ROCHEFORT (PART II)
ROCHEFORT: A DETAILED DISCUSSION OF PLANS
Rochefort from the very beginning
was a planned town on a site chosen next to the Charente though
not, as a town, situated directly by the riverside.
The planning proposal of 1666; construction of the Corderie
begins in the same year
The well-laid-out town (3; 6; 7)
was separated from the river by 'industrial' terrains: the Corderie in
the North (4), the 'arsenal' proper to the South (5), and the 'wasteland'
of the former local 'port' (the old 'quai' or mere local embarkement and
disembarkent site) in-between (1).
Rochefort in 1672 "when construction of the arsenal buildings
But there is a different way to look at the differentiation of terrains, not in terms of an 'industrial' and a 'dwelling' function but in terms of 'royal' (respectively State) or 'bourgeois' (respectively private) ownership.
For it was only the well-laid-out town (3; 6) which was parcelled and then given in a piecemeal fashion, during the early years of this city, to newly arriving private owners.
The large chunks of 'industrial'
lands remained State property (4; 5; 7).
Let us look first, however, at the
plans of Rochefort that other researchers, notable Maxime Lonlas,
have presented to us.
It is the 1666 plan that already shows the basic concept of a town backing up the Corderie in the North and the navy yard to the South of it. The two 'wharfs' envisaged (as part of the 'arsenal proper) are already indicated. The corderie is entered as if functionally existing already, and so is the powder magazine near the Southern ramparts.
Leading west, from the new château (added to this plan by Maxime Lonlas), we find two tree-studded alleys (also added by M. Lonlas). They will form the backbone of the 'ville bourgeoise' springing up around it in this Southern part of the grid.
There are only very few other buildings
indicated on this plan, most notably the 'Foundry' (Les Fonderies)
to the West of the Corderie and North of the adjacent future 'royal garden.'
This undated plan from the 17th
century (shown as an excerpt, without most of the 'arsenal proper') gives
us the most concrete impression obtainable of the urban development that
took place in the early years. The monastery of the Capucins with
garden lands to the North of it is shown on a block in what is the Southern
fringe of the Northern part of the 'ville bourgeoise' (as we have defined
The royal garden is very visible
indeed. It is lacking the clear 'street pattern,' however, that was envisaged
in the 1666 planning proposal and that recurs on the plan of 1672. The
layout of the garden corresponds rather with the one visible on the plan
It is only the more strange that
the built-up or partly built-up blocks identified by Lonlas on the
plan of 1672 do not appear on this (apparently later) plan as studded with
Let us now come to the 1672 plan.
1672 is the year when the Corderie and the first sequence of buildings
in the 'arsenal proper' had been completed. It is this 1672 plan on which
M. Lonlas superimposed his information as to "parties [in fact, blocks]
bâties ou en cours de construction" (blocks built up or under construction).
The 1672 plan
The plan as shown here is the historical plan of 1672, with subsequent additions of information by Lonlas (and additional coloration of a black and white scan).
As no built-up blocks (within the
grid) are indicated in the Northern part of town, we shall first look at
the Southern section.
Southern part of the 'ville bourgeoise' on the 1672 plan
The two tree-studded alleys leading
westward from the new château form the main axis, as we have already
Rochefort was not only a place of
work, of production and maintenance of and for the French Atlantic Fleet.
works entailed a huge financial input from the State coffers. The
value involved in acquiring finished goods (guns, muskets, etc) for
the navy, of acquiring raw materials such as iron and charcoal for
the forges, hemp for the ropemakers in the Corderie, sail cloth and tree
trunks for the shipbuilders of the arsenal, special wood for the coopers
of the 'tonnelerie', and so on and so forth, certainly required supervision.
Thus we may assume that many officials of the regime were housed in more or less representative dwellings; the top layers (a few only) even in so-called hôtels, in other words, almost 'palace-like' townhouses (Stadtpaläste) or 'mansions.' All or most of these dwellings can be expected along the two main East-West alleys of the new town, with the best sites (as mentioned) close to the château.
But let us not forget the wealthy
bourgeois stratum attracted by and developing in such a port city. We have
already spoken of the arms dealers, the wine merchants, the suppliers of
sail cloth, of hemp, of wood (bois), and so on.(4)
As the number of wealthy and prestigious people, no matter how considerable it was, was still small in comparison with the work force employed in Rochefort, we can imagine that the construction process of the respectable parts of the new town was a slow one.(5)
But these thousands of workers whose
presence in the works of Rochefort cannot be doubted were certainly direly
in need of accommodation as well. Were would they find it?
Now the fact is that the plan of 1672 shows the block occupied partially be the powder magazine is otherwise empty. The block immediately to the West of it is also empty. In a way this is not astonishing - for who would like to live next to a gun powder storage facility? But the 3 blocks further West, next to the Southern ramparts, are also left empty, and so are the 6 blocks of the Southern part of the well-laid-out town which are situated next to the Western ramparts.
Lets us look now to the blocks close
to the arsenal proper and next to that 'waste-land' formerly occupied by
the 'old quai.' They too are empty!
This is strange, isn't it?
We will come back to that question later.
But first, let us return to the
1672 plan, that is to say, its Northern section.
Northern part of the 'ville bourgeoise' (1672 plan)
This 17th century plan shows a different grid pattern, and the houses shown on that plan West of the royal garden are by no means identical with the houses that may be shown in roughly the same area (but a little further west) on the 1672 plan.
Is it possible that even in this
early phase of Rochefort's urban development (when only a small part of
the town conceived had been realized), houses were broken down and replaced
The blocks to the North of the royal
garden are traversed by a street departing from a solid building quite
close to the northern edge of the jardin royal - the fonderie?
At any rate, according to Lonlas,
neither of the blocks discussed here in the Northern part of the well-laid-out
town should be considered as at least partially covered by buildings. Is
he 100% right in claiming there were no buildings in this part of
the grid-based 'ville bourgeoise'? Or is he just tendentially right in
indicating (which is very important) that the construction process of the
new town was centered in its Southern part ((3), on our plan further above),
whereas the Northern part ((6), in our above plan) was essentially bypassed
in the first decade(s)?
Built-up or partly built up blocks in 1672 according to Lonlas (only in the Southern part of town)
Built-up or partly built-up blocks in 1677
(according to Lonlas)
The jump from 1672 to 1677 comprises
a mere 5 (or 6, if we include both 1672 and 1677) years.
In the Northern part of the town, the block encompassing the monastery of the Capucins is still for the most part covered by their garden land. The grid pattern is identical to that of the undated 17th century plan shown above while the grid pattern as shown on the 1672 plan has been abandoned.
The 'triangle' shown on the undated 17th century plan as covered with 4 buildings close to the Western wall of the 'jardin royal' is shown in 1677 as completely empty.(7) Has the undated plan originated later than 1677, or have these buildings been broken down?
The 'fonderies' (foundries), indicated by (7), thanks to Lonlas, on the 1677 plan, are very prominent indeed. On the block marked with a (3) in 1677, we see a long and rather narrow row of houses - workers' houses? Perhaps.
The almost U-shaped form of houses lined up along three sides of the block next to the Northern ships' basin must be a public building. Three of the four sides of the block are shown as covered with buildings (Blockrandbebauung) on the undated 17th century plan.
The grid changes 'continually' in
this part of the 'ville bourgeoise' to the North of the royal garden.
As for the lay-out of the royal
garden, this is not stable, either.
Let's now briefly turn from the 1677 plan (shown here in its entirety) to a plan drawn up only 11 or 12 years later, in 1688.
The 1688 plan shown below has the disadvantage of less optical clarity, in comparison with the 1677 plan that has been redrawn with all the carefulness of an architect by Lonlas. The later plan has the advantage, however, of identifying individual buildings (information we have relied upon, further above, and will continue to rely upon). In order to make full use of this 1688 plan, we shall have to look at individual sections (enlarged plan excerpts).
For the sake of a desirable completeness
of information (to the extent that we can offer it), we make also available
the two following plans, of 1724 and 1845.
These latter plans are especially
interesting if we regard the development of the western faubourg, something
Lonlas that noted as well. We will come back to it later on.
* * *
Our attempt to offer more detailed views (close-ups, so to speak), lets us turn once more to the Corderie, the 'core' from which Rochefort was to develop.
The plan showing the projected Corderie.
The site of the Corderie today
From an empirical point of
view, despite all older (pre-1666) remnants, the Corderie was the true
nucleus, the starting point of the 'new town' that was to be Rochefort.
Let it suffice here to point out that, in terms of its length, this almost palace-like building totalled 300 meters: enormous indeed for any 'manufactory.'
The reconstructed Corderie today
Its design reminds us of the fact that in the next, the
18th century, quite a few manufactories run by the State or as private
ventures by aristocrats (like Liancourt!) were set up in châteaus
re-dedicated to such a 'vulgar' manufacturing purpose. Wieser-Benedetti
and Grenier are mistaken if they think that the term "château d'industrie"
was initially merely a metaphoric one, awarded to mid- and late 19th century
factories (in the Lille region and elsewhere) because of the 'Gothic' design
of certain cotton mills with their multi-storied structures and prominent
towers added on to them for the sake of a mis-understood 'beauty.'
The Corderie was the starting point of urban development in Rochefort, we said. Indeed, in the initial phase of Rochefort's production, the Corderie must have been the only (new) structure visible in this desolate, devastated place by the Charente. Or almost so. For the barracks or 'cabanes' of the construction workers were its counterpoint. Although less visible to historical researchers (and certainly on historical plans), contemporaries coming to the construction site cannot have failed to notice them. But those who were to write about the endeavours of the government would not dwell on such poor habitations. And the villagers in hamlets nearby would neither know how to write about these shabby dwellings, nor would they see them as especially noteworthy. Their 'cabanes' were probably only a little more solid, a little more comfortable.
* * *
The Corderie: Where did its workers live?
Where did the ropery workers live?
This is a question we must ask.
The reconstructed Corderie (photo from the Merimee data base, Ministry of Culture, France)
As we shall see, the Corderie was rather effectively separated, in urbanistic terms, from the bourgeois town that was slowly being produced. This separation is effected visually, as well. Right behind it, there was a small 'bois' (as they say in French): less than a forest, and more than a grove, wider than the Corderie itself and about the same length (300 meters). On other plans, it is supplanted by a long row of trees, planted along a straight alley.
Behind this 'bois' respectively
the row of trees, more prominent visually than the alley itself,
there was the walled-in compound encompassing what was seemingly a private,
royal or aristocratic park which incorporated, at its Southern fringe,
the old château, razed some forty years ago.
The Corderie and its immediate spatial context
This separation, in terms of spatial
relations to the "town," foreshadows a hypothetical question if not conclusion:
the Corderie workers housed in the Corderie itself?
The wings as well as the 'mansardes' of
the Corderie cannot be overlooked.
Still, there are other alternatives to be considered.
If accommodation of workers outside the Corderie area may have implied a long journey to work to the nearby hamlets, or a somewhat shorter journey to one of the few completed houses existing rather early on (as we shall see) in the Northern part of the well laid-out 'bourgeois town,' it becomes apparent that these solutions were hardly the best way to house workers. To what extent either of these alternatives played a role, we do not know.
However, we do know that in addition to the options pointed out already, further strategies of housing the work force of the Corderie may have played a role.
There was, in fact, another possibility, and that concerned various minor buildings, belonging (unmistakably or only 'perhaps') to the Corderie.
In the photo above, we see in the
background, at a certain distance, a rather large house, erected
in a perpendicular direction, with regard to the main building of the Corderie.
The building to the North of the Corderie that is visible on the
The plan of 1677 shows two more or less parallel buildings just North of the Corderie
Another possibility is that some
workers were housed right behind the Corderie, in the small house behind
its Southern wing..
The Southern wing and what appears like
an entrance to an 'inner court,'
This photo shows that there was
at some time an inner court just behind the Corderie, framed (at
least partially) by one-storeyed buildings. However, these buildings do
not exist on the plan shown above.
* * *
The Corderie royale (first and most expensive building),
the arsenal, and the town form
We have elsewhere identified 7 distinct urban "spaces"
and this, we believe, with good reason. But in a sense, Lonlas also is
right if he identifies three urban "spaces": for him they are (a) the arsenal
(including the Corderie), (b) the royal garden, and (c) "the town."
- We would rather suggest: (a) the Corderie, (b) the 'arsenal proper',
and (c) "the town."
undated plan, 17th C
The triangular relationship of (a) Arsenal, (b) Corderie and (c) "the town"
The same, as a 'close-up'
It was the Corderie, and not the well-laid-out town, which was first realized. But in fact, we must not forget that the Corderie royale (though ostentatively separated from the town), the arsenal (separate, too), and the town (la ville) form a functionally related unity made up of three constitutive, yet separate urban 'spaces' or parts.
While the Corderie and the arsenal, although spatially
separated, fulfilled a productive and maintenance function with respect
to the royal navy, the town (which is adjacent two both) fulfilled three
functions: it provided lodging to a population, it served as a commercial
center, and it fulfilled an administrative function with regard to the
naval base and the fleet.
Let us begin here with the NORTHERN
SECTION of Rochefort.
As noted already, the Corderie must have been a major employer - both during the phase of its construction (when 3,000 workers were toiling to construct it) and after its completion when it functioned as a ropery.
But the Corderie, it was noted, was also a fine building, marvellously executed in order to reflect the power and the glory of the roi du Soleil.
Early plans indicate no wall separating a royal garden from the Corderie, Rather, the greens stretched out vastly in the back of it, forming a single unit with the magnificent Corderie itself. In truth, the Corderie was the center piece not of the 'arsenal' (its more modest ateliers being situated further South) but of the 'ville royale', the prestigious and representative 'core' of Rochefort which also preceded the 'ville bourgeoise' timewise.
Later plans, from at least
1677 onward, show, however, the Corderie as separated from the 'jardin
royale'. Its productive function was accentuated. The leisure function
of the garden now was a separate matter, and (thanks to the surrounding
wall) quite literally so.
Despite the later accentuation of
the productive function (the separation of the Corderie from the 'jardin'),
representative execution of the Corderie ((4) in the 1672 plan)) and the
creation of the royal garden(2) must have had implications for the Northern
part of the well-laid-out 'bourgeois' town in the back of it, from the
very outset (6).
The Northern section of the town (conceived, primarily, as a 'bourgeois' town, in terms of a correct grid-pattern formed by 6 blocks on the plan of 1672) was not only effectively cut-off from the river thanks to the walled-in garden (2); it was even furthermore separated from the Corderie and the river by the considerable property to the North of the garden that actually fitted into the grid pattern but in fact did not form a part of the section of the town here considered(7).
The 1688 plan tells us that this estate was known as 'Les
fonderies' - the foundry works.
If we had been searching here for
a likely site of workers' housing, fitted into the in area next to the
Corderie, we would have been disappointed. For we we have discovered,
rather than an estate housing
Corderie workers, another employer
whose workers had to be housed somewhere.
But let us look at developments
regarding the relation between the Corderie and the jardin royal
some detail first before we return to the overall relationship between
the two employers mentioned (the Corderie and the foundry works) and the
Northern section of the grid patterned town.
The planning proposal presented by this 1666 plan execerpt shows not only the Corderie, construction of which had just begun. It also shows the terrains immediately West of this representative building that were to become the 'jardin royal.'(9)
This future (garden) use cannot be ascertained, however, from the 1666 plan. But in view of the fact that the plan of 1672 and subsequent plans all show the royal garden right behind the Corderie, it is likely that such a use was foreseen from the beginning.
The close connection between a costly and extremely representative
building by the river and the large garden behind it cannot be put in doubt.
Add to this the nearby "new" château (1) and the old
château (3), in ruins already, and situated partly in the royal garden
The 1672 plan reduplicates the pattern of the royal garden
foreseen already in 1666.
Plan in all likelihood drawn between 1672 and 1677
Shown in this fine plan (dated by us as pre-1677 and post 1672) , rows of trees and the park-like, walled-in lay-out of the large estate in the back of the Corderie (known as the 'jardin royal') underscore the representative and thus, 'royal' character of this area. We may well call this part of town which remains outside the grid pattern, the real 'ville royale,' as opposed to the 'ville bourgeoise.'
The core information for this part of Rochefort contained in the
However, the exemption of the terrains in the back of the Corderie from the grid-patterned town was not unmistakably foreshadowed by the initial plan of 1666.
In the earlier plans, the future terrains of the 'ville
royale' (right behind the Corderie) can certainly be identified already.
But a clear lay-out of streets, including a wide main axis in a North-South
direction, was also visible. Only the tree-studded main North-South axis
and a much more narrow tree-studded street running in a North-South direction
immediately behing the Corderie have remained in the above 17th century
plan from the planning proposal (as shown in 1666 and again found
on the 1672 plan). The East-West streets of the street pattern have faded
into the remaining garden lands and have either been entirely wiped out
or turned into mere garden paths. Thus, the orientation of this garden
terrain is clearly a North-South orientation now. The East-West connections
of the 1666 planning proposal have been almost completely eliminated, drastically
reducing (or rather, eliminating) the "permeability" of the terrain for
If the initial plan was so determinedly revised
in this area next to the Corderie, weighty 'facts of life' must have collided
with the original planning proposal. We must not forget that except for
the Corderie, the area in question comprised the old, razed château.
It was, so to speak, cherished aristocratic land. The (by now walled-in)
estate that was realized here and that made impossible the execution of
the original planning proposal for this area, can only be ascribed to a
major (aristocratic) user or owner, perhaps the nephew of Colbert himself.
The fact that it is commonly referred to as the 'jardin royal' lends
weight to such a hypothesis. Of course, it was no more destined for the
personal use of the king than the Corderie royal. It was State property,
as was the royal navy, the royal arsenal, the royal foundry, and the royal
Corderie. But having a leisure function, high (possibly aristocratic) officials
must have enjoyed the use of it.
The 1688 plan confirms the function of the jardin
as a barrier to East-West traffic and a representative extension
of the royal Corderie.
(1) (2) (3)
(1) Remains of the old château, (2) Corderie, (3) jardin royal, (4) the foundry works.
We have to note here, however, the houses shown also (though in a different way) in the pre-1677 plan on the almost triangular, elongated and narrow site immediately West of the jardin royal.
In the pre-1677 plan, all
the blocks to the West of the 'triangular' terrain (except for the
monastery of the
two blocks further West) were still empty.
The ramparts can be seen in the upper right edge of this plan excerpt;
to the Northeast of the houses of the triangular 'block', we see part of
the foundry works.
But then of course plans need not always be accurate.
These houses now look much more like workers' houses.
Workers' houses next to garden and foundry?
If they were present already (and merely inaccurately
indicated) on the earlier (pre-1677) plan, they are indeed older than the
houses that have sprung up just North of the foundry works
and that appear for the first time in the 1688 plan.
The same houses west of the garden and the more recent houses
to the North
Here, it is especially the long row of houses on the Northside of the street just one block North of the foundry works that captures our attention and that reminds us of so many late 18th and early 19th century rows of workers' houses we have encountered.(10)
The above excerpt from the 1688 plan shows a tiny part of the jardin royal to the South of the foundry works, the works filling the block between the garden walls and the street North of it (it is a property also surrounded by a wall, as we have already noted), and various dwellings on the blocks North of the works that did not exist when the previous plan was drawn up.
The houses have been marked here
in scarlet red.
What has come in between is an obviously 'partly unplanned'
or arbitrary production of housing that cuts across the foreseen grid and
wipes out an important connecting axis leading up the a gate.
If we briefly look now once again at the larger context of this part of town, a juxtaposition and short comparison of the relevant plans will help.
The six blocks (a) 1672; (b) pre-1677
The outline of the 6 blocks shown
on the 1672 plan has been preserved on the pre-1677 plan.
The hypothetically built-up area in 1677 1677
The area built-up in 1677 according
to Maxime Lonlas gives us a real headache
Despite the information provided
by Lonlas regarding the built-up area in 1677, we also doubt that the long
row of houses we identified on the East-West street next to the Northern
ramparts on the 1688 plan extends beyond the intersection of that
'quasi-cul-de-sac' with the forked street leading to the gate.
What is also apparent is the need
for empty terrains, for storage space next to the basin that seems to be
provided in one form or other, close to the ramparts and the basin.
The area in the 1688 plan: A Brief Summary
(a) The industrial and (presumed) working class areas
The six blocks in 1688 and the same information entered on today's
The area of what were (in 1672) six blocks that is
shown here once again in the plan of 1688 [surrounded by a red line]
has obviously undergone a loss of urban status, importance, and value (in
terms of land rent). If the tenement houses, among them a 'long row of
houses' (but there are additional ones, on the 2 blocks just South
of that 'long row') helped their owners to recoup considerable rental income,
due to overcrowding, this lucrative business is counterbalanced by the
apparent deterioration of other areas to a status of mere storage space
which would fetch the cheapest of land rents but was nonetheless economically
(b) Public buildings
As for the buildings indicated in black on
the 1688 plan, they seem to be public buildings. The author who has redrawn
this 1688 plan has indicated here (in solid black) (1) the new château,
(2)the old château, (3) the Corderie, and - of course
- (4) the foundry works. We may in addition point out the small building
to the West of the South Wing of the Corderie (between ((2) and (3)) and
the two others to the North of the Corderie already mentioned further
above (5): buildings which in a way must have belonged to it and which
may have provided additional ateliers, storage facilities,
accommodation for workers). And we must point out the large complex
(in black) close to the (Northern) ships' basin: was this accommodation
for the troops stationed in Rochefort to protect the city - in other words,
a 'Caserne'? Where these warehouses, instead, connected with the
port function of Rochefort? Either way, these buildings offered no likely
(1 ) Maxime Lonlas, in his architectural
and urbanistic study on Rochefort, has noted the differentiation of the
urban space (espace urbain) as well. See: Maxime LONLAS, "[Rochefort] Domaine
Historique: L'évolution de la ville [de Rochefort] d'un point de
vue architectural", in: http://rochefortsurmer.free.fr/hist_archi1.php
(2) We shall come back to this question and deal with it extensively further below.
(3) During the 17th century, the majority of the housing stock especially in small towns (in many areas of Europe, including England, Germany, the present Belgium, Northern and western France) consisted still of wooden houses: so-called half-timbered houses (Fachwerkhäuser). Only the more important public buildings and the houses of wealthy people (usually members of the urban patrician "aristocracy" and the commercial bourgeosie [strata which frequently intermarried and became inseparable in the important commercial towns] were executed in stone.)
(4) Cf. Part 1 of this chapter on Rochefort.
(5) The plan of 1672, with the "parties bâties ou en cours de construction" indicated as solid dark blocks by Lonlas, can seduce the reader, however, to arrive at the opposite conclusion. At least on first sight. We shall try to show that any such conclusion which is taking for granted a fast rhythm of production of houses within grid of the well-laid-out town is too optimistic, to say the least.
(6) In fact, we do not consider the extension
of the built-up area indicated by Lonlas on the 1672 as "small" (even if
the fact that the blocks were only partially filled with buildings is obscured
and 'overstated' by the visual representation which suggests, at first
sight, completely built-up areas).
(7) As we shall show elsewhere in the chapter
on Rochefort, the triangular terrain has been ceded by the 'jardin royal;'
(8) In 1672 we discover a brook or rivulet in place of the subsequent harbor basin.
(9) The terrains in question are indicated on the 1666 plan excerpt by their orange-colored street pattern.
(10) The term 'long row' [Lange Reihe] may of course be misleading. In the 18th century and early 19th century, it usually refers to standardized rows of tenement buildings. In the present case, the outline (plat) of the buildings, as depicted on the 1688 plan, gives no indication as to standardization. On the contrary, [small?] buildings of different sizes seem to form this "long row of houses"!
(11) Maxime Lonlas seems to have in general
a tendency to overstate (at least implicitly) the extend and speed of the
construction of the 'ville bourgeoise.' The 1672 plan on which he superimposed
information as to the extent of built-up or partly buiilt-up areas visually
conveys an impression of a rather solidly realized core of the Southern
town section. The 1688 plan indicates, however, how many gaps existed
on these 'built-up or partly-built up' blocks.
(12) The military use of urban space in this area also went against the grain of profitable land use, to be sure.
(13) Indeed the use of the building complex
as a 'caserne' verified on a late 19th century plan may date back to the
late 17th century.
We have up to now looked at aspects of the Northern part of the 'ville bourgeoise' in their interplay with the 'ville royale' (including the Corderie royale).
In the next part of this preliminary study, we shall look at the Southern part of the 'ville bourgeoise,' the 'arsenal proper' (surrounded by a canal or ditch), the area of the "ancien quai de commerce", and their relationship.
But before we wind up this part of our study, we show
here, again, the northern section of Rochefort, as foreseen by the original
planning proposal of 1666 and the especially graphic plan of post-1672/pre-1677.
Northern part of the grid-patterned lay-out, as planned
(plan of 1666)
We have redrawn the badly readable sttreet pattern, at the risk of making mistakes
Our copy of the 1666 plan is too bad to thoroughly compare changes
West of the garden royal that apparently must have occurred between 1666
and 1672 (or 1677).
Another irritating feature of the 1666 plan is that to the West of
the jardin royal, the "street" pattern of this garden terrain and the continuation
of the grid foreseen for the Southern part of town do not coincide. Which
makes for strange effects of "interference" (Interferenz). In later plans,
the influence of the garden's pattern on the grid in the Northern section
of the 'ville bourgeoise' (that was probably - in part -
becoming 'proletarian', as have tried to show) is eliminated.