et d’Aménagement de la Guadeloupe(ADUAG)1246W 48&49

2.3- Fonds de l’incendie de 1955, sous-série 20: Travaux communaux, 1928-1934.2.4-Postcards2.5-Microfilm

306

2Mi1, 2Mi 246 R33, 2Mi247

3-ARCHIVES OF THE BISHOP OF GUADELOUPE (BASSE-TERRE)

4-ARCHIVES OF THE SAINT JOHN PERSE MUSEUM (POINTE-A-PITRE)-Postcards: fonds Caillé, Phos, Catan, Petit/CCCC, éditions diverses, fonds non classé

5-MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES

5.1-Gosier-Permis de construire 1970-2003-POS de Gosier, rapport de présentation 1990.-Le Grand Gosier, coffret de la ville.-Quartier de l’Arrière bourg, SEMAG proposition d’aménagement, 6. 2001.-Plan de situation, ZAC du quartier Mangot, 1/5000, 1998.-Rénover Mangot, Journal de la rénovation du quartier de Mangot (Gosier), réalisé par laSEMAG, 1997 (n° 3).-Enquête socio-économique socio-démographique de l’arrière bourg Gosier, SEMAG,nov. 1998.-OPAH de Gosier, Diagnostic Architectural et Urbain, réalisé par l’Agenced’Architecture Tropisme, déc 1998.-Le Phare de l’Ilet, organe de communication et de lutte anti-violence, trimestriel, éditépar l’Ecole Mixte I Saturnin Jasor, n°1, 2002.-Gosier Flash info, Bulletin Municipal d’information Gratuit, 1995 à 2002.

5.2-Trois-Rivières-Permis de construire: 1960-2003-POS de la Commune de Trois-Rivières, documents graphiques, tableau d’assemblage1/20000, Le bourg 1/2000; rapport de présentation, 5. 1996.-Requalification du bourg, étude réalisée par la SEMAG, novembre 1995.-Trois-Rivières, ville fleurie, coffret de la ville.-Notre Trois-Rivières, magazine gratuit d’information de la Municipalité de Trois-Rivières, de 1995 à 2002.

6. OTHERS

-cartes IGN-INSEE-Cadastre-Carte de 1938 du Service Géographique des Ministères des Colonies-Journal Officiel de la République Française.

307

BIBLIOGRAPHY[* indicates books found in archives, but most likely no longer in print. See SourceDocumentation for further information]

1- URBAN MORPHOLOGY AND TYPOLOGY

-Bruce Hull, R. Image Congruity, place attachment and community design, Journal of Archi-tectural and Planning Research (JAPR) n°3 vol. 9, 1992.

-Caniggia, G. & Maffei, G. L Composition architecturale et typologie du bâti, Larochelle P.(French translation), Ville Recherche Diffusion, 2000.

-Caniggia, G. Lecture de Florence, une approche morphologique de la ville et du territoire,ISASL Bruxelles, References XVIII, 1994.

-Castex J. Une typologie à usages multiples, Versailles: LDRHAUS, 2001.-Clément-Charpentier, S. «Tissus et tracés urbains à Bangkok et Chiengmai» in Les

Cahiers de la Recherche Architecturale 35/36 Cités d’Asie, Ed. Parenthèses, pp.107-120.-Conzen, M. P. “Town-plan analysis in an American setting: cadastral processes in

Boston and Omaha, 1630-1930” in Slater, T. R. (ed.), The Built Form of Western Cities,1990, pp. 142-171.

-Conzen, M.R.G. Alnwick, Northumberland, a study in town-plan analysis, Institute ofBritish Geographers Publication, No. 27. London: G. Philip and Son, 1960.

-Dupré, K. «Meaning of city planning in Guadeloupe» in The Planned City? ISUF Interna-tional Conference, Bari: Union Corcelli Editrice, 2003, pp. 411-416.

-*Durand, J.N.L. Recueil et parallèle des édifices de tout genre anciens et modernes, Paris: imp.de Gillé fils, 1799-1801.

-Gülgönen, A & Laisney, F. Morphologie urbaine et typologie architecturale, IERAU/CORDA, 1977, Tome I.

-Kervanto Nevanlinna, A. Interpreting Nairobi, The Cultural Study of Built Forms, SuomenHistoriallinen Seura, Helsinki, 1996.

-Koter, M. “The morphological evolution of a nineteenth century city centre: Lodz,Poland, 1825-1973”, in Slater T.R. (Ed.), The Built Form of Western Cities, LeicesterUniversity Press, England, 1990, pp. 109-141.

-Kropf, K «An Alternative Approach to Zoning in France: Typology, Historical Charac-ter and Development Control» in European Planning Studies, Vol. 4, #6, 1996, pp.717-737.

-Larkham, P. J. & Jones, A. N. A Glossary of Urban Form, HGRG 26, Editors and UrbanMorphology Research Group, June 1991.

-Panerai, Castex, Depaule Formes urbaines, de l’îlot à la barre, Ed. Parenthèses, 1997.-Pakarinen, T. & Hurme, T. (1988) Space and Urban. A Typological Approach to the Indus-

trial Town, TUT, Finland.-Pevsner, N. A History of Building Types, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976.-*Quatremère de Quincy, Encyclopédie Méthodique, Volume I, Paris: Panckoucke, 1788 ;

Volume II & III, Edition Veuve Agasse, 1801-1825.-Roberts, B. K. The Making of the English Village. A Study in Historical Geography, Ed.

Longman Scientific & Technical, 1987.-Slater, T. R. (ed.), The Built Form of Western Cities, 1990.-The planned city? ISUF International Conference, Petruccioli, Stella, Strappa (ed), Bari:

Uniongrafica Corcelli Editrice, 2003, 3 volumes.-Vernez-Moudon, A. “Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field” in

Urban Morphology 1, 1997, pp. 3-10.-Vilagrasa, J. “The fringe-belt concept in a Spanish context: the case of Lleida” in Slater

T.R. (Ed.) The Built Form of Western Cities, Leicester University Press, England, 1990,pp. 300-318.

-Whitehand, J.W.R & Carr, C.M.H. Twentieth-Century Suburbs, A Morphological Approach,Routledge, London, 2001.

2- ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM

-Bastié. J. & Dézert. B. La Ville, Ed. Masson, 1991.-Cherry, G.E. (ed.) Shaping an Urban World, London: Mansell, 1980.

308

-Choay, F. L’Urbanisme, utopies et réalités, Editions du seuil, Paris, 1965.-Cohen, J. L. «La Marche de l’architecture moderne» and «L’architecture de l’après-

guerre» in Châtelet & Groslier (dir.) Histoire de l’Art, l’épanouissement de l’art moderne,Larousse, 1998, pp. 210-233.

-Ged, F. «Gestion du désordre et pathologie de croissance» in Les Cahiers de la RechercheArchitecturale 35/36 Cités d’Asie, Ed. Parenthèses, pp. 199-214.

-Hillier, B. & Hanson, J. The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge University Press, 1984.-Koolhaas, R. “Architecture Against Urbanism” in Verwijnen and Lehtovuori (ed.) Man-

aging urban change, Helsinki: UIAH, 1996, pp. 119-132.-Lawrence, R. The Meaning and Use of Home, JAPR n°2, Vol. 8, 1991.-Markus, T. Buildings and Power, London: Routledge, 1993.-Olsend, D-J. The City as a Work of Art, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1986.-Pinon, P. “Raisons et formes de villes: approche compare des fondations coloniales

francaises au début du XVIIIème siècle” in La ville européenne outre mers: un modèleconquérant ? (15-20ème siècle), Ed. L’Harmattan, 1996, pp. 27-29.

-Ragon, M. Histoire mondiale de l’architecture et de l’urbanisme modernes, Casterman, Paris-Tournai, 1986, Vol. I & II.

-*Royer, J. (dir.) Congrès international de l’urbanisme aux colonies et dans les pays de latitudeintertropicale (1931 ; Paris), Paris: Ed. d’Urbanisme, Vol. I & II, 1932-1935.

-Tribillon, J.F. L’urbanisme, Ed. La Découverte, 1990.-Wright, G. The Politics of Design in French Colonial Urbanism, Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press, 1991.

3- HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY

-Ageron, C-R. «L’Exposition coloniale de 1931, Mythe républicain ou mythe impérial?»in Les lieux de mémoire, Vol. 1, Gallimard, 1997, pp. 493-511.

-Agulhon, M. “La mairie” in Les lieux de mémoire, Vol. 1, Gallimard, 1997, pp. 179-198.-Beaujeu-Garnier, J. & Chabot, G. Traité de Géographie urbaine, Paris: Armand Colin, 1995

(4è ed.).-Bruant, C. & Blain C. Le logement et la ville dans les premiers congrès coloniaux français,

LADRAUS, tome II, 1997.-Carpentier, J. & Lebrun, F. (dir.) Histoire de France, Seuil, 1987.-Coquery-Vidrovitch, C. & Ageron, C-R. Histoire de la France coloniale, Le déclin, tome

3, Armand Colin Editeur, Paris, 1991.-*Congrès des Anciennes Colonies, Compte-rendu des travaux, Milhe-Poutingon (publ.),

Paris, 1910.-Hodeir, C. & Pierre, M. L’Exposition coloniale, Ed. Complexe, 1991.-Lasserre, G. Libreville : la ville et sa région, étude de géographie humaine, Paris: Armand

Colin, 1958.-Nora, P. (dir.) Les lieux de mémoire, Vol. 1, Gallimard, 1997.-Pinol, J.L. (dir.) Histoire de l’Europe urbaine, Seuil 2003, tome II.-Saunier, P-Y. “Changing the city: urban international information and the Lyon munici-

pality, 1900-1940” in Planning Perspectives, 14, 1999.-Smith, B. Modernism’s history, Yale University Press, 1998.-Topolski, J. Methodology of History, Reidel Publishing Company, 1976.

4- NOTIONS OF SOCIOLOGY

-Bourdieu, P. Les structures sociales de l’économie, Ed. Seuil, 2000.-Daryush Shayegan, “Les lendemains de la société”, in Libération, 2001.-Eriksen, T. H. Ethnicity and Nationalism, Ed. Pluto Press, 1998.-Essed, P, Everyday Racism. An Interdisciplinary Theory, London: Sage, 1990.-Lefebvre, H. La révolution urbaine, Anthropos, 1991.-Lefebvre, H. La production de l’espace, Anthropos, 2000 (4th ed.).-McGrane, Beyond Anthropology, Society and the Other, New York: Columbia University

Press, 1989.-Raymond, H., Haumont, N. & A., Dezès M-G. L’habitat pavillonnaire, L’Harmattan,

2001.-Simmons, Interpreting Nature: Cultural Construction of the Environment, London:

309

Routledge, 1993.-Frémy D. & M. Quid 1999, Laffont, 1998.

5- GENERALITIES ABOUT THE WEST INDIES

-Abraham, M. & Maragnès, D. (dir.), Guadeloupe, temps incertains, Ed. Autrement, 2001.-Anselin, A. L’émigration antillaise en France, la troisième Ile, Karthala, 1990.-Bouchet, H & Richet, G. Rapport d’évaluation de l’Université des Antilles et de la Guyane,

CNE, 1991.-Boutroy, J-M “Le développement des îles du Nord”, Mémoire de DESS, Verdol P. (dir),

UAG, unpublished, 1995.-Césaire, A. Discours sur le colonialisme, Ed. Présence Africaine, 1955.-Césaire, A. Cahier d’un retour au pays natal, Ed. Présence Africaine, 1983 (1st ed. Bordas

1947).-Chopin, A. & H. Guadeloupe d’Antan, Ed. HC, 1998.-Fabre, C. De clocher en clocher, Aubenas, 1979.-Fanon, F. Peau noire, masques blancs, Edition du Seuil, 1952.-Bernabé, Confiant., Chamoiseau, Éloge de la créolité, Gallimard, 1989.-Chamoiseau, P Texaco, Gallimard, 1992.-Collectif Musées Nationaux, Tropiques métis. Mémoires et cultures de Guadeloupe, Guyane,

Martinique et Réunion, 1998.-Desmoulin, M-E, La Côte-sous-le-vent, Guadeloupe/ Inventaire général des monuments et

des richesses artistiques de la France. Région Guadeloupe. Pointe-à-Pitre: Jasor,2002.

-Gorsfoguel, R (Ed.). The Modern/Colonial/Capitalist World-System in the Twentieth Cen-tury, New York: Praeger, 2002.

-La Guadeloupe, Librairie des Arts Décoratifs, Paris, c1935.-Martin, R. La Guadeloupe en zigzag, journal du gendarme à cheval Georges Bonnemaison

(1900-1903), Ed. Caret, 2001.-Michalon, T. “Sur les spécificités de l’Outre-mer: enquête et proposition”, in La France et

les Outre-mers, l’enjeu multiculturel, Hermès-CNRS, 2002, pp. 423-433.-Miles, W. «Fifty years of assimilation», in Islands at the Crossroads, Rienner, 2001.-Parise Bernis, T. Souvenirs encombrants de la Guadeloupe, Ed. Ramsay, 1997.-Ramos, A. G. (Ed.) Islands at the Crossroads, Politics in the non-independent Caribbean,

Rienner, 2001.-Schwartz-Bart, A. La mulâtresse solitude, Ed. Seuil, 1972.-Toumson, R. Mythologie du métissage, PUF, 1998.

6- History and Geography In the West Indies

-Abenon, L-R. Petite histoire de la Guadeloupe, Ed. L’Harmattan, 1992.-Abenon, Bégot, Bégot, Burac, Calmont, Hartog, Relire l’histoire et la géographie de l’espace

caribéen, Hachette, 2001.-Adelaïde-Merlande, J. (dir) Histoire des Communes, Antilles-Guyane, Ed. Pressplay, 1986.-Adélaïde-Merlande, J. (dir.) Historial antillais, tome IV.-Ageron, C-R. & Coquery-Vidrovitch C. Histoire de la France coloniale, III, Le déclin, Paris:

Colin, 1991.-Atlas des Départements Français d’Outre Mer,III (Guadeloupe), CEGET-CNRS-IGN,

Talence-Bordeaux, 1982.-Baptistide, J. «L’habitat en Guadeloupe», in Atlas de la Guadeloupe, CNRS, 1980.-Bangou, H. Aliénation et désaliénation dans les sociétés post-esclavagistes. Le cas de la

Guadeloupe, Ed. L’Harmattan, 1997.-Bégot, D. «Les habitations-sucreries du littoral guadeloupéen et leur évolution» in

Caribena, Cahier d’études américaines de la Caraïbe, publ. de la Direction desAntiquités de la région Martinique-Guyane, 1991, pp. 149-190.

-Bégot, D. Les Antilles françaises à travers les guides touristiques de 1913 à nos jours, Exposi-tion à la Médiathèque du Gosier, January 2002 (CD-rom).

-Bégot, D., Pelletier, M. & Bousquet-Bressolier, C. La Martinique de Moreau du Temple,1770, La carte des ingénieurs géographes, Paris, CTHS, 1998; pp. 20-27.

-Berthelot, J. & Gaume, M. Kaz antiyé, l’Habitat populaire aux Antilles, Ed Perspectives

310

Créoles, 1982.-Berthelot, J., Stafford, C., Gaume, M., Rozensztroch, D., Slésin, S. Caribbean Style, Ed.

Perspectives créoles, 1986.-Buffon, A. Monnaie et crédit en économie coloniale, Basse-Terre, Société d’Histoire de la

Guadeloupe, 1979.-Casimir, G. «L’urbanisation de la commune du Gosier : la transformation d’un bourg

rural en une ville touristique», doctoral thesis, directed by Dupeux, Bordeaux, Ed.Université de Lille III, 1988.

-Celma, C. “Le mouvement ouvrier aux Antilles de la Première Guerre mondiale à1939”, in Suvélor R. (dir.), Historial antillais, Fort-de-France, Dajani ,s.d, tome V,1981, pp. 169-243.

-Chardon, J-P. Géographie des transports maritimes et aériens du bassin caribéen, s.l. s.n., thèseLettres Bordeaux 1984, 3 vol., 1142 p.

-Dupré, K. «Permanences et ruptures des formes urbaines des bourgs de Guadeloupe:cas de Gosier et de Trois-Rivières, de 1928 à nos jours», Mémoire de DEA, Bégot D.(dir.), Université des Antilles et de la Guyane, unpublished, 2002.

-Erbs, P. «Les monuments aux morts de la guerre 1914-1918», Mémoire de maîtrise,Begot (dir.), UAG, unpublished, 2003.

-Fallope, J. Esclaves et citoyens, les Noirs à la Guadeloupe au XIXè siècle, Basse-Terre, Soc.d’Histoire de la Guadeloupe, 1992.

-GEO, «Guadeloupe : un an de malheur», n°139, sept. 1990, pp. 158-172.-Giacottino, J-C. «Croissance urbaine et développement aux Antilles» in Espaces

Tropicaux, Vennetier P. (dir), Talence, CEGET-CNRS, #4, 1991, pp. 81-101.-Giacottino, J-C. «La ville tropicale et ses problèmes d’environnement» in Les Cahiers

d’Outre-Mer, Bordeaux, #125, 1979, pp. 22-38.-Hocquet J.-C (dir.), Le Sucre, de l’Antiquité à son destin antillais, Actes du 123è congrès

national des sociétés historiques et scientifiques, Paris, CTHS, 2000.-Labat, J. B. Voyage aux Isles, Chronique aventureuse des Caraïbes 1693-1705, Paris 1722,

edited by Le Bris M, Paris: Phébus, 1993.-Lacour, A. Histoire de la Guadeloupe, 1858, reed. Fort-de-France/Pointe-à-Pitre, Edition

et diffusion de la Culture Antillaise, 1978, tome 1-3.-Lafleur, G. Saint-Claude, Histoire d’une commune de Guadeloupe, Paris: Karthala, 1993.-Lasserre, G. Les Amériques du Centre: Mexique, Amérique centrale, Antilles, Guyanes, Paris :

PUF, 1977 (2nd éd.).-Lasserre, G. La Guadeloupe, étude géographique, Bordeaux, Ed. Kolodziej, Vol. I-II, 1978.-Lasserre, G. «L’évolution socio-économique et l’urbanisation des Antilles françaises» in

Actes du congrès international des médecins de langue francaise de l’hémisphère américain,Pointe-à-Pitre (mars-avril 1978). Médecine d’Afrique noire, Dakar-douala-Abidjan,mai 1979, t. XXXVI, numéro special, pp. 117-123.

-Lasserre, G. (dir.) “Les départements d’Outre-Mer: la Gpe”, Notes et EtudesDocumentaires, n° 4135-4136-4137, 1974.

-Lasserre, G., “Urbanisation et modernisation dans les pays tropicaux”, in Colloquefranco-indien du CNRS de Bordeaux-Talence, Centre d’etudes de Géographie tropicale etCentre d’Etudes des Espaces Urbains. Actes du colloque d’octobre 1981. Travaux et Docu-ments de géographie tropicale, 1984, n° 53.

-Lawson-Body, G. «L’établissement de la paysannerie en Guadeloupe : le cas de l’espacevivrier des Grands Fonds» in Burac M. (dir.) La question de la terre dans les colonies etdépartements français d’Amérique 1848-1998, Karthala & GéodeCaraïbe, 2000.

-Luce, M. C. «La route d’argent», Mémoire de maîtrise de Géographie, directeurChardon J. P. UAG, unpublished, 1994.

-Musset, A. L’Amérique centrale et les Antilles, une approche géographique, Paris: Masson,1994.

-Oruno, D.L. De l’Oubli à l’Histoire, Ed. Maisonneuve& Larose,1998.-Pérotin-Dumon, A. La ville aux îles, La ville dans l’île Basse-Terre et Pointe-à-Pitre,

Guadeloupe, 1650-1820, Ed. Karthala, 2000.-Sainton, J-P. Les nègres en politique, couleur, identités et stratégies de pouvoir en Guadeloupe

au tournant du siècle, PU du Septentrion, 1998.-Schnakenbourg, C. Histoire de l’industrie sucrière en Guadeloupe (XIXè-XXè siècles),Vol. I,

La crise du système esclavagiste (1835-1847), Paris: L’Harmattan, 1980.-Schnakenbourg, C. «Quelques nouveaux éléments sur l’histoire de l’émigration

311

indienne vers la Guadeloupe» in Bulletin de la Société d’histoire de la Guadeloupe, n° 110,4e trim. 1996.

-Sempaire, E. La Guadeloupe An tan Sorin, Fort de France: Ed. E. Kolodziej, EDCA, 1984.-Singaravelou, Les Indiens de la Guadeloupe, Bordeaux, 1975.-Suvélor R. (dir.), Historial antillais, Fort-de-France, Dajani, s.d, tome V, 1981.-Yacou, A. (dir.) Les catastrophes naturelles aux Antilles, d’une Soufrière à l’autre, Ed.

Karthala-CERC, 2000.

7- ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN PLANNING IN THE WEST INDIES

-Agence d’Architecture Tropisme (1998) OPAH de Gosier, Diagnostic Architectural etUrbain, Guadeloupe.

-Bégot, D. (dir.), La Grande Encyclopédie de la Caraïbe, Ed. Sanoli, tome VIII «Architec-ture», 1990.

-Bégot, D. «Imitation et créolité : une problématique des Beaux-Arts en espace créoleinsulaire, le cas des Antilles francophones, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Haïti, 18ème-20ème siècle», in Etudes créoles, Ottawa, Volume I, 1987, pp. 118-143.

-Bégot, D. «Maison de maître et « grand’case» aux Antilles françaises (17-19ème siècle):question de linguistique? question d’histoire?», Université Antilles-Guyane,colloque Habitation et Plantation, mars 2004, sous presse.

-Buisseret, D. Histoire de l’architecture dans la Caraïbe, Ed. Caribéennes, 1980.-Burac, M. (dir.), La question de la terre dans les colonies et départements français d’Amérique

1848-1998, Ed. Karthala & Géode Caraïbe, 2000.-Burac, M. “Défiscalisation des investissements et urbanisation à la Martinique” in

Vennetier, P. (dir.) Espaces Tropicaux n°4, Talence, CEGET-CNRS, 1991, pp. 103-114.-Caemmerer, A. The houses of Key West, Pineapple Press, 1992.-Charre, L & Flagie, A. Tendances de l’urbanisation en Martinique, unpublished, 2000.-Coquery-Vidrovitch, C. (dir.), La ville européenne outre mers: un modèle conquérant? (15-

20ème siècle), Ed. L’Harmattan, 1996, 296 pages.-Crain, E Historic Architecture in the Caribbean Islands, University Press of Florida, 1994.-Dupré, K. «El lakou de Guadelupe», in Memorias, UA, Colecion de Ciencas Sociales y

Economicas, Colombia, 2002.-Dupré, K. «Urban planning and Globalisation in Guadeloupe» in Eckardt, F. &

Hassenpflug, D. (eds.), Urbanism and Globalization, Vol. 2, Frankfurt/M.: PeterLang, 2004, pp. 341-354.

-Dupré, K. «Permanences et ruptures des formes urbaines de deux bourgs deGuadeloupe: Gosier et Trois-Rivières, de 1928 à nos jours», in Les Anneaux de laMémoire, sous la direction de M.Cottias et de J.M. Masseaut, 2004.

-Flagie, A. “Living in the French Tropics”, in Europandom, 2000.-Flohic, J.L. Patrimoine des communes de la Guadeloupe, Ed. Flohic, 1998.-Galpin, C. Ali Tur, Architecte 1927- 1937, Itinéraire d’une reconstruction, Ministère de la

Culture et de la Communication, Conseil général de la Guadeloupe, 1990.-Gastmann A. & MacDonald S. «The French West Indies» in Potter, R. (ed.) Urbanisation,

Planning and Development in the Caribbean, Mansell, 1989, pp. 237-251.-Giacottino, J-C. «Croissance urbaine et développement aux Antilles» in Vennetier, P.

(dir.) Espaces Tropicaux n°4, Talence, CEGET-CNRS, 1991, pp. 81-101.-Giordani, J. P. La Guadeloupe face à son patrimoine, Karthala, 1996.-Gravette, A. Architectural Heritage of the Caribbean: An A-Z of Historic Buildings, Kingston:

Ian Randle Publishers, 2000.-Guyon, P. “L’OPAH, une solution pour les quartiers anciens des DOM?”, Mémoire de

DESS d’Urbanisme et d’Aménagement sous la direction de Chateaureynaud P. IFU,unpublished, 1997.

-Letchimy, S. De l’habitat précaire à la ville: l’exemple martiniquais, L’Harmattan, Paris,1992, 150 pages.

-Letchimy, S. «Urbanisme et Urbanisation à la Martinique: le cas de Fort-de-France»,doctoral thesis, Claval P. (dir.), Paris IV, unpublished, Vol. I & II, 1984.

-Potter R. B.(ed.) Urbanization, Planning & Development in the Caribbean, London & New-York, Mansell, 1989.

-Rey, N. Lakou & Ghetto, Les quartiers périphériques aux Antilles françaises, Paris,L’Harmattan, 2001.

-*Robert, G. Les travaux publics de la Guadeloupe, Paris: Librairie militaire L.Fournier, 1935.

312

The

int

erre

lati

ons

betw

een

spac

e an

d so

ciet

y ha

ve b

een

stud

ied

by m

any

scho

lars

, so

me

conc

ludi

ng t

hat

“spa

ce is

a so

cial

pro

duct

”. O

ther

s ha

vetr

ied

to a

scer

tain

how

soc

iety

can

be

defi

ned

or int

erpr

eted

whe

n se

en t

hrou

gh t

he len

s of

the

spa

tial

urb

an s

etti

ng.

In p

aral

lel to

thi

s, m

oder

nity

is o

ften

att

ribu

ted

spec

ific

ally

to

cont

empo

rary

soc

ieti

es,

part

icul

arly

in

the

cont

ext

of b

uild

ing

and

urba

n co

nstr

ucti

on.

Alt

houg

h hi

stor

y re

veal

sit

s on

goin

g ch

arac

ter,

som

e cr

ucia

l qu

esti

ons

can

be r

aise

d: W

hy m

oder

nize

? H

ow t

o m

oder

nize

? Sh

ould

mod

erni

zati

on in

one

tow

n be

a m

odel

for

othe

rs?

The

se q

uest

ions

rel

ate

not

only

to

a so

ciet

y’s

self

-im

age,

but

als

o to

its

wor

ldvi

ew.

Car

ibbe

an U

rban

Mod

erni

zati

on i

s a

typo

mor

phol

ogic

al s

tudy

of

the

prop

erty

dev

elop

men

t of

var

ious

urb

an s

truc

ture

s in

Gua

delo

upe,

a f

orm

erFr

ench

col

ony

in t

he C

arib

bean

. It

foc

uses

on

the

dial

ecti

c be

twee

n ur

ban

tiss

ue i

n it

s hu

man

con

text

and

the

bui

lt e

nvir

onm

ent.

UD

C 7

2.01

ISBN

952

-15-

1162

-1IS

SN 0

359-

7105

Cov

er P

hoto

: Ka

rine

Dup

ré (

Sain

te-R

ose)