为什么巴黎的摩天大楼这么少？
Why does Paris have so few skyscrapers?
译文简介
1853年至1870年期间，乔治-欧仁-豪斯曼对巴黎进行了全面翻新。
正文翻译
Why does Paris have so few skyscrapers?
为什么巴黎的摩天大楼这么少？
评论翻译
很赞 ( 0 )
收藏
1/ Paris was entirely renovated between 1853 and 1870 by Georges-Eugène Haussmann. One key feature of that gigantic public works program was the set of regulations defining the apartment buildings themselves — known as Haussmannian buildings — that, among other things, limited the number of floors to 6. Since these buildings are pretty nice and became a characteristic feature of modern Paris, there is a general feeling that they should remain in place as originally designed.
Now, why would you build higher buildings? Well, probably because you mean to increase density. Which leads us to my second point.
2/ These regulations never changed because it wasn’t needed. It happen that Haussmannian buildings as they were designed in the XIXth century already allow to build extremely dense blocks. The most striking example lies at the intersection of the rue Eugene Sue and the rue Simart (see picture below): even using the Parisian average of 35 m² per inhabitant, such blocks could potentially accommodate something like 100’000 people per km².
As a result, Paris is much denser than New-York and the 11th, 18th, 20th, 10th and 17th arrondissements (5 out of 20) are even denser than Manhattan.
1/ 1853年至1870年期间，乔治-欧仁-豪斯曼对巴黎进行了全面翻新。这个庞大的公共工程项目的一个关键特征是一套定义公寓楼本身的规定--被称为豪斯曼式建筑--除其他外，将楼层数限制在6层。由于这些建筑相当漂亮，并成为现代巴黎的一个特征，人们普遍认为它们应该保持最初的设计。
现在，你为什么要建造更高的建筑？嗯，可能是因为你想增加密度。这就引出了我的第二个观点。
2/ 这些规定从未改变过，因为它不需要。在十九世纪设计的豪斯曼尼式建筑已经允许建造极其密集的街区。最突出的例子是在尤金苏街和西马尔街的交汇处（见下图）：即使按照巴黎平均每个居民35平方米的面积计算，这样的街区也有可能容纳每平方公里100'000人。
因此，巴黎的人口密度比纽约高得多，第11、18、20、10和17区（20个区中的5个区）的人口密度甚至超过曼哈顿。
Marc Green
Also, I think every single Parisian hates La Defense and would likely stage a revolt if someone suggested building more towers like it.
另外，我认为每个巴黎人都讨厌拉德芳斯，如果有人建议建造更多类似的塔楼，他们可能会发动叛乱。
（拉德芳斯：是巴黎都会区首要的中心商务区，位于巴黎城西的上塞纳省，邻近塞纳河畔纳伊。其涵盖的市镇包括库尔贝瓦以及皮托和南泰尔的一部分。作为欧洲最完善的商务区，拉德芳斯是法国经济繁荣的象征。）
I would be happy to cross the Channel to offer my support.
我很乐意跨越海峡来提供我的支持。
Skyscrapers are usually more office space than residential space. Even in Manhattan, the areas with highest population density have mostly buildings with 6 stories or less. The areas full of skyscrapers usually have lower population density than neighborhoods such as the East Village where the buildings aren't any taller than in Paris.
摩天大楼通常是办公空间多于住宅空间。即使在曼哈顿，人口密度最高的地区也大多是6层以下的建筑。摩天大楼林立的地区人口密度通常低于东村等街区，那里的建筑物并不比巴黎高。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
It's quiet opposite in Chicago. It seems like the office space skyscrapers are things of the past, with so many working remotely these days. Old office buildings are being converted into the condos and all new constructions are residential.
这和芝加哥倒是不太一样。办公空间的摩天大楼似乎已成为过去，如今有如此多的人远程工作。旧办公楼正在改建为公寓，所有新建筑都是住宅。
In Colombia it is occurring the opposite. Skyscrapers are being built to lodge families, so there are entire neighborhoods with new high blocks of apartments and usually they are for high class people.
在哥伦比亚，情况正好相反。摩天大楼的建造是为了安置家庭，因此有些社区整个都是高层公寓，通常是为上层人士提供的。
Actually this is starting to happen in Manhattan too, a lot of the new and ugly “tall pencil” buildings are that
其实这种情况在曼哈顿也开始发生了，很多新的、丑陋的"长铅笔"建筑就是这样
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Horizontal skyscraper?
水平的摩天大楼？
More or less. The key thing is that Haussmanian buildings allow to exploit almost every square meter of land in a bloc (you just need courtyards to let the light and air flow in the middle of a bloc). Besides, limited height allows to save stairways / elevators space inside the building.
差不多吧。最关键的是，豪斯曼式的建筑几乎可以利用区块内的每一平方米的土地（你只需要在区块中间有个庭院，让光线和空气流通）。此外，有限的高度可以节省建筑物内的楼梯/电梯空间。
Also, Paris sits on a a honeycomb of limestone that has been slowly excavated one cubic meter at a time for centuries for shelter, tombs, building material, etc. Under the surface, it’s essentially a giant man-made ant colony.
此外，巴黎坐落在一个蜂窝状的石灰石上，几个世纪以来，这些石灰石被一立方米一立方米地慢慢挖掘出来，用于建造住所、坟墓和建筑材料等。在表面之下，它基本上是一个巨大的人造蚁窝。
That complex seems very claustrophobic.
As I’ve heard New York is loosing its pop density nowadays.
In Budapest they are building the city's. first skyscraper. Most people against it
那个建筑群看起来非常幽闭。
我听说纽约现在的人口密度正在下降。
在布达佩斯，他们正在建造城市的第一座摩天大楼。大多数人表示反对
New York City gained 600,000 people in the 2020 census
Manhattan’s population actually peaked in 1910, so it is less dense now - as the population spread out over Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx
在2020年的人口普查中，纽约市增加了60万人口
曼哈顿的人口实际上在1910年达到顶峰，所以现在的人口密度较低--因为人口分散在布鲁克林、皇后区和布朗克斯地区
It looks claustrophobic from the air, but that isn’t how apartments or spaces are felt from the ground. If you stood in one of those tiny light well courtyards it might feel a bit oppressive, but otherwise you are fine.
从空中看是挺幽闭的，但从地面上看公寓或空间则是完全不一样的感觉。如果你站在那些狭小的光井院子里，可能会觉得有点压抑，但除此之外，你不会有什么问题。
The French are a proud people who do not view their country as a culture-less void hence they do not want to be flooded by cheap Americanised designs.
French architecture is an amalgamation of many ancient civilisations such as the ancient Greeks, Romans ect. It draws inspiration from the French renaissance and gothic movements. There is a lot of thought that went into these buildings which would be washed away with fast constructed sky scrapers.
法国人是一个骄傲的民族，他们不认为自己的国家是一个没有文化的空白，因此他们不希望被廉价的美国化设计所淹没。
法国建筑是许多古老文明的综合体，如古希腊、古罗马等。它从法国文艺复兴和哥特式运动中获得了灵感。这些建筑有很多的想法，而这些想法会被快速建造的摩天大楼冲走。
Duly noted - but a lot of thought goes into “American skyscrapers” and cities as well, the priorities are just different and therefore the outcomes are as well. That said, I much prefer Singapore’s approach to tall buildings over most of the U.S. approach.
我注意到了--但"美国的摩天大楼"和城市也有很多想法，只是优先事项不同，因此结果也不同。话虽如此，我更喜欢新加坡对高楼的做法，而不是美国的大多数做法。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Skyscrapers mostly developed during 60’s and 70’s. There are some in Paris, mostly in the “front de seine” district just south of the Eiffel tower, and in the 13th district. Those buildings are mostly residential. They offer very nice views, but they are not very beautiful from the outside. They don’t have the charm of late 19th century buildings that people like in Paris.
Also, fire regulation requirements are very high in France. Many fire systems have to be built and properly maintained, and you have to pay an onsite skilled fire service 24/7 (costs hundreds of thousand euros per year per building).
There is a quite a strong opposition to tower buildings in France, so there aren’t many new projects. Some new skyscrapers were recently built near quai d’Ivry, and a big office building is being built at Porte de Versailles (tour Triangle). Maybe a new era for skyscrapers, with much attention paid to design and energy consumption.
摩天大楼大多在60年代和70年代发展起来。在巴黎有一些，主要是在埃菲尔铁塔以南的"上塞纳河"区，以及第13区。这些建筑大多是住宅。它们提供了非常好的景观，但从外面看并不是非常漂亮。它们没有巴黎人喜欢的19世纪末建筑的魅力。
另外，法国的消防法规要求非常高。必须建造和妥善维护许多消防系统，并且你必须支付 24/7 全天候现场熟练消防服务费用（每栋建筑每年花费数十万欧元）。
在法国，人们对塔式建筑有相当强烈的反对，所以新项目不多。最近，一些新的摩天大楼在伊夫里区附近建成，在凡尔赛门正在建造一个大型的办公大楼。也许这是一个摩天大楼的新时代，非常注重设计和能源消耗。
There is another reason. Paris was built with stones fron it’s caves underground. So buildings too tall would be too heavy and would collapse because of the caves under the streets.
还有另一个原因。巴黎是用地下洞穴里的石头建造的。所以建筑物太高会太重，会因为街道下的洞穴而倒塌。
Most people would not pay attention to the fact that due to the age of the buildings they were designed based upon natural lighting. Electricity was not common at the time and thus every apartment needed a window.
大多数人不会注意到这样一个事实，即由于建筑的年代，它们是基于自然采光而设计的。当时电力并不常见，因此每个公寓都需要一个窗户。
Yes….They do not have big and tall buildings in most of the tourist visited areas of Paris. But, there are several skyscrapers in La Defense region of Paris (including that only Tower in Montparnasse), where offices of big corporations and conglomerates are located. Tourist usually do not visit those areas.
是的……在巴黎的大部分旅游区，他们都没有高大的建筑物。但是，巴黎的拉德芳斯区有几座摩天大楼（包括蒙帕纳斯唯一的那座塔），大公司和企业集团的办公室都在那里。游客通常不会去那些地区。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Before Haussmann Paris was a dirty city with small filthy narrow roads with gutter right in the middle. Circulation was uneasy and diseases where spreading fast. The work of Haussmann was to open and modernize the city. The big Avenues and Boulevard have been drawn on paper mostly regardless of what was on the ground. Then on site they did cut through the existing. The ““Tour Saint Jacques” in Paris for example is what is left of a former church that has been demolished to open Boulevard Sebastopol and by straightening the Rue de Rivoli. A big and modern sewage system was also constructed under those big roads!
在豪斯曼之前，巴黎是一座肮脏的城市，道路狭窄、肮脏，中间有排水沟。流通不畅，疾病传播迅速。豪斯曼的工作是开阔城市并使之现代化。大街和林荫大道大多是在纸上画出来的，而不管当时地面上有什么。然后在现场他们推倒了现有的东西。例如，巴黎的“圣雅克塔”是一座前教堂的遗迹，该教堂已被拆除以开放塞巴斯托波尔大道并拉直里沃利大街。那些大马路底下还建设了一个庞大而现代化的污水处理系统！
Interesting. Is it a design goal to ensure that every home receives direct sunlight for a reasonable amount of time a day even in winters?
有意思。确保每个家庭即使在冬天也能在合理的时间内每天接受阳光直射是设计目标吗？
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Not to mention, higher buildings require stronger foundations, but the underground of Paris totally does not fit this, between the underground train lines, the catacombs, former rock mines, underground parking lots, prowimity to the Seine river …. there are not many places in the capital that could actually handle a scyscraper.
更不用说，更高的建筑需要更坚固的地基，但巴黎的地下完全不适合这个，地下火车线路、地下墓穴、前岩矿、地下停车场、塞纳河附近……首都能真正容得下一座摩天轮的地方并不多。
There is more to it than this.
The Haussmann redevelopment of Paris, one of the defining features of the city you see today, took place between 1853-1870.
This was in the period immediately before innovations in construction technology (especially steel frxs and elevators) led to the era of early skyscrapers in the 1880s-1890s.
During this period (pre-1880) it was normal for major cities in industrialised countries to be built relatively low rise and at high density. Even in New York City the very tallest buildings built prior to the 1880s topped out at around 10 storeys.
Paris has historically placed height limits on development but what really sets it apart is what happened in the latter half of the 20th century when skyscrapers became a ubiquitous feature of major cities around the world. Height restrictions were relaxed in Paris in the 1960s, leading to the construction of the 60 storey Tour Montparnasse which was completed in 1973. Parisians didn’t much like what they saw and swiftly imposed a new 7-storey height limit to preserve the character of the city. This is why there is only one skyscraper in central Paris.
Of course there are plenty of skyscrapers elsewhere in the wider metropolitan area, for example at La Défense.
不仅如此。
巴黎的豪斯曼重建，是你今天看到的城市的标志性特征之一，发生在1853-1870年间。
这是在建筑技术创新（尤其是钢架和电梯）导致 1880 年代至 1890 年代早期摩天大楼时代到来之前的时期。
在此期间（1880 年之前），工业化国家的主要城市建设相对低层和高密度是正常的。即使在纽约市，1880 年代之前建造的最高建筑物也只有 10 层左右。
巴黎在历史上对城市的发展进行了高度限制，但真正使其与众不同的是20世纪后半叶发生的事情，当时摩天大楼成为世界上主要城市的一个普遍特征。20世纪60年代，巴黎放宽了高度限制，导致了60层的蒙帕纳斯大厦的建造，该大厦于1973年竣工。巴黎人不太喜欢他们所看到的，并迅速实施了新的7层楼的高度限制，以保护城市的特色。这就是为什么巴黎市中心只有一栋摩天大楼的原因。
当然，在更广泛的大都市地区的其他地方也有很多摩天大楼，例如在拉德芳斯。
Because of the monstrosity that is Tour Montparnasse - the first and only skyscraper in Paris central.
Clearly someone forgot to throw away the box that the Eiffel tower was delivered in.
The viewing floor at the top of Tour Montparnasse has however the best view in Paris - because it is the only place you can’t see Tour Montparnasse.
Sensibly the highrise buildings have been concentrated in La Defense, the business district - outside the center, revitalizing what was a decrepit area a few decades ago.
因为蒙帕纳斯大厦这个怪物--巴黎市中心的第一座也是唯一的一座摩天大楼。
显然，有人忘了扔掉埃菲尔铁塔交付时的盒子。
然而，蒙帕纳斯大厦顶部的观景台拥有全巴黎最好的景观 --因为它是唯一看不到蒙帕纳斯大厦的地方。
理智地讲，高层建筑都集中在拉德芳斯的商业区--在市中心之外，使几十年前还是一个破败的地区重新焕发活力。
I have no love for the Tour Montparnasse, and it will never have the admirers the Eiffel Tower has, but the same thing was once said by critics of it…that dining at the Eiffel tower was worth it because you couldn’t see the Eiffel tower from there.
我不喜欢蒙帕纳斯大厦，它永远不会有埃菲尔铁塔的崇拜者，但批评者曾经说过同样的话……在埃菲尔铁塔用餐是值得的，因为从那里你看不到埃菲尔铁塔。
High rises and ugly modern architecture were a favorite of president Pompidou (sorry if you are an admirer of Centre Pompidou). His successor, Giscard d’Estaing, was of the old school. His view was that buildings should not be obtrusive. He stopped the high rise programs and enacted a law that no building should be higher than the average of its neighbouring buildings. Exception: the business district at La Défense.
高楼大厦和丑陋的现代建筑是蓬皮杜总统的最爱（对不起，如果你是蓬皮杜中心的崇拜者）。他的继任者季斯卡尔·德斯坦则属于守旧派。他的观点是，建筑不应该是碍眼的。他停止了高层建筑项目，并颁布了一项法律，规定任何建筑都不得高于其相邻建筑的平均水平。例外：拉德芳斯商业区。
Actually, in Paris, we do have some towers and skycrapers.
This is La Defense. You know what? Oui, we have many skycrapers there.
But that’s it. You know what? Many people also know that, Paris is the site of historical living evidence. With much part of French history. Paris is like that.
In the medi empire, France’s Paris was a center of European civilization and culture. Paris has more historical site than the other European capitals, comparing to London, Berlin, Rome or Madrid.
This is why people feel, skycrapers will destroy the natural beauty of Paris. So we don’t want to ruin it. Of course for Paris.
Even Dietrich von Choltitz had refused to destroy Paris, because he loved the city and the historical sites there. So we know it clear.
事实上，在巴黎，我们确实有一些大厦和摩天大楼。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
这里是拉德芳斯。你知道吗？是的，我们那里有很多摩天大楼。
但仅此而已。你知道吗？很多人还知道，巴黎是历史活生生的见证地。拥有大部分法国历史。这就是巴黎。
在中世纪帝国时期，法国的巴黎是欧洲文明和文化的中心。与伦敦、柏林、罗马或马德里相比，巴黎比其他欧洲首都拥有更多的历史遗迹。这就是为什么人们觉得，摩天大楼会破坏巴黎的自然美景。所以我们不想破坏它。当然是为了巴黎。
甚至迪特里希·冯·肖尔铁茨也拒绝摧毁巴黎，因为他热爱这座城市和那里的历史遗迹。所以我们都很清楚了。
Sorrybut Paris has no more historical sites than Rome… probably Berlin, possibly London… but Rome? The cradle of western civilization? the capital of the known world for not centuries but millennia? It’s almost impossible to build an underground in Rome because of archaeologists getting crazy whenever a hole is dug…
And i’m from Milan, we’ve no love for our capital, but “Reddite quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo”
对不起，巴黎的历史遗迹并不比罗马多......可能比柏林多，可能比伦敦多......但罗马？西方文明的摇篮？已知世界不是几个世纪而是几千年的首都？在罗马建造地下建筑几乎是不可能的，因为每当挖一个洞，考古学家就会发疯......
我来自米兰，我们不爱我们的首都，但是"Reddite quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo（凯撒的归凯撒;上帝的归上帝）"
Maybe so, but it has many blood there.
This is what we respect for our capital. Of course might not be so fame like Milan or Rome, but, that’s Paris.
也许是这样，但那里有过很多血腥。
这就是我们对我们的首都的尊重。当然，可能不像米兰或罗马那么有名，但是，这就是巴黎。
Sure, I lived in Paris and i understand what you are saying… but most of European cities are permeated of history and culture as much as Paris. Though Paris has (had) a central role in European, French and world history
当然，我住在巴黎，我理解你的意思......但大多数欧洲城市都像巴黎一样渗透着历史和文化。虽然巴黎在欧洲、法国和世界历史上都有（曾经有）核心作用
Rome has obviously many historical sites. But you can not really compare as Paris is huge compare to Rome. Being much bigger, it has many more historical sites than Rome.
罗马显然有很多历史遗迹。但你不能真正比较两者，因为与罗马相比，巴黎很大。由于大得多，它的历史遗迹比罗马多得多。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Depending on your definition of historical, but according to the UNESCO you are wrong. Paris has only one Unesco world site, whereas the ENTIRE historical city center + San paolo fuori le mura are considered world heritage sites.
Rome CANNOT build the underground due to archaeological concerns, Rome has been and still is the center of the Christian world for 2000 years, the center of the empire for more than 1000 and one of the two, but surely the most stable, source of temporal power around europe (the other being the site of the empire, being it the franks’ or the HRE)
Also, size wise, the two cities are absoluely comparable. The urban settlemen oustide the city is probably in favour of paris, but the city per se is not.
取决于你对历史的定义，但根据联合国教科文组织的定义，你错了。巴黎只有一个联合国教科文组织世界遗址，而罗马整个历史悠久的市中心 + 圣保罗大教堂都被认为是世界遗产。
由于考古问题，罗马不能建造地下建筑，罗马已经并且仍然是基督教世界的中心超过2000 年，作为帝国的中心超过 1000 年，而且是欧洲两个最稳定的世俗权力来源之一（另一个是帝国的所在地，无论是法兰克帝国还是神圣罗马帝国）。
此外，就规模而言，这两个城市绝对具有可比性。城市外的城市定居者可能支持巴黎，但城市本身却并非如此。
Jens Bo
You are right if you only consider the municipality of Paris, but Paris municipality is only the city center. For example, major historical sites like Versailles or Fontainbleau are not strictly speaking in Paris but in Greater Paris. Also, La Defense skyscrapers are not strictly in Paris but in Greater Paris. This is the physical reality of both cities at the same scale :
如果你只考虑巴黎市的情况，你是对的，但巴黎市只是市中心。例如，像凡尔赛或枫丹白露这样的主要历史遗迹严格来说并不在巴黎，而是在大巴黎。另外，拉德芳斯的摩天大楼严格来说也不在巴黎，而是在大巴黎。这是两个城市在同一规模下的物理现实：
Alessandro Fuga
Most of the historical sites are not in the greater urban area. If you consider Versailles and fontainbleau then i shall consider also Hadrian’s villa or similar sites outside the city. Doesn’t change my answer anyway, The number of historical sites is nowhere close to comparison. Still, we are talking about two cultural capitals.
大部分的历史遗迹都不在大都市区内。如果你考虑凡尔赛宫和枫丹白露，那么我也会考虑哈德良的别墅或城市以外的类似地点。这并不能改变我的答案，巴黎的历史遗迹数量远远不能与之相比。不过，我们谈论的是两个文化之都。
Sorry but Medi Paris was destroyed under Napoleon III and Hausmann so what you have now is largely 19th century. In comparison a lot more was preserved in the far smaller Bruges which did keep a lot more of its old patrimonium and as thus became UNESCO heritage for the whole historical center. The reason of course being that after the 15th century the city became of no importance at all (before that economically it was more important than Paris)
对不起，中世纪的巴黎在拿破仑三世的统治和豪斯曼的统治下被摧毁，所以你现在拥有的主要是19世纪的东西。相比之下，小得多的布鲁日保留了更多的古老遗产，并因此整个市中心都成为联合国教科文组织认定的遗产。当然，原因是在15世纪之后，这个城市变得一点都不重要了（在那之前，它在经济上比巴黎更重要）。
Firstly Paris has skyscrapers in La Défense which is a large business district with a lot of skyscrapers.
However Paris - just like many other European cities - has no skyscrapers in the city center. And there are two reasons for that. One is common for many European cities and the other one is unique for Paris.
Firstly Paris - just like many other European cities - has a historical city center. And since this city center wasn’t destroyed in a war (e.g. WW2) there was no need to rebuild it. Europeans are generally proud on their rich history so they the old buildings remain which create the beautiful scenery of the European cities. And this is something which also attracts lot of tourists (= lot of money).
Even cities like Warsaw or Dresden which were completely destroyed in WW2 were rebuild with replicas of their historical city centers. The only exception is Frankfurt which has skyscrapers even in the city center.
首先巴黎在拉德芳斯有摩天大楼，拉德芳斯是一个有很多摩天大楼的大型商业区。
然而巴黎--就像许多其他欧洲城市一样--在市中心没有摩天大楼。而这有两个原因。一个是许多欧洲城市的共同点，另一个是巴黎的独特之处。
首先，巴黎--就像许多其他欧洲城市一样--有一个历史悠久的城市中心。由于这个城市中心没有在战争中被摧毁（如第二次世界大战），所以没有必要重建它。欧洲人通常对他们丰富的历史感到自豪，所以他们保留了古老的建筑，创造了欧洲城市的美丽风景。而这也是吸引大量游客（=大量金钱）的原因。
即使像华沙或德累斯顿这样在二战中被完全摧毁的城市，也在重建时复制了他们的历史城市中心。唯一的例外是法兰克福，它甚至在市中心也有摩天大楼。
These tunnels are so large that it basically weakened the structural integrity of the old city which is now the city center. Sometimes buildings even collapse because their foundations are weakened because of these tunnels.
Skyscrappers are massive, heavy and require stable foundations. But because of these tunnels Paris city center doesn’t have them (check Inside France's Empire of the Dead... startling images of the skulls and bones that line catacombs under Paris).
If someone would try to build a skyscraper in the Paris city center, the building would collapse because the foundations would be too unstable to support the massive construction.
巴黎市中心没有摩天大楼的第二个原因是巴黎的地下墓穴。从罗马帝国时期开始，人们就在巴黎地下挖掘隧道。这些隧道被用作墓地、骨灰盒和各种罪犯和叛乱分子的藏身之处。
这些隧道是如此之大，以至于基本上削弱了老城区的结构完整性，也就是现在的城市中心。有时，建筑物甚至会因为这些隧道削弱了其地基而倒塌。
摩天大楼是巨大的，沉重的，需要稳定的地基。但由于这些隧道，巴黎市中心建不了摩天大楼。
如果有人试图在巴黎市中心建造一栋摩天大楼，大楼将会倒塌，因为地基太不稳定，无法支撑巨大的建筑。