Aurore Reynaud

Enjeux et limites de la patrimonialisation du logement collectif social. Réflexion sur l’héritage et le devenir d’œuvres emblématiques de l’AUA (1960-1985)

Directeur de thèse : Yankel Fijalkow

Discipline : Architecture

Année d’inscription : 28-10-2015

Université, école doctorale : Thèses en préparation à Paris 10 , dans le cadre de École doctorale Espaces, Temps, Cultures (Université Paris Nanterre) , en partenariat avec Laboratoire Espaces travail (Paris)

Référence HAL-SHS :

Enjeux et limites de la patrimonialisation du logement collectif social. Réflexion sur l’héritage et le devenir d’œuvres emblématiques de l’AUA (1960-1985)

Résumé

Ce projet de thèse en architecture s’attache aux bâtiments collectifs d’après-guerre, ces barres et ces tours de logements collectifs sociaux, avec les équipements qui les accompagnent, parsèment le paysage urbain et sont considérés par les acteurs institutionnels et les habitants comme les « mal aimés de l’histoire de l’architecture et de l’urbanisme », en manque de reconnaissance patrimoniale. Bien que ces bâtiments soient sortis de terre dans un contexte de crise du logement où il a fallu construire en masse, les plus grands noms de l’architecture ont signé certains de ces projets. Aujourd’hui, cette architecture a vieilli, se dégrade et est stigmatisée. Entre risques de démolition et réhabilitations invasives, ces bâtiments sont en sursis. Les mesures de protection restent encore rares et inadaptées. En s’interrogeant sur ces difficultés, cette thèse se propose d’étudier plusieurs sites franciliens d’ensembles de logements collectifs sociaux réalisés par l’AUA en Ile-de-France, dans lequel la question de la patrimonialisation est posée. La thèse prévoit d’engager sur ces sites des analyses croisées associant le diagnostic architectural à l’étude des réseaux d’acteurs institutionnels et des pratiques des habitants afin de développer une typologie des conflits entre patrimonialisation et habiter.

Abstract
Scope and limits of heritage of social housing : Reflection on the legacy and the future of emblematic works of AUA

Key words : Legacy, heritage, architecture, Scope and limits of heritage of social housing Reflection on the legacy and the future of emblematic works of AUA This architecture PhD is oriented deals with on French social housing after 1945. These accommodations are parts of the French urban landscape. According to many authors, these buildings are “outcast of the History of architecture and urbanism”. But, all these accommodations are part of a massive response of a lack of accommodation after the Second World War. These buildings represent an epoch where housing had evolved due to social reason and pragmatism. Some of the most important architects worked on these projects. Today, these buildings have aged, are stigmatized and degraded to the point of being sometimes considered unsanitary not local and national actors. Between risk of demolition and invasive restorations, some of them are reprieve. The modern housing monument, this new heritage, is, now, at the center of many debates. In France, protective measures are still rare and inadequate. The State set up in 1999 the « Heritage Label of the twentieth century » recently renamed « remarkable contemporary architecture ». But this device does not allow a real conservation and durability of this legacy in time and very few post-war social housing type buildings are classified as Historical Monuments Adaptability of buildings from 20th century to new needs, political issues, energy requirement and current standard could justify all demolition and invasive rehabilitation. Nevertheless, materiality of facades, working truth, innovative or experimental character of some buildings and heritage recognition promote respectful orders of original architecture. Legislation and publics’ politics non adapted, lack of resources and lack of training of some actors (especially architect) for this kind of operations endanger this architecture of daily life. By questioning these difficulties, this PhD proposes to study several Ile-de-France sites of social housing projects, realized by the AUA in Ile-de-France, in which the question of heritage of social housing is raised. The AUA, Urbanism and Architecture Workshop (1960-1985) was created to deal with promoters and large commercial agencies which were built in mass in the post-war period. It brought together about twenty designers from different generations and with multidisciplinary backgrounds (architects, town planners, sociologists, engineers, decorators, etc.). This workshop highlighted his desire to work on the architectural and urban issues related to suburbs, while implementing inexpensive materials, a certain constructive truth and a rationality of spaces. Today, this work, still unrecognized, has aged and some buildings are disparaged, due, mostly, to a lack of maintenance In this research, it is not a matter of making a monograph on a character or a workshop, but a moving reading of works in the public debate on heritage. The overall of this work relies on my position of PhD architect, within the framework of an Industrial Convention of Training by Research (CIFRE), between research-action and participant observation within the architectural firm : Architectes Urbanistes Associés Paul Chemetov. The view of Paul Chemetov and members of the AAU on the future of their buildings and the way in which the question of heritage through their architectural work seems particularly relevant. This position with both aspects allows me to be in direct contact with the various stakeholders, including politics, project management. I do have the opportunity to observe, analyze all processes including the process of heritage, demolition and rehabilitation. We will identify all main factors which influence the future of an architecture whose process of heritage recognition is in progress. A project of archeology will be carried out on various sites, with the establishment of the historical friezes, true lines of life of the building. This work will be the result of a cross analysis associating architectural diagnosis with the study of the networks of institutional actors, politicians. More wodely, these fields of study allow me to observe and understand tensions surrounding the heritage of everyday architecture and in a second phase to consider the study and evolution of other comparable sites. These analyzes are also part of a reflection on the way in School of Architecture we teach heritage including that of the twentieth century AUA : L’AUA regroupe une vingtaine de concepteurs : Jacques Allégret, Jacques Berce, Valentin Fabre, Jean Tribel, Jean Deroche, Jacques Simon, Michel Steinbach, Georges Loiseau, Maria Deroche, Michel Corajoud, Annie Tribel, Henri Ciriani, Paul Chemetov, Vincent Sabatier, Christian Devillers, Borja Huidobro, Jacques Kalisz, Jean Perrottet, Miroslav Kostanjevac, Jean-François Parent,