Karine Dupr

CARIBBEAN
URBAN
MODERNIZATION
A Typomorphological Study of Two Towns in Guadeloupe (1928-2003)

Tampere University of Technology

DATUTOP 25

DATUTOP 25

Karine Dupr

CARIBBEAN URBAN MODERNIZATION

A TYPOMORPHOLOGICAL STUDY OF TWO TOWNS IN
GUADELOUPE (1928-2003)

DATUTOP
Department of Architecture
Tampere University of Technology
Occasional Papers
Publisher:
Department of Architecture
Tampere University of Technology,
P.O. Box 600,
FIN - 33101 TAMPERE,
Finland.
architecture@tut.fi
www.tut.fi/units/arc
Distributor:
Juvenes Bookstore,
P.O. Box 527,
FIN - 33101 TAMPERE,
Finland.
juvenes@tut.fi
Series Editor: Jorma Mnty
Editor: 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 Mntysalo, 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 72.01
ISBN 952-15-1162-1
ISSN 0359-7105
Printed in Finland by Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, Vammala, 2004.
ii

To Pasi,
Nao & Sahel
who followed me
in this Guadeloupean adventure.
Hoping one part of the island
remains in their heart.
To Mamie and the other grand persons who read with me some
pages 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 & Sahel
qui mont suivie
dans cette aventure guadeloupenne.
Esprant quun bout de cette le reste
dfinitivement accroch dans leurs curs.
A Mamie et ces autres grandes personnes qui ont bien voulu
feuilleter avec moi quelques pages de leur vie.
A Erika et son petit frre/sa petite sur natre: car finalement
Guadeloupe cest cela pour moi,
Un livre qui ne se referme jamais.

iii

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT vi
RSUM vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS viii

PART I: Theoretical framework

1. INTRODUCTION 13
1.1 The subject 13
1.2 The object 16
1.2.1 Site 16
1.2.2 Time-span 21
2. METHODOLOGY: How to study a bourg in Guadeloupe? 23
2.1 Typomorphological and historical approaches:
how to combine both? 23
2.2 Methodology 29
2.2.1 Empirical material 30
2.2.2-Framework of analysis 32

PART II: Historical context

3. BEFORE 1928 37
3.1 A glimpse of architectural and urban features 37
3.2 Historical context 48
4. IMPACT OF THE HURRICANE OF 1928 52
4.1 Financial support 53
4.2 Material support 55
4.3 The sending of specialists 56
4.4 Questioning building methods 57
4.5 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 70
6.1 Gosier 70
6.2.Trois-Rivires 99
7. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 137
iv

PART IV: Analysis of the processes of modernization

8. FROM DISCOURSE TO REALITY 140
8.1 Preamble: on the choice of discourse 140
8.2 Colonial discourses 141
8.3 Realities after 1946
9. TYPOMORPHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS 161
9.1 Gosier 162
9.1.1 The pre-1955 period 163
9.1.2 The 1955-1988 period 172
9.1.2.1 The coastal area 174
9.1.2.2 The central block 177
9.1.2.3 The inland area 190
9.1.3 The 1989-2003 period 198
9.1.3.1 The coastal area 198
9.1.3.2 The central block 198
9.1.3.3 The inland area 202
9.1.4 Typomorphological conclusions on Gosier 213
9.2 Trois-Rivires 217
9.2.1 The pre-1950 period 219
9.2.2 The 1950-2003 period 232
9.2.2.1 From 1950 to 1976 232
9.2.2.2 From 1977 to 2003 245
9.2.3 Typomorphological conclusions on Trois-Rivires 258
10. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS 261

PART V
11. CONCLUSION 262
COLOUR PLATES 267
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS & TABLES 296
SOURCES 303
BIBLIOGRAPHY 307
v

ABSTRACT

Guadeloupe is a French Overseas Department and European region

which is located in the Caribbean Region. The legacy of its specific
history as a tropical colony with an economy based on slavery and
large-scale export crops (sugar cane, coffee, etc.), can be seen in the
way urban forms have been created and developed. The urban
growth (the early signs of which became apparent after emancipation in 1848, with tremendous changes taking place in the mid-twentieth century), considerably modified the traditional landscape
and generated new forms. A more recent issue is how new ways of
life have begun to touch not only the main cities of the island but also
its smaller towns.
The aim of this work is to describe and analyze the urban modernization processes of two town centers (Gosier & Trois-Rivires)
in light of their historical context. The changes in urban forms and
building types from 1928 to 2003 are considered here against the
background of the emergence of modernism. Using one of the major concepts developed by Conzen for general morphological
analysis (the concept of the burgage cycle), as well as Caniggias
concept of typological process, this study assumes that spatial and
social entities are nourished by a back-and-forth relationship.
After a presentation of the theoretical approach and the empirical object in Part I, the work is divided into three parts. In Part II, a
historical background provides a glimpse of the social context in
Guadeloupe shortly before its devastation by the 1928 hurricane.
The impact of the hurricane and the assessment of the reconstruction in 1935 are also discussed. In Part III, the two case studies are
presented in their local context and then analyzed as morphological
case studies. Finally, Part IV presents the analysis of the understanding of modernization by colonial and post-colonial authorities prior
to the analysis of the modernization process in the two towns from
a typological perspective.

vi

RSUM

La Guadeloupe est un Dpartement Franais dOutre Mer, le situe

dans la Carabe. Ses formes urbaines ont t fortement modeles
par un pass colonial reposant sur le systme esclavagiste et
lexportation de monocultures. Aujourdhui, la croissance urbaine
est la source dun dbat crucial qui touche non seulement les villes
principales de lle mais aussi ses plus petites units urbaines.
Lobjectif de ce travail est de dcrire et danalyser les processus
de modernisation urbaine de deux bourgs (Gosier et Trois-Rivires)
la lumire de leur contexte historique. Les transformations des
formes urbaines et des types urbains entre 1928 et 2003 sont
apprhendes ici en parallle de lmergence du modernisme. Base
sur lun des concepts majeurs dvelopps par Conzen dans ses
tudes morphologiques, celui de burgage-cycle, et sur la
mthodologie du processus typologique dveloppe par Caniggia,
cette tude suppose quentits sociales et spatiales se nourrissent
mutuellement dune relation continue.
Aprs une prsentation de lapproche thorique et de lobjet
empirique, ltude est divise en trois parties. La premire dcrit la
Guadeloupe juste avant son ravage par le cyclone de 1928. Limpact
de ce cyclone et un bilan de la reconstruction en 1935 y sont aussi
exposs. La seconde partie prsente les deux cas dtudes dans leur
contexte local et propose leur analyse en tant quobjets historiques
et morphologiques. Enfin, la troisime partie commence par un
examen du discours colonial et post-colonial concernant les
principes de modernisation appliquer en Guadeloupe, pour finir
sur une analyse des processus de modernisation urbaine relatifs aux
deux bourgs dun point de vue typologique.

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Admittedly, writing a dissertation on Guadeloupe while living in

Finland may seem farfetched. Yet, my own background and personality, perhaps too southern to enter the essence of Finnishness, or
too incomplete to understand fully the Nordic societies (due to,
among other things, the language barrier), indirectly brought me to
study a French case.
As architect, I have always been attracted to scrutinizing the
bonds linking people and their homes, between ways of life and
spatial production. Through its different position in the French
landscape and history, Guadeloupe has faced an obvious dilemma
when confronting the reality of urban growth. The seemingly established dichotomy between architectures, as well as the lack of
interest generated on this matter, presented all the elements to commence research. Today, when the moment comes to present some
results, the fact is that this choice has kept its promises.
From an initial demarche, which certainly resulted much more
from a specific sensibility rather than a true scientific approach, it
appears that this work owes a lot to various but very particular
persons. Their contribution shaped my brain little by little, cleared
preconceived ideas from it and ultimately gave me the opportunity
to experience this type of work at very different and deep levels.
Definitely, it is now time to thank them in detail: only those who
preferred to remain anonymous will not be named.
For their incommensurable contribution to my jump into the
research world, Professor Terttu Pakarinen, Head of the Urban
Planning and Design Institute at the Tampere University of Technology, and Professor Danielle Bgot, Head of the Industrial Archeology, History and Heritage at the University of Antilles-Guyane
should be thanked.
In addition to helping me obtain financial support, Professor
Pakarinen has been a strong moral support (despite occasional
north-south misunderstandings), as well as contributed greatly to
my intellectual enlightenment in the field of architecture and urban
planning. Her guidance gave meaning to my past architectural studviii

ies, for it permitted me to gather my knowledge into an understandable whole. In many ways, her advice is visible in the framework
shaping this dissertation.
Similarly, Professor Bgot has been an invaluable person, always
reliable, despite an all-year-round fully booked agenda and sorely
tried health. She is the Historian who initiated me to start historical
research, opening my eyes to gaining another understanding of our
societies. She was also a key person in Guadeloupe who facilitated
my work by introducing me to others. Wherever I was living, in
Guadeloupe or in Finland, her interest in my work has never
flagged and many extracts of our conversations found their way
into my work. I deeply thank her for the personal French touch
she brought along my works, more than once relieving me from
personal and domestic troubles.
For their benevolent attitude towards my work, the following
people ought to be mentioned: Albert Flagie, Doctor in Anthropology, who first introduced me to Guadeloupes intellectual world and
was a jury member for my DEA. Professor Alain Yacou
(Guadeloupe) immediately accepted me as an affiliated researcher at
his Institute. Professor Harri Melin, of the University of Tampere,
should also to be mentioned for the time he dedicated to the early
phases of my work.
Because they greatly facilitated my general archival research, I
also wish to thank the director of the Saint-John-Perse Museum in
Pointe--Pitre, Madam Tersen, who allowed me to dig into the museums invaluable postcard collection; Robert Hamparian, who lent
me some precious pictures and maps; the director of the Departmental Archives of Guadeloupe in Gourbeyre, Madam Servant,
who made available to me the little researcher accommodation, as
well as the staff of the same archive center (specifically Jacqueline)
who kindly and repeatedly kept me apprised of arrival of the food
seller s car, so as not to forget to eat. In the last phase of my research
work, the anonymous postcard collector who allowed Professor
Bgot to dig in his collection and allowed me to use the copied documents in my work (more than 20 postcards!) contributed greatly to
beginning my analysis on a firm basis; whereas one specific person
at the Guadeloupean INSEE (the French Statistic Center) greatly
contributed to fill in all of the missing gaps.
On more technical matters, I wish to warmly thank all the different people and institutions that have contributed to the realization
and final shape of this work.
Regarding the financial aspect of this work, I would like to thank
the Industrial Research Fund at TUT (through Professor Terttu
Pakarinen), which was the first institution to provide me a grant for
my research. By twice providing me with a grant, the Scientific Fund
ix

of the City of Tampere must now be thanked twice: each time, it was
a 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 the
Doctoral School of the Tampere University of Technology, for by
gaining the status of researcher and a monthly salary which relieved
me from financial worries. I also thank the Institute of Urban Planning and Design at TUT, which through its director, Terttu
Pakarinen, financially took care of the proofreading and printing
costs.
Concerning the final layout of this dissertation, Janine Leclerc, a
retired French professor of English language must be specifically
mentioned for all the early proofreading which she voluntarily performed, as well as for the year-round moral support. Similarly, the
Haitian team, Nadeve Mnard and her mother Evelyne Trouillot,
must also be thanked for the attentive work they gave in the final
proofreading stage. I offer Ana, the newborn girl of Nadeve, my
apologizes in keeping her mother so busy. I shall also thank Kris
Clarke for her contribution as the final proofreader.
Concerning the illustrations, architects Maria Yunquera and
Maito Rufa did a huge job in drawing more than half of the presented plans (originally indecipherable sketches from my site survey), as well as in providing me concise lectures on how to
manipulate a computer: I now send them overseas kisses because
they came all the way from Spain to answer my SOS call. In the
same way, architect Mari Virtanen of Finland, and architect Tini
Netz, from Germany, should be mentioned. Finally, Gareth Griffith
is to be thanked for the final layout he freely carried out with all the
meticulous qualities it involves.
However, there is one fact: without the cooperation of both inhabitants and civil servants of Gosier and Trois-Rivires this work
could have never been accomplished. My gratitude has no limit towards them. This work represents more than an intellectual journey; it was literally a human adventure. Although each person that
opened her/his house and office to me should be deeply thanked, I
specifically wish to express my gratitude to the following people
because our relationship has often turned into real friendships.
In Gosier, the L. and C. families have done far more than patiently explaining the stories of their town, their districts and their
houses: they opened their homes to my family. Let Mamie,
Christelle, Agns, Micheline, and Papi be particularly thanked, as
well as Fred and Betty, Freds mother and brothers, Mrs Farnoux
Bernard and her daughter, Mounia and her six children. I also wish
to express my gratitude to the inhabitants of Mangot, which is the
district where my family and I lived for 9 months.
x

As they proved to be indispensable to my research on Gosier, I

wish to thank Gilda Gonfier, head of the multimedia municipal library of Gosier, as well as the staff (specifically Chantal), for their
availability and their support in finding scientific information. Gilda
Gonfier not only opened the municipal archives of Gosier for my
investigations but also gave me the chance to display a picture exhibition (June 2002), made in the early stage of my work and aimed at
showing the bonds of the inhabitants to their town. In the same way,
the contribution of Philippe Guyon, urban planner, formerly in
SEMAG, must be acknowledged because he made available almost
all of the contemporary urban documents concerning Gosier that
are displayed in this work. Pascal Gane, from the municipality of
Gosier, should also be mentioned for his help and keen interest in
architecture.
In Trois-Rivires, the immediate enthusiasm of the municipality
towards my research is worth mentioning and I would like to specifically express my gratitude to Georges Siarras, head of municipal
works, and Mr Simon, head of the municipal archives, because of
the time they spent with me to describe their town and its past. Until
the last stage of my writing, Georges Siarras has proved to be an
indispensable person.
Denise Bride, Sister Elisabeth from the Notre-Dame Convent,
one anonymous street cleaner and many families of Trois-Rivires
should be thanked to have introduced me to their houses and/or to
their life stories. In the same way, Mr. Sainte Luce Tholade, former
head of the primary school, and his remarkable memory needs to
be mentioned for his significant contribution.
Yet, in addition to the people I initially met in the course of my
work, there are all the others, who, even if not directly concerned
with my work, contributed to its well-being by their moral support
and their understanding.
In this regard, I bow in front of Claire Boissy, my friend, and her
family (Emmanuel, Jeanne and Tom), for they were present at each
stage of this work: not only mentally but also physically, because
they followed my family and me until Guadeloupe more than once.
Kirsi Ikuli, my sauna mate, holds an equally significant place for all
the talk-and-listening moments shared together.
For all the manifold logistics they provided during all these years
and their incommensurable love towards my children, I thank Seija
and Martti Virtamo, the grandparents of my children.
Because they daily broke the social isolation met at my work
place, I thank Kimmo Kurunmki and Minna Chudoba for the
lunchtime spent together.
For his insatiable curiosity and for being the only one of my
relatives to have read meticulously any French versions of my work
xi

(e.g. my DEA) and discussing them with me, I thank my grandfather, PereJo, for being what he is.
Finally, I also want to mention Genevive Pomet, from
Guadeloupe. Her friendship has been a precious moral support. I
also thank Sylvie Rossetto, Gaelle Alain, Nadeve and Chenzo, the
Labrador, Roussel & Erbs families because I know their house is
always open for a new journey in the West Indies.
But for all the seas crossed together, sometimes on a different
boat and finally with the same wind, I dedicate this work to Pasi
Virtamo, the father of my children, the man at my side.

xii

PART I: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The subject
The first attempts to define building types and to use them as an
architectural methodology were made in the 19th century. The
Frenchmen A-C Quatremre de Quincy (1755-1849) and J. N. L.
Durand (1760-1834) both pioneered the theorization of the concept
of the typological approach, respectively in Encyclopdie
Mthodique1 and Recueil et parallle des difices de tout genre anciens et
modernes,2 where classification is based on function, period and
country.3 More recently, N. Pevsner confirmed the tradition of typology in A History of Building Types,4 where a building type is
defined by its function, material and style. When comparing these
works, one finds that although the characteristics of a type might
slightly differ in respect to era, the principle of categorizing a
building 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 that
interactions with society, through its history, cultural dimensions,
social values, etc., were not acknowledged in this approach. Instead, critics proposed a typology based on the back-and-forth relationship between a building type and its urban fabric. This
perspective opened a wide field of conceptualizations, developed
by architects (like the Italians C. Aymonino and A. Rossi), geographers, 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 develop. The debate remains relevant: it is sufficient to look at the
dichotomy between current architectural journals, which mostly
present the building as an object, proposing few thoughts on the
buildings surroundings and its integration in an urban whole; and
urban planning journals which dissect the town and its infrastructure, while frequently leaving aside the detailed architectural
qualities. The same issue is visible in the way architecture and urban planning are too often considered to be different fields,6 although recently, there have been efforts to combine them in
practice.

1
Quatremre de Quincy,
Encyclopdie Mthodique,
Volume I, Paris :
Panckoucke, 1788 ; Volume
II & III, Edition Veuve
Agasse, 1801-1825. Source:
Bibliothque Nationale de
France (Paris).
2
Durand, J.N.L. Recueil et
parallle des difices de tout
genre anciens et modernes,
Paris : imp. de Gill fils,
1799-1801. Source :
Bibliothque Nationale de
France (Paris).
3
Castex, J. Une typologie
usages multiples, Versailles: LDRHAUS, 2001,
pp. 25-38.
4
Pevsner, N. A History of
Building Types, Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1986 (1st ed. 1976).
5
Panerai, Castex &
Depaule Formes urbaines,
de llot la barre, Ed.
Parenthses, 1997, p. 12.
6
See R.Koolhaas defence
of this position in Architecture against urbanism
in Verwijnen, J. and
Lehtovuori, P., (eds.)
Managing Urban Change,
Helsinki: UIAH, 1996, pp.
119-132.

13

7
See, for example, the
work of Pevsner (1986).
The building types listed
are all part of the city.
8
Eriksen, T. H. Ethnicity
and Nationalism, London:
Pluto Press, 1993.
9
Lefebvre, H. La rvolution
urbaine, Paris: Anthropos,
1991.
10
See, for example, the
works of M. Castells, such
as The City and the
Grassroots, Berkeley:
University of California
Press, 1984 or The
Informational City, Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers,
1989.

14

The use of words is also important. Indeed, through their semantic connotations and their use, urban typology and morphology give the impression of privileging the link with the city or
with a defined urban area.7 Nonetheless, the urban phenomenon of
the last fifty years is clearly not just connected with the city, but is
inscribed within a much wider context. The systematic urbanization of cities peripheries or the mutilation of the countryside, in
order to establish housing estates here and there, is accepted. Yet,
in a period that appears to denounce such over-urbanization, it
seems that little consideration has been given to the remaining
middle and small sized towns or even villages from a contemporary viewpoint.
In a world marked by rampant globalization, it seems less and
less coherent to neglect these places because transforming work
processes, improving technologies and greater accessibility facilitates both physical transportation and interconnections even for
the person who stays at home; which ultimately contributes to
shaping the urbanization of today and its forms.
Paradoxically, when observing closely, divisions remain
which even recent globalization processes can not erase,8 because
the shift from production/productivity to consumption/competition produces unequal changes among societies. Today, the multiplicity of societies is acknowledged in proportion to the
development of studies that focus on the interrelation of factors
producing these societies.
Interrelations between space and society have already been
studied by many scholars, with some concluding that space is a
social product,9 while others have tried to uncover what is it that
makes a society modern, sometimes through the lens of its urban
phenomenon. 10 Yet, while the concept of modernity cannot simply
be avoided, because it is such a central concept in the description of
contemporary societies, the analysis of the process of modernization seems equally unavoidable as it raises crucial questions
within ones own society: why modernize, how to modernize, and
should modernization even be a model? As such, it not only relates
to a societys self-image of but also to its worldview.
Guadeloupe, a French Region, with the attribute of not being
physically attached to the mainland, since it is located in the Caribbean, provides many of the elements relevant to a typomorphological study on urban modernization with its increasing pace of
urbanization and small amount of large cities. This is due not only
to its present but also because of its specific history as a tropical
colony with an economy based on large-scale export crops (sugar
cane, coffee, etc.) and slavery.
Indeed, the islands past includes indigenous life (slowly but

surely wiped out after the discovery of the island in 1493 by

Christopher Columbus), colonialism (starting with the French settlement in 1635) and slavery, has resulted in a contemporary society that reflects these multiethnic, forced exchanges. For example,
it is difficult to find an undisputed estimate of the number of imported African slaves due to the lack of evidence. However, shortly
before emancipation in Guadeloupe (1848) there were 9,926 whites,
approximately 88,000 black slaves and 31,405 were free coloured
people (libre de couleur) in a population of almost 130,000 inhabitants.11 Later, more than 42,500 indentured workers arrived from
India between 1854 and 1889;12 moreover, 6,000 Africans were
brought 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 in
the way urban forms have been created and developed. Urban
growth (with the early signs apparent after emancipation and tremendous strides in the mid-twentieth century), has considerably
modified the traditional landscape and generated new forms and
new ways of life, which have become a more recent issue.
As in other countries, the urban landscape of Guadeloupe today
offers features that are not solely restricted to the city, as traditional rural lands are also becoming urbanized. Apparently, if it is
true that Guadeloupe amounts to 34 urban districts, according to
the French classification, questions remain about the meaning of
such a classification. This is particularly true when many contrasts
appear amongst these districts in terms of population, building
density or urban equipment, etc. In fact, specifically here, the quantitative aspect is important, for only two of the urban districts can
legitimately claim the title of city: the city of Basse-Terre, one of the
earliest settlements in the island and the administrative town of
the island; and Pointe--Pitre, its legendary rival. Most of the
thirty-two other towns of Guadeloupe oscillate between countryside and urban centre(s) that are more or less developed, between
sections and village centres, the latter being known as bourgs.
The village centre in itself symbolizes this urban duality quite
well. It remains in contact with the rural world through certain
practices 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 population
and urban works, whereas the scale of the built space determines
its status of not yet being a city. Within the cadastral division of the
commune, like its sections, the bourg is a unique entity though the
way it has been originally created (combining parish and institutions) and by its historical settlement. Close to the major cities, the
bourg represented a counterpart to the plantation in the colonial

Source: Fallope, J.
Esclaves et citoyens, les
Noirs la Guadeloupe au
XIX sicle, Basse-Terre,
Socit dHistoire de la
Guadeloupe, 1992, pp. 75103. Note: After 1848, it
was forbidden to take a
census based on skin color.
This rule had already been
in effect since 1835 when
the only distinction existed
between enslaved or free
persons (without regard to
race).
12
Singaravelou, Les
Indiens de la Guadeloupe,
Bordeaux, 1975, p. 51,
talks of 42,326 Indian
workers; Schnakenbourg
of 42,500 in Schnakenbourg, C. Quelques
nouveaux lments sur
lhistoire de lmigration
indienne vers la Guadeloupe in Bulletin de la
Socit dHistoire de la
Guadeloupe, n 110, 4e
trim., 1996, p. 55.
13
Source: J. AdladeMerlande (dir.) Historial
antillais, tome IV, p. 143.
11

15

Cabin or hut. It is
difficult to find the exact
translation of this world
in English. Since one of its
central functions is housing, I will refer to it by
house when appropriate
throughout this study,
otherwise it will be further
specified.
15
Source: INSEE 2003.
16
Source: INSEE. Note: 110
inhabitants/km2 in France,
source: idem.
17
The term Guadeloupe
is used in this work to
signify continental
Guadeloupe.
14

system. Subsequently, there is an urban or pre-urban historicity in

the bourg that does not exist in the sections. Today, the bourg appears to have a two-speed urban practice: on one side, there is the
endurance of the wooden house (la case);14 and on the other, there is
the building of private concrete villas, of row-housing of high
standard or moderate rent, the renovation of delinquent areas,
sometimes suggestive of European models. Undoubtedly, the
bourg represents a marker, filled with the various mutations and
permanencies, which have shaped it.
Thus, a study devoted to the local urban particularities of
Guadeloupe could be helpful in understanding the urban phenomenon as well as its social relations. Thus, the aim is to analyze the
small towns in Guadeloupe (and more precisely their centres)
through an approach that combines historical and contemporary
views: 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 Guadeloupes modernization, is a process that involves several levels: individual and institutional, local and global.
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 of
several islands, two of which form continental Guadeloupe. Its
closest neighbours are the islands of Antigua, Barbuda, and
Montserrat to the north, the islands of Dominica to the east and
Martinique to the south, to name just a few (Fig. 1). With an area of
1780 km2, the archipelago includes contrasting landscapes due to
the geographical relief and the resulting uneven precipices (Fig. 2).
Currently, Guadeloupe is a tourist and services-oriented island
of 444,000 inhabitants,15 a French Overseas Department since 1946,
and also a European region, offering a surprising array of urban
infrastructure compared with the nearest non-French Caribbean
islands. With its high population density rate (257 inhabitants/
km2),16 its constant increasing population (+1% for 1990-99) and its
relatively small amount of big cities (only 8 towns over 20,000
inhabitants), it becomes clear that the urban question should not be
neglected.
In this study, the focus is on continental Guadeloupe,17 often
called the butterfly due to its two wings: Grande-Terre and Basse16

Figure 1: Guadeloupe in the Caribbean region. Source: Giordani, J-P. La Guadeloupe

face son patrimoine, Karthala, 1996.

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

Terre (Guadeloupe proper), which are separated by a maritime

channel, the Rivire Sale. There is reason to stress this feature
because it explains to a large extent how the population settled in
Guadeloupe, on which geo-physical principles the urbanization
has been based, and finally, how the development of the island has
been planned. From another specific point of view, this territorial
division is also apparent in the way each section of Guadeloupean
land resists natural disasters differently, and to varying levels; thus
affecting the extent to which they can offer protection to the urban
settlements.
Briefly, Basse-Terre is a mountainous island, with a volcano - la
Soufrire - and the site of the first European settlement. Basse-Terre
is the name of the main town of the island, founded in 1643, and
currently the administrative centre of Guadeloupe (Fig. 3).
The other wing of the butterfly, Grande-Terre, has less dramatic
landscapes and has had more sugar cane cultivation. However, its
landscape, which is much less sheltered (no mountain to protect it
from the western winds) helps to explain the damages, direct con17

18

INSEE 2000.

sequences of natural disasters, which are usually more significant

in this part of Guadeloupe. The main city, Pointe--Pitre, founded
in 1759, has accumulated all of the economic attractions of Guadeloupe over the years.
Today, the city of Basse-Terre is considered to be the historical
part of Guadeloupe whereas Pointe--Pitre represents its economic
pulse. Such a dichotomy is also visible on a larger scale. Guadeloupean territory is indeed dominated by inequalities in development and the location of its population. Most of the Guadeloupean
population (47%) is concentrated in the Grande-Terre wing, as well
as the largest agglomeration (Pointe--Pitre/Abymes/Gosier)
which contains 28% of the population.18
Therefore, because the geophysical aspect of Guadeloupe is
separated into two distinctive islands, which economically developed with different rhythms and emphases through history, I have
decided to choose one town on each island to conduct this study, a
town that is representative enough of each islands historical and
socio-economical development.
The town of Trois-Rivires has been selected for the Basse-Terre
Island. Indeed, like Basse-Terre, Trois-Rivires - 13 km from the
city of Basse-Terre (Fig. 3) - has had a period of good fortune and
prosperous economy prior to a gradual socio-economic decline
that became strongly marked after the Second World War. Today,
Trois-Rivires reflects the stagnation of Basse-Terre in remaining
one of the most rural areas of Guadeloupe. Furthermore, the geographical characteristics of Trois-Rivires are also representative
of Basse-Terre Island: it is steeply bordered by two main volcanic
mountains - Monts Carabes (683m) and La Madeleine (963m).
The town of Gosier on Grande-Terre Island was chosen. Located
in the direct periphery of Pointe--Pitre (3km), Gosier broadly followed the same development as Grande-Terre: after a period de-

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

18

voted to the intensive production of specific monocultures (e.g.

sugar cane, coffee, etc.), Gosier became oriented towards a drastic
economic change that was to modify its urban status. Indeed, with
the introduction of tourism and a service-oriented economy in the
late 1950s, Gosier like all the southern coast of Grande-Terre not
only 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 both
towns according to their potential similarities from one island to
the 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 lack
of a precise correspondence between criteria did not interfere with
the final analysis of the results. Indeed, in this study, what was
specifically examined was not the regularities found while comparing the two towns, but rather the enunciation of the growth
principles.
One aspect that has been deliberately reconsidered in this
study is the physical perimeter of observations. As previously explained, this work mainly focuses on the bourg, the actual centre of
the small town (despite the fact that the word centre may not
necessarily cover the characteristics of a centre, as usually understood). But instead of closely following a sites perimeter defined
by cadastral maps, the choice here has rather consisted in limiting
a perimeter according to other types of criteria, which are the
populations own definition of the limits of the bourg and the observation of the practices related to the bourg.
Indeed, one specific reason has motivated this choice: it relates
to the rigidity of cadastral surveys. A cadastral survey is above all
an administrative document, dependent on the Tax Office in
France (since 1948), and therefore cannot be expected to take into
account the historical changes and the spatial practices of the inhabitants (even if in its divisions and subdivisions this document
tries to refer to as many of them as possible). And there is obviously a problem when considering the present urban configuration of the bourg. The cadastre, delineated at a certain time, is less
relevant today (for this particular matter) because its divisions,
definitively fixed, no longer reflect the urban reality. As the POS of
Gosier noted: the bourg may cross its traditional limits.19
Besides, to live on a parcel considered as belonging to the bourg
by the cadastre, does not automatically mean such is the case in
reality. A common consensus exists, established as much by the
inhabitants as by the municipal officers, that instead provides a
more or less strict perimeter to the bourg. Of course, to acknowledge this phenomenon introduces relativity, for this perimeter

In POS du Gosier, Rapport de prsentation, 1990,

p. 7. Note: POS stands for
Plan dOccupation des Sols:
it is a municipal land-use
plan, created in 1967, and
used in France as a regulatory tool. In 2000 it was
replaced by the Plan Local
dUrbanisme (Act of 13.12.
2000, loi SRU). Source:
Ministry of Equipment.
19

19

20
This is clearly noticeable
when looking at the
successive planning
studies made for the bourg
of Gosier, the contours of
the bourg are slightly
different from one study to
another, for example.

might change from one individual to another, from one time to

another,20 but at least, it presents the advantages of considering the
bourg as a lived and moving space and not as a rigidified one. As
such, the perimeters chosen respectively for Gosier and TroisRivires do not correspond to the cadastral survey. Rather, these
chosen perimeters propose an interpretation of the spatial definition of the bourg, at a given moment.
For Gosier, the chosen perimeter goes from the start of the
cemetery in the west side of the bourg to the road intersection
nicknamed the three-lane intersection in its eastern side (meeting Amde Clara Boulevard and Gnral de Gaulle Boulevard).

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

Figure 5: The chosen contour for the bourg of Trois-Rivires. Source: Based on the
1986 Cadastre.
20

The northern limit follows the contour of Father Coudray Street in

the district arrire-bourg, and that of the full official territory of the
Mangot district. The sea in the south concludes this perimeter
(Fig.4)
For Trois-Rivires, the cemetery in the northeast, the post office
(in the southwest) and the private hospital of Doctor Tharsis are the
symbolic borders for the studied territory (Fig.5).
1.2.2 Time span

Source: Arch. Dp.

Guadeloupe in Annuaire
Statisique de la Guadeloupe
& INSEE.
21
In fact, changes were due
to the rise of the left to
power, under the Cartel des
Gauches, which won the
1924 election. Source:
Carpentier, J. & Lebrun, F.
Histoire de France, Seuil,
1987, p. 327.
21

The time span of 1928-2003 has been chosen for this study because it
covers a period marked by several key dates decisive to Guadeloupe, but also because, more broadly, it covers the emergence of
the Modern Movement in architecture and its development since
then. If the notion of modernization did not wait for this movement to exist, it nonetheless took a significant turn after the
conceptualization offered by the members of the CIAM congress
(Congrs Internationaux dArchitecture Moderne), and acquired a specific meaning architecturally speaking. In this sense, the chosen
time span is justified by the aim to study some of its influence on a
small territory like Guadeloupe, whose population almost doubled in less than 80 years, expanding from 243,243 inhabitants in
1926 to 444,000 in 2003.21
With regard to dates relevant to Guadeloupe, 1928 represents a
key year in the history of the island because on September 12th it
was devastated by a major hurricane. This hurricane remains deep
in peoples memory as one of the most terrible ever experienced in
Guadeloupe; having importance as much for its psychological effect as well as for material damages caused because everything had
to be built again (a more contemporary example would be Hurricane Hugo which struck the island in 1989). But, on top of the disaster itself, it is its major consequence - the reconstruction - that was
to have a significant role in the built space of Guadeloupe, since it
brought about the use of new building material (e.g. metal, reinforced concrete) and consequently new techniques like prefabrication, as well as the apparition of new building forms (e.g. cube or
bar-like building). Inevitably, all these new features slowly transformed the designing and building processes, reshaping the urban
landscape as well as the way of life, which in turn was also influenced by the global political and socio-economic climate. Indeed,
the Great Depression of the 1930s and, on a more national level, the
beginnings of changes in the colonial French policy22 during the
same period were also to play their part in the post-hurricane reconstruction.
1946 could be considered another key date in terms of built
21

Gastmann A. &
MacDonald S. The French
West Indies in Potter, R.
(ed.) Urbanization,
Planning and Development
in the Caribbean, Mansell,
1989, p.245.

23

22

space, because the change of status of Guadeloupe to that of a

French Overseas Department (DOM), strongly marked by assimilative aspirations on the part of the majority of Guadeloupeans as
well as by an assimilative policy from the French government,
resulted in large programmes initiated by the central administration, concerning social services, infrastructure and housing conditions.23
Almost sixty years after the implementation of such programmes, their meanings and effects can still be extensively discussed; yet, it remains evident that the underlying ideology
(assimilation) has strongly influenced architectural production because it was initially understood that models were to be found in
France. The impact of large blocks of apartments is still evident in
the Guadeloupean urban landscape nowadays, even though their
spatial congruity is called into question more than ever. Today
local architects try to find their way out of stereotypes. Thus, the
chosen time span offers many opportunities for considerations.
Finally, the choice to work on the contemporary period is also
justified by the paucity of studies that exist on this period.

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 important
changes over the last 80 years, which has considerably modified its
relationships to time and to its field of analysis.24
Indeed, the founding of the magazine Les Annales dhistoire
conomiques et sociales in 1929 by the historians L. Febvre (18781956) and M. Bloch (1886-1944) announced, among other features,
the end of a descriptive and narrative History, devoted to the compilation of facts, in favor of a History that questions its object. Their
programme of structural history aimed at proposing a science primarily concerned with events (histoire vnementielle) that sought
general and multi-faceted interpretations, including their opposites, rather than solely explanations.25 In 1958, F. Braudel (19021985) definitively introduced the basis of the new historical
dialectics, present/past and continuity/rupture, thus pioneering
the methodological revolution of the regeneration of the historical
object.
The new emphasis on the role of the historian in relation to
History provided another opportunity to broaden the field. Hence
rural history, and then urban history, opened new fields of exploration that were particularly interesting for the new historians.
However, the 1980s again marked a turn, for the results from
the interdisciplinary studies appeared to be disappointing when
hegemonic ideologies were questioned. Since then, the discipline
of history remains in crisis, yet the profound mutations of the late
20th century have not been fundamentally denied. This is visible in
the way historians use sources but in the way objects of study are
chosen as well. Now they not only describe the document (content,
origin, author, date) but are also able to take a distance from it and
to reinsert it into its global context (in other words, to question the
document).26 In fact, the micro-scale approach (founded by the Italian Ginzburg & Poni in 1981), or for example the focus on anomalies,27 simply perpetuate the principles articulated by the founders
of the new history: a science interested in every dimension, no
longer 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 of
analyzing objects that a priori seem to be tiny or of lesser importance, but nonetheless carry great meaning and significance in the
general context.

This present chapter is

directly inspired by the
lectures on History given
by Professor D. Bgot at
UAG, November 2001May 2002.
25
Topolski, J. Methodology
of History, Reidel Publishing Company, 1976, p.145.
26
For more precision, see
Bgot, D. Histoire et
iconographie aux Antilles
in Abenon, Bgot, Bgot,
Burac, Calmont, Hartog,
Relire lhistoire et la
gographie de lespace
cariben, Hachette, 2001,
pp. 24-32.
27
For example, Ferro, M. in
Les tabous de lHistoire,
Paris: NiL ditions, 2002,
questions the reasons why
some particular historical
events have often been
silenced.
24

23

In Dupr, K. Globalisation and urbanism: The

case of a European peripheral region, Guadeloupe, International
Seminar, The European
City in Transition, Bauhaus
University Weimar, 2002.
29
Bgot, D. Villes et
urbanisme in Voyage aux
les dAmrique, Direction
des Archives de France,
Ministre de la Culture et
de la Communication,
Paris, Archives Nationales,
1992, p. 259.
30
The lack of a specialized
office or administrative
service in charge of the
development of cities on
the island for a long
period is further evidence
of the lack of interest in
urban thinking.
31
129,109 persons in 1845
and 243,243 in 1926.
Source: Arch. Dp. Gua.
Annuaire Statistique de la
Guadeloupe.
32
For example, Haiti in
1804 (the first independent
nation in the Caribbean),
Jamaica, Trinidad &
Tobago in 1962, Dominica
in 1978.
28

24

To understand the evolution of small towns in Guadeloupe, one

certainly has to first comprehend its society and its cultural surroundings. Indeed, Guadeloupean society differs from France because it was born out of the model of the plantation society, in place
until 1848 when slavery was abolished in the French possessions,
and from the colonial schemes applied to this very particular type
of society.
However, unlike other colonies in the Caribbean, there never
was any real interest by those in power in planning an urban territory in Guadeloupe. Indeed, the comparison between Cuba (a
Spanish colony), Jamaica (an English colony) and Guadeloupe (a
French colony) in the same period (17th-18th century), quickly reveals how Guadeloupe presented an undeveloped urban landscape. With a more qualitative approach, the comparison between
the main cities of the three aforementioned islands (La Havana,
Kingston and Basse-Terre) also shows the absence of systematic
planning in the Guadeloupean case, even though some traditional
colonial patterns, such as the checkerboard, can be found (but to a
small extent).28 This fact can be explained by the reasons on which
French colonization was based and by the importance attached to
the colony by its mainland. Rather than town settlement proper as
in the Spanish case, the urban phenomenon in Guadeloupe was in a
first stage essentially spontaneous,29 satisfying the interests of
traders 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 the
mid-19th century when the population started to increase considerably and constantly.31
Furthermore, contrary to most of the other Caribbean islands
that attained independence,32 Guadeloupe remained part of France
by gaining the status of a French Overseas Department rather than
that of colony in 1946. This event had a great impact on the island,
for it symbolically and concretely signalled the acceleration of the
assimilation process, which aimed at raising the Guadeloupean
way of life to that of mainland citizens. The attempt to plan the
territory of Guadeloupe as an urban territory was viewed as one
way to achieve this.
In this sense, even though the time span of this study is restricted to the contemporary period, it is evident that some knowledge of the local history is essential, for the great or factual History
of France cannot be taken for granted. The historical basis is then
required to evaluate the production, practices, and uses related to
the built space.
But surprisingly, and as far as the author knows, if the historical
development of Guadeloupes two principal cities, the decline of

one and the emergence of the other, has been broadly studied33, the
small towns of Guadeloupe have garnered little interest,34 especially in the urban and architectural field.
If it is true that the collection Histoire des Communes directed by
Adelade-Merlande,35 offers an interesting historical insight into
each Guadeloupean commune, its aim has no other ambition than
to deliver a historical description.
The long chapter dedicated to the analysis of the bourg in La
Grande Encyclopdie de la Carabe also offers a serious historical background. Yet in terms of urbanization, the most recent urban processes have been disregarded in favour of a direct contemporary
architectural and rather typological analysis. The analysis omits
the transition explaining the processes from the 19th century to the
20th century urban planning and urbanization in the bourg.
Furthermore, although the geographical analysis of G.
Lasserre, in La Guadeloupe, tude gographique,36 remains a reference
for every work concerning Guadeloupe, its time period (up to the
end of the 1960s) cannot possibly reveal more contemporary phenomenon.
At the same time, other works have concentrated on very contemporary studies and thus omitted the historical perspective. This
tends to be the case of geographers working in the urban field,37 or
more commonly official reports.38
However, the doctoral dissertation of Casimir, Lurbanisation
de la commune du Gosier: La transformation dun bourg rural en
une ville touristique,39 is worthy of praise in many respects. First,
it provides a detailed historical background concerning the city of
Gosier, thus escaping from bonds of traditional interests (main
cities). Second, through its broad time span (1493-1986), Casimirs
study covers a wide range of events and its analysis encompasses
the populations evolution and the communes development as
much as the political climate distinct to Gosier. Third, by its obviously intimate knowledge of the commune, Casimir brings a
unique insider perspective, rich in anecdotes and thus distant from
cold reports. Yet, despite its qualities, the clear emphasis on explaining the general lines of Gosiers urbanization keeps the work
from analyzing smaller events or facts that could have nuanced his
statements. In the same way, the lack of context or comparison with
other communes does not give space to judge whether the case
study is exceptional or part of wider phenomenon. Furthermore,
despite the focus on urbanization, the work is totally lacking from
the architectural point of view.
Actually, this latter comment underlines the fact that in a wider
context one could remark that Caribbean architecture has frequently been described and analyzed in terms of plantation archi-

33
See the work of Bgot, D.
(dir) La Grande Encyclopdie de la Carabe, Ed.
Sanoli, 1990 or Giordani,
J-P. La Guadeloupe face
son patrimoine, Karthala,
1996, and in particular
Protin-Dumon, A. La ville
aux les, la ville dans lle,
Basse-Terre et Pointe-Pitre, Guadeloupe, 16501820, Karthala, 2000.
34
The work of Lafleur, G.
Saint-Claude, Histoire
dune commune de Guadeloupe, Paris, Karthala,
1993, is the only substantial one found on this topic.
35
Antilles-Guyane, Ed.
Pressplay, 1986.
36
Lasserre, G. La Guadeloupe, tude gographique,
Bordeaux, Ed. Kolodziej,
1978, 2 vol.
37
For example, Bene, J-C. &
DArrigo, F. Lvolution
du tissu urbain et priurbain du bourg de SainteAnne, Mmoire de matrise, directeur Giacottino
J-C, Universit dAixMarseille, 2001; or Luce,
M. C. La route dargent,
DEA de Gographie, directeur Burac M., UAG, 2000.
38
For example, a governmental report on urban
infrastructure or urban
development such as
Schma dAmnagement
Rgional de la Guadeloupe.
39
Doctoral dissertation
directed by Dupeux,
Bordeaux, Ed. Universit
de Lille III, 1988.

25

40
For example, Patrimoine
des communes de la
Guadeloupe, Ed. Flohic,
1998, proposes a compilation of valuable buildings
architecturally speaking
(among other things), in
which less than 4% is
devoted to domestic
architecture.
41
Ed. Caribennes, 1980.
42
Kingston: Ian Randle
Publishers, 2000.
43
Bgot, D. op. cit.
44
Berthelot, J. & Gaume,
M., LHabitat populaire aux
Antilles, Ed Perspectives
Croles, 1982.
45
Bgot, D., Creole
Architecture: Building a
Historical Object, North
and South: Typomorphological Studies seminar,
Tampere University of
Technology, Sept. 2003.

26

tecture and urban architecture (meaning architecture of the cities),

or from the building heritage viewpoint, which seldom pays attention to domestic architecture.40 Few attempts have been made to
describe other types of architecture, such as that of the bourg, for
example.
If the description of domestic architecture is present, it is often
restricted to the colonial period: the works of D. Buisseret, Histoire
de larchitecture dans la Carabe41 or A. Gravette, Architectural Heritage
of The Caribbean: An A-Z of Historic Buildings42 do not escape this
tendency.
However, two books stand out, for one of their goals was specifically to describe the Caribbean popular dwelling.
The first, La Grande Encyclopdie de la Carabe (1990)43 is dedicated
to architecture and represents one of the first attempts to propose a
precise panorama of the architecture in the French West Indies. In
this work, thirty pages are devoted to the architecture of the bourg,
including a historical analysis of the bourgs formation, some considerations about its typology as well as an overview of public
buildings. This is considerable when one looks at the paucity of
literature on the subject. However, one can also discern the influence of the second book, J. Berthelot and M. Gaumes Kaz antiy jan
moun ka rt (1982),44 published eight years earlier, in the description of the domestic architecture.
In their book, Berthelot and Gaume essentially focused on the
wooden house (la case), proposing a fine typology in various Caribbean countries, describing material, form and evolution, as well as
a brief historical context. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that the
concept broadly applied in this work tended to reduce all local
architecture to the case. Furthermore, it viewed the case as the starting point of all further housing developments, which reflects more
of an ideological perspective than anything else.45 Twenty years
after 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 acknowledge
that all the works cited above nevertheless have the merit of existing. Guadeloupes history has certainly influenced the areas scholars choose to focus on: the colonial periods, as well as the time
before and after the abolition of the slavery (1848), have been the
predominant areas of research, leaving more recent urban and architectural questions quite overlooked.
Finally, the lack of studies on architectural and planning issues
in Guadeloupe can also be seen as revealing the lack of interest in
the topic and the reluctance it might incite: isnt architecture ultimately about traces of the past, which may not always be relished?
But this is perhaps a matter for another debate. Within this context,

I have decided to search for a methodological approach that could

combine more precisely historical and contemporary views in relation to urban forms.
One of the goals of typomorphological studies is to propose an
interpretation of the town plan as we find it today and to use plans
as evidence of past conditions. Many such studies have been conducted in UK, Italy or France, and have revealed some basic principles about the morphology of town plans.
M. R. G. Conzen (1907-2000), a German geographer who
moved to Britain, has been one of the leaders in this type of study,
developing a specific method called town plan analysis. His purpose was to study the development of society through the evolution of urban forms. Starting by defining the urban landscape as
the combination of a town plan, a pattern of building forms and a
pattern of urban land use, Conzen narrowed down the notion of
the town plan by characterizing it as the topographical arrangement of a built-up urban area including three complexes of planning elements: streets and their arrangement in a street-system,
plots and their aggregation in the street-block and buildings and
their block-plans.46
The concept of the burgage-cycle is one of the theorizing tools he
developed for his geographical analysis of the town plan. This
concept describes the progressive infilling of plots with buildings,
resulting in a climax phase of maximum coverage, terminating in
the clearance of the plot, preparatory to redevelopment.47 Another
major concept is the morphological period, which identifies any cultural period that exerts a distinctive morphological influence upon
the whole or any part of a town.48
Moreover, Conzen also placed emphasis on the evaluation of
the physical conditions of a site and its situation, as well as on the
assessment of relevant economic and social development. In other
words, the context is conceived as a major part of the analysis of the
town plan because it represents a bridge between morphological
and functional approaches in urban geography.
Similarly, another scholar, the Italian architect Caniggia (19321987), developed urban morphology studies on the theoretical basis that urban form can only be understood historically because it
is continually transforming. According to the Caniggia school, the
focus is on the typological process in which new building types are
viewed as products of a process of learning from the adaptations of
previous building types.49 This perspective has been recognized,
for it brought up a specific concern about the mechanisms leading
from one urban form to another, a concern that was largely forgotten by geographers who did not question the creation of the recog-

46 Conzen, M.R.G.
Alnwick, Northumberland, a
study in town-plan analysis,
Institute of British
Geographers Publication,
No. 27, London: G. Philip
and Son, 1960.
47
Larkham, P. J. & Jones, A.
N., A Glossary of Urban
Form, HGRG 26, Editors
and Urban Morphology
Research Group, June 1991,
p.4.
48
Idem, Larkham p. 55.
49
Whitehand, J. W. R. &
Carr, C. M. H., TwentiethCentury Suburbs. A
Morphological Approach,
London: Routledge, 2001.

27

50
Direct quotation from
Caniggia, G & Maffei, G. L.
Composition architecturale
et typologie du bti, Larochelle P. (French translation), Ville Recherche
Diffusion, 2000, p. 73: The
elements are bricks ();
structures are individual
associations of several
elements, such as the floor,
wall (); systems are
those aggregations of
structures recognizable a s
being relatively autonomous: rooms, stairs, etc.
which together form the
systems organism, or the
whole building.
51
Panerai, Castex, Depaule
Formes urbaines, de llot
la barre, Ed. Parenthses,
1997, p. 13.
52
Pakarinen, T. & Hurme,
T. Space and Urban. A
Typological Approach to the
Industrial Town, Tampere:
TUT, 1988, p.8.
53
Ibid., p.14.
54
Panerai, Castex, Depaule
Formes urbaines, de llot
la barre, op.cit.
55
Castex, J. Une typologie
usage multiple, op. cit., p.
78.
56
For more about Martinique, see his doctoral
dissertation: Urbanisme
et Urbanisation la
Martinique: le cas de Fortde-France, Claval P. (dir.)
Paris IV, unpublished, Vol.
I & II, 1984.
57
LHarmattan, 1992.

28

nized morphological periods.

In addition, the typological process can be understood as the
succession of types in a chosen cultural area (diachronic transformations) or in several cultural areas but within a chosen time span
(diatopic transformations). This has been particularly developed at
the scale of individual buildings, seen as a historical individualization (both spatially and temporally), whereas the geographical
ideas focus more on how the forms make urban areas fit together.
To be able to analyze urban forms, Caniggia conceptualized a scale
of building components, made of four entities: elements, the structure 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 it
for larger objects (e.g. building, tissue, district and town) and relating its components with one another.
Another concept is that of building type, expressing the culture of
built space in a certain area and at a certain time. The study of
building type which allows the identification of basic and specialized types, the understanding of the transformation laws, as well as
the choice of the level of analysis are the cornerstones of the typological process. So, from this Italian viewpoint, the developed
analysis serves to identify a range of types at different levels of
resolution, spotting what will later be defined as rooted and analytical types by other scholars.51 The rooted type is understood as a
type that has emerged through the interaction and at the common
consent of planner and user, whereas the analytic type represents
an abstract idea, used for planning purposes as a basis of certain
spatial orders within the city.52
Influenced by the Italian school and acknowledging it (through
the notion of continuity in history),53 the French school, guided by
architects Panerai and Castex,54 introduced a new way to think
about typomorphology. It developed a methodology that considers the analysis of types and urban forms and that of social contents
of equal importance.55 Referring mostly to the work of sociologists
Lefebvre and Raymond, Panerai and Castex questioned the meaning of the use of space as well as the social practices within space.
Perhaps one of the best reflections of this understanding of
typomorphology and closer to the case in point, is the work of
Letchimy, a geographer56 and urban planner from Martinique. Indeed, in his book De lhabitat prcaire la ville: lexemple Martiniquais,57
in which the author proposes a methodology to integrate specific
districts (which he calls quartiers populaires) into the global urban
phenomenon, it is interesting to note how, starting from the analysis of the parcel, his study concentrates largely on its social use and
creation. Actually, one of Letchimys conclusions is that a parcel

does not exist in the sense geographers and planners understand it,
as a physical perimeter readable on a plan, but rather exists in
terms of social relations, such as how to position the house from
one neighbor to another, how to take into account the illegal water
and electric utilities in the construction, how not to block the passage from one house to another, etc.
The idea here is not to discuss this finding per se, but to show
how typomorphological studies have been developed with finer
tools concerning the human context without which they remain incomprehensible, to quote the pioneer Conzen.58 This is even truer
when one considers more recent works in typomorphology: they
have created a significant shift because the historical, medieval
town is no longer considered to be of sole interest. Based on the
methodological criticism within the field of typomorphological
studies, the study of modern urban landscapes combined with
the latest theorization on philosophical and socio-economic factors
has opened a new way of examining urban forms and spaces.59 One
of these new strands of current research in urban morphology is
the concern for planning, frequently termed the management of
the urban landscape, whereby processes of decision-making,
agents and management procedures and policies are examined.60
The scholar Carter has challenged typomorphological studies by
developing a branch of studies in urban landscape management, in
which he has gone as far as asserting that a study of town plan
remains to be written based on characterizing processes rather than historical periods.61
Nonetheless, even with the latest concerns on typomorphological research, there is a common theoretical frame that remains
unchanged within the Conzenian tradition, which is an analysis
based on three fundamental physical elements (building/plot/
street) offering several levels of resolution in a historical context.
Finally, although typomorphological studies developed in opposition to Modernism,62 external criticism towards typomorphological methodologies were few because typomorphological
studies developed relatively independently.63

In Alnwick, Northumberland. A Study in Town-Plan

Analysis, op. cit.
59
See, for example, the
works of Whitehand,
Carter, Vilagrasa.
60
Larkham & Jones, A
Glossary of Urban Form, op.
cit., p. 5.
61
In The Built Form of Western Cities, op.cit., p. 209.
62
See for example the
position of Saverio
Muratori in Caniggia, G.
Lecture de Florence, une
approche morphologique de
la ville et du territoire,
ISASL Bruxelles, References XVIII, 1994, pp.9-10.
63
Indeed, it is only recently
that confrontation between
Conzenian and Caniggian
tradition occurred through
the formation of the ISUF
international scholar
group. However, the critical aspect of the works of
A. Rossi and C. Aymonino
within the frame of
typomorpho-logical
studies needs to be
acknowledged here. See
comments on their contribution in Castex, J. Une
typologie usages multiples, op.cit., pp. 74-76.
58

2.2 Methodology
In light of the theoretical background, typomorphological methodology is considered appropriate for this research, as it presents
both the concern for history and the analysis of town development.
Besides, as far as I know, there has never been any morphological
study precisely focusing on the territory of Guadeloupe, even less
on the bourgs of Guadeloupe. Yet, this study on two bourgs of
Guadeloupe cannot be expected to display all that is known on the
29

Although the last

international seminar on
urban forms (ISUF, Italy,
2003) cannot be considered as properly
reflecting the studies on
process in non-western
areas, it can nevertheless
give some idea: out of 240
published articles, less
than 20% were concerned
with these areas, among
them less than 2.5% dealt
with South America and
the Caribbean. Source: The
Planned City? ISUF
International Conference,
Petruccioli, Stella, Strappa
(Ed.), Bari: Uniongrafica
Corcelli Editrice, 2003.

64

morphology of town plans. At its modest level, this case study can
propose a complementary view to what has been usually studied,
by covering a different functional type of town, as well as towns of
different cultural areas. Indeed, so far, few typomorphological
studies are concerned with non-western areas, and specifically
with the Caribbean region,64 only some have focused on non-independent countries or towns built for the needs of plantation
economy.
2.2.1 Empirical material
As previously seen, there is no contradiction in combining historical and typomorphological methodologies because archival materials both nourish the study and can confirm the results of the
urban form analysis. Still, it is important to bear in mind that this is
the work of an architect, and thus certainly lacks a truly historical
approach.
Concerning the methodology, the first step consisted in collecting 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 the
town councils and from the government (Ministry of Civil Engineering and Ministry of Colonies), articles from old newspapers
and books that have been unearthed from the Archives Centre of
Overseas Territories (CAOM, in Aix-en-Provence, France), the Departmental Archives in Guadeloupe, the Departmental Direction
of the Equipment (DDE), the municipal archives of Gosier and Trois-Rivires, the Bishoprics Archives in Basse-Terre (Guadeloupe),
as well as from various libraries such as Bibliothque Nationale de
France (BNF) in Paris, the university library of Guadeloupe and
that of Martinique, the INSEEs library (French data agency) in
Guadeloupe, and the municipal library of Gosier. These collected
materials are essential because they compose the necessary basis to
set out the human context, bring out the historical context, as well
as provide the foundation for the typomorphological analysis.
A large part of this work has been dedicated to interviews. If
this way of collecting material is surprising in light of the topic, it
nonetheless proved to be indispensable because it provided a remarkable shortcut to knowledge about the commune. Even though

30

this way of conducting research admittedly has its weaknesses

(hesitating memories, mistakes in dates, history centred on personal experience), interviewing the inhabitants made it possible to
put a face on each building, to establish human relations with the
built space, and also to discover what is not necessarily written. In
the same way, interviewing the urban actors (such as architects,
urban planners, politicians and town council officers) was considered important because it provided insight into fields in which the
author is not specialized. Unfortunately, few of these interviews
will show up as such in this dissertation, yet they underlie the work
as a whole, and thus need to be acknowledged.
The desire to acquire a real site familiarity meant spending one
year walking up and down the streets of Gosier and Trois-Rivires,
and personally living in Gosier over a period of 9 months. Through
this experience, it became evident that noting the most recent features of the built space was needed because it is a serious problem
to find reliable65 sources on this subject in Guadeloupe.
This can be partly understood due to the succession of natural
disasters that have hit the island (earthquake in 1843, cyclones in
1928 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 in
the way officials are taking care for them: Gosiers municipal archives are at a stadium, while in Trois-Rivires one civil servant
describes the situation as follows: since they were old papers (archives) and taking so much room, the new council decided to burn them.
Moreover, the fact that people do not always apply for building
permits when constructing or expanding their houses represents
another factor that can explain the difficulty of finding reliable
sources: 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 this
also explains why the present analysis is restricted to a representative limited perimeter: it was not possible to visit every single
house of Gosier and Trois-Rivires, not to mention the fact that not
all owners would let me in.
Ultimately, enough data were accumulated to start the analysis
process. The analysis itself consisted of several phases, for working
in the West Indies field is a real challenge66 and implies the elaboration of specific tools.
At first, the idea was to analyze the bourg from a historical point
of view. Therefore, starting from the empirical materials, the focus
was to study the evolution of its population, built space, street
networks and remarkable buildings, according to a historical

I really insist on this

word, because many
documents proved to be
partly untruthful. The
French mapping agencys
(IGN) documents constitute one example. It is
regretful that IGN has not
updated its data in its
recent edition of Guadeloupean maps, particularly on Gosier: public
buildings from 1976 are
still missing and others,
long-since destroyed by
Hurricane Hugo in 1989,
are still shown. These
flaws were pointed out to
the IGN via letters sent in
2001 and 2002, to no avail.
66
The idea is not to repeat
here how some fields, such
as architecture, remain
virgin or poorly documented, but rather to stress
how this is the weight of
History, in the West Indies,
can be an obstacle to
research. First of all, the
researcher has to understand the particular
History and then to be able
to move beyond it. This is
not always obvious,
furthermore in a society
where the weight of such a
history is daily visible, for
example, in the so-called
white/black dichotomy.
65

31

Bourdieu, P. Les structures sociales de lconomie,

Ed. Seuil, 2000; Lefebvre,
H. La rvolution urbaine,
Anthropos, 1991.

67

source-based methodology that would simultaneously serve as a

comparative analysis. Nonetheless, very quickly, the need for
more coherence within the sources as well as the need for a point of
view more centred on an urban perspective called for another
method.
As such, the Conzenian morphological approach fulfilled the
missing interstices, for, on a historical basis, it could provide tools
to appreciate the bourgs evolution as well as provide tools for the
reconstitution of missing documents, an aspect that historians, by
definition, rarely rely upon.
Yet, because of its global approach, the Conzenian methodology alone would have been restrictive considering the small scale
of this study (in terms of time span and site scale), for an analysis
limited to urban forms would have left out some essential urban
realities, which are only visible at the building scale. Thus, a complementary methodology was sought that could offer this typological insight, and in this sense, the Caniggian methodology
appeared to be the most appropriate.
Finally, it became evident that the combination of the three
methodologies (historical, morphological, typological) would be
crucial 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 moderniza
tion, and whether the actions of various actors such as institu
tions and individuals can be visible on a plan;
- it could reveal the factors, which produced those contempo
rary urban forms.
2.2.2 Framework of analysis
Using one of the major concepts developed by Conzen for the general morphological analysis (concept of the burgage-cycle), and
using the concept of typological process from Caniggia, this study
makes the assumption that, along with the French school, spatial
and social entities are nourished by a back-and-forth relationship,
thus referring to the work of sociologists H. Lefebvre (space as a
social production and as a social product), and P. Bourdieu (space as an
economical 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 towns extension in a detailed historical context. To
do so, the chronological comparative analysis developed by
Conzen is used, assuming that his burgage-cycle concept is valid

32

for this case study.

However, unlike Conzens studies, one has to realize that the
scale of these case studies is far from being comparable.68 This is
why the morphological periods concept will be cautiously applied here, and why special effort was made to draw a limit at the
town level resolution of understanding urban form, which means
that the regional level is not taken into account. Rather, a focus on
building/lot, street/block, and town is emphasized. While
Conzen had the great opportunity to work with available documents, this has not been always the case in this study, which has
made it necessary to produce conjectural plans, with all the relativity that it entails.In practice, since a morphological methodology is used here, maps and plans constitute the major objects of
analysis, observed at different scales as well as at different dates to
better apprehend the existing forms (at the level here only of
street/district, building/lot) and their underlying shaping processes. Five temporal cross-sections, that are original or reconstructed town-plans, at approximately 15 years intervals on a 1/
5,000 and 1/2,000 scale are combined with archives, revealing the
social structure, to conduct the investigation.
The physical particularities of a parcel (size, shape, length, location in the urban fabric), and its historical qualities (owner(s),
use, transformation or not during the time period), will be evaluated to link them with the building. Practically, this leads to describing the population (growth, occupation), as well as the
institutions of the town. Thus, the evolution of the plan through its
processes (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-makers
and the scales at which decisions affecting urban forms have been
made. In short, it represents the typomorphological operation and
the street/lot/building relationship requires a deeper analysis to
test the hypothesis that the modernization process is a two-fold
phenomenon with regard to urban forms.
Here, Caniggias concept of typological process is taken as an
assumption, and basic, specialized and variant types notion inserted in the analysis. Once again, one has to realize however, that
the 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 a
period which has already inherited almost 300 years of settlement.
Particularly here, in this study, the basic type can only illustrate a
basic predominant type at a certain and precise time. Besides, in
direct line with Canniggias methodology, while performing the
second task the study will intentionally avoid any kind of catego-

For example, in his study

of Alnwick, Conzen covers
several centuries. In the
present study, the time
span is restricted to 75
years.

68

33

See, for example, Shirine

Hamadeh, who contests
the analytical framework
in colonial studies about
cities, which most often
divides them into traditional and modern ones;
Creating the traditional
city in Al Sayyad, N.
Forms of Dominance,
Avebury, 1992, pp. 241260.
70
One has only to look at
the criteria used in official
reports to describe buildings quality: building
material, level of comfort
(water and electric networks), number of rooms
per inhabitants to quote a
few of them, extract from
OPAH de Gosier, Architectural and Urban Diagnostic
(1998).
71
Royer, J. (dir.) Congrs
international de lurbanisme
aux colonies et dans les pays
de latitude intertropicale
(1931 ; Paris), Paris : Ed.
dUrbanisme, 1932-1935,
tome II. Les travaux
excuter pour assurer la
salubrit et le confort de
lhabitation, pour embellir
les cits, pour attirer les
touristes () pour procurer
leurs populations et aux
colons europens les
avantages matriels de la
civilisation moderne.
69

rization, such as functional categorization or categorization by

types, because the spatial configuration of one specific area is considered as an undivided entity, in which hybridization (to be understood in the Canniggian point of view) may occur.
On the other hand, since the development of urban forms here
is considered against the emergence of modernism in a
multicultural society, it seems also important to examine the restrictions applied to the specific concepts of modernism, modernity and modernization in this study. Indeed, more than the
theoretical debate these concepts convey,69 the intention here is to
use them through their more practical meanings and as landmarks
throughout the study. As such, if modernity can certainly be explained from different perspectives and entails a wide rank of interpretations in this work, its meaning has been restricted to a fixed
picture of a certain society, a picture framed by goals to achieve
or already set, at a very precise time and by comparison to past
periods and other societies. As such, since this study focuses on
typomorphological analysis, it is now important to point out that
this research is not limited to the Modernist Movement in terms of
architectural and urban expression, but rather to the general criteria erected by the society and planning institutions to define a
modern built space. The process to reach these specific criteria
will be called modernization in this study.
Surprisingly, those criteria, whether they be discursive or practical in terms of housing and urban works, and which have been
widely expressed by government and planning-concerned institutions, are still relevant today: they are almost exactly the same used
today to qualify a dwelling as decent or not, to consider a place as
modern or not.70 Examples are numerous: a representative one, in
the present case, is the book, 71 which was published after the International Congress on Urban Planning in the Colonies that took
place in 1931 in Paris. The introduction sets the tone:
There is work to do to assure the salubrity and comfort of
the dwelling, to embellish the cities, to attract tourists ()
to give the population and the European colonizers the
material advantages of modern civilization
The level of resolution to select those criteria varies, depending on
the concern of the research. Here, they have been restricted to criteria covering the elements of typomorphological analysis, that is:
access to street, electrical and water networks, the use of recent
technologies for building (both in the building methods and in the
material), hygiene and comfort. In practice, it means the examination of documents displaying the evolution of the street layout,

34

then that of the form of the lot and finally that of the buildings,
including floor-plans and the description of building materials. At
the same time, this examination will be confronted with urban
planning regulations, which should reveal the degree of institutional or individual implication.
Finally, the modernization processes should be discussed with
regard to previously accomplished work as well as to archives that
specifically focus on this theme. Only the comparison of the two
case studies makes it possible to draw conclusions, to test the hypothesis and the above-mentioned assumptions, and furthermore,
allow the opportunity to reveal some typomorphological phenomena of general significance as well as those peculiar to itself.

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

35

PART II: HISTORICAL CONTEXT

As previously noted, few studies of Guadeloupe have centered

around the theme of the bourgs, which explains the lack of knowledge about them. This is even more flagrant when regarding the
period preceding the hurricane of 1928: it seems that few documents have survived to provide insight into the built space of the
bourgs at the dawn of the twentieth century.
However, even minimal information can be indispensable in
trying to understand the consequences of the hurricane of 1928 in
terms of reconstruction, ways of building and settling in the bourg.
Similarly, the study of the evolution of the bourgs typomorphology, here restricted to Gosier and Trois-Rivires, cannot be
completed without some socio-historical context.
Consequently, the aim of this first part is to provide a brief
context concerning the architectural features and history of Guadeloupe shortly before the hurricane, followed by a presentation of
the impact and the results of the reconstruction.

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

36

3. BEFORE 1928
3.1 A glimpse of architectural and urban features
The ancient maps of Guadeloupe, like the Plan de lle de GrandeTerre by Sainte-Maure (1732) or those made under Berryer, state
secretary at the Naval Corps between 1758 and 1759 (Fig. 7),72 depict well the exact location of the bourgs on the island, closely following the littoral.73
If the reasons explaining this setting and its permanency over
the years have already been discussed,74 the question remains concerning 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, as
shown in a map of Guadeloupe from 1902,75 yet the question remains the same. For example, does a red square on the map mean a
single house or a row of houses; does it reflect as well the exact size
or position of the building? The large scale (1/50,000) leads to approximations. The appearance of postcards, made official in 1872 in
France,76 is a precious thing for the researcher because it provides
accurate snapshots at a precise date, even though the difficulty today remains dating these documents that have been used and reused by editors, sometimes regardless of their authors rights.
Indeed, the details of buildings (e.g. material, faade style), those of
a street (e.g. pavement, sidewalk) or general impressions are available through observation of the picture.
The study of these types of documents is nonetheless limited
because, first of all, the picture, as an object, possesses its own parameters which are not always available (e.g. precise dating, by
whom, where) and thus limits the understanding (e.g. observing
one faade gives little information on the three others or on the
whole shape of the building). It is limited, secondly, in that it proposes an interpretation.
Still, despite these constraints, certain characteristics of the
bourg can be unveiled. In this study, these characteristics have been
separated into three categories: the general form of the bourg, its
urban character and the high degree of building finishing.
With regard to the general form of the bourgs, some postcards
give the image of a compact bourg with houses gathered around the
relatively wide main street, sometimes ventilated by a public
square or a central church. This is, for example, the case of TroisRivires (Fig. 8), or Le Moule (Fig. 9), where the contiguity of the
houses is clear. In Le Moule, a public square is emphasized by the
trees in alignment with the street, while in Trois-Rivires, the en-

Source: CAOM, DFC

Guadeloupe n 89 A;
CAOM F3 288 n42, and
the reproduction of the
1758 map in Editions
Exbrayat, 00-D263C26P009.
73
Saint-Claude is the only
town in Guadeloupe without direct contact with the
sea, while the bourg of
Morne--lEau presents the
same specificity.
74
Because it represents one
of the significant features
of the colonial settlement
in the West Indies. More
precisely on Guadeloupe,
see Bgot, D. Les habitations-sucreries du littoral
guadeloupen et leur
volution in Caribena,
Cahier dtudes amricaines de la Carabe, publ.
de la Direction des
Antiquits de la rgion
Martinique-Guyane, 1991,
p. 149: The colonization
shaped the littoral into an
emblematic figure while
establishing themselves,
cities, towns, plantations (in
the Creole meaning: agricultural buildings, farmstead
and persons depending on
it) transform the contour of
the island into its veritable
core.Cest la colonisation
qui a rig le littoral en
figure emblmatique: en sy
installant, villes , bourgs,
habitations (au sens crole
du terme: btiments agricoles, terres et hommes en
dpendant) ont fait du pourtour de lle son coeur
vritable. For the case of
the neighbouring island,
the former French colony
of Martinique, see, e.g.,
Bgot, D., Pelletier, M. &
Bousquet-Bressolier, C., La
Martinique de Moreau du
Temple, 1770, La carte des
ingnieurs gographes, Paris:
CTHS, 1998; pp. 20-27.
75
CAOM, cp1PL00297.
76
Although first editions
in Guadeloupe do not seem
to be earlier than 19011902. Source: Arch. Dp.
Gua., Cartes postales,
rpertoire numrique de la
sous-srie 5 Fi, Gourbeyre,
Conseil gnral de la Guadeloupe, 2000, p. 9.
72

37

Figure 8: La Guadeloupe. Trois-Rivires, stamped 4C, 1906. Source: Muse SaintJohn-Perse.

Figure 9: Le Moule, Jacob Street, 1916. Source: Private collection, Pointe--Pitre.
Figure 10: Vieux-Bourg, no date. Source: Chopin A. & H. Guadeloupe dAntan, ed.
HC, 1998, p. 39.

38

Figure 11: Saint-Claude, 1920s. Source: Muse Saint-John Perse.

Figure 12: The bourg of Trois-Rivires, stamped Collection Caill, Pointe--Pitre,
1907-1908. Source: Muse Saint-John-Perse.
Figure 13: The bourg of Deshaies, c.1920. Source: Desmoulin, M-E, La Cte-sous-levent, Guadeloupe/Inventaire gnral des monuments et des richesses artistiques de
la France. Rgion Guadeloupe. Pointe--Pitre: Jasor, 2002, p. 32.
39

Figure 14: Port-Louis, the main street, c.1905-1925. Source: Private collection, Pointe-Pitre.
Figure 15: Capesterre, the open market, La Guadeloupe illustre, 1907-1908.
Source: Private collection, Pointe--Pitre.
Figure 16: Baillif, 1905-1925. Source: Private collection, Pointe--Pitre.
40

trance into the churchyard is marked by a stone fence and the symbolic cross.
Nonetheless, nuances need to be added, for if the alignment of
houses on each side of the colonial road, which simultaneously
serves as the main street, is rarely questioned, the scale of density
of those houses might vary. The postcards of Vieux-Bourg (Fig. 10)
and Saint-Claude (Fig. 11) show a row of dissociated houses on
both sides of the road. In the same way, if the church of TroisRivires stands in the middle of the bourg (Fig. 12), not all the
churches in the bourgs can claim such a central place. This is discernible in Deshaies (Fig.13) where the church is clearly on one side of
the bourg, but also in Vieux-Bourg (Fig.10) where the appreciation
of the relief allows us to position the church, above and outside the
bourg, although on a simple map it might appear to be in the centre.
Furthermore, a document that established the legal inventory
of the Separation77 in 1911 for the commune of Gosier, describes
this same pattern: the church is elsewhere than in the middle of the
bourg. It even underlines the spatial separation between the church
and the presbytery, unlike in other cases (e.g. Trois-Rivires)
where they are really close:
The church of the commune of Gosier is located at the
entrance of the bourg by the same name, on a square, at the
left of the colonial road, when coming from Pointe- -Pitre.
() The presbytery stands in the middle of the bourg, on the
right side of the colonial road that borders it in the north.78
(Emphasis added)

77
Source: Bishops
Archives in Basse-Terre,
Inventory of the goods
depending on the Fabrique
of the parish church of the
Commune of Gosier, on
2.6.1911.
78
Source: Idem. Lglise
paroissiale de la commune
du Gosier est situe
lentre du bourg de ce nom,
sur une place gauche de la
route coloniale quand on
vient de la Pointe--Pitre.
() Le presbytre est situ
vers le milieu du bourg
droite de la route coloniale
qui le borne au nord.
79
It is not very clear whether these posts are electric
posts because the electric
cable is rarely discernable.
However, an electric firm
Socit dlectricit
established in Pointe-Pitre, is mentioned in 1916
in the newspaper La
Guadeloupenne, Source:
Arch. Dp. Gua., May
1916; while the tourist
guide of 1913 mentions the
existence of phones and
phone lines. Source: Guide
du Tourisme, Paris: ILarose, 1913, p. 206.

Finally, it is not possible to categorize precisely the form of the

bourgs, for their internal characteristics may vary greatly from one
another.
Concerning the urban characteristics observable in the bourgs,
such as the way of organizing the buildings with regard to the
street (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 urban
vocabulary (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-Rivires (Fig.8) or Capesterre (Fig.15) commonly display a
row of houses of quite regular height on both sides of a relatively
wide street, with the presence of sidewalks (for all of them), of a
road coating (obvious in Trois-Rivires: stone and asphalt), and of
supposedly79 electric wooden posts (not visible in this postcard of
41

Figure 17: Bouillante, edition 4C, c.1920. Source: La Cte-sous-le-vent, op.cit. p. 32.
Figure 18: Le Moule, Le Boulevard Roug. Collection Caill, 1907-1908. Source:
Private collection, Pointe--Pitre.
Figure 19: Le Moule, La rue Jacob, 1914. Source: Private collection, Pointe--Pitre.
42

Le Moule), a closer observation also reveals a building contiguity

that is not always expressed (e.g. Capesterre, Fig. 15), single-floor
houses alternating with two-floor-and-attic houses (e.g. TroisRivires, Fig. 8); or basic sand -or gravel (tuff)- road (e.g. PortLouis, 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 of
Le Baillif (Fig. 16) or Bouillante (Fig. 17) illustrate how the bourgs
can also be very simple. In both places, the omnipresence of vegetation, the mango trees breaking the alignment of the outnumbering single-storey houses and the grass growing around the
buildings give a strong feeling of the rural world. Buildings are
equally simple, increasing the same impression: small rectangular
shape, rough wood planking, wooden shingles (essentes) as the
major element for the roof, and some rare sheet-metal sheets, used
for roofing or wall coating.
Yet, the presence of gas lampposts in Bouillante reveals well
how the impression can also be contradicted within the bourg. Extra postcards of Le Moule are evidence of this phenomenon on the
scale of districts, where the level of urbanization obviously differs.
On Boulevard Roug (Fig. 18) for example, chickens on the road,
the impression of a poorly maintained street, irregularities in the
facades and the presence of basic wooden fences are more suggestive of a lack of strict planning than real urban control. Jacob Street
(Fig. 19), still in Le Moule and facing the sea, clearly shows the
absence of street on the shore (replaced by the wall) and the progressive invasion of the vegetation. Certainly, Le Moule possesses
several spatial specificities, which are not always in agreement
with one another.
Finally, neither general features nor a type, as far as the bourgs
are concerned, can possibly be drawn from the documents due to
the wide variety displayed. Nevertheless, despite such variety
common elements exist, and the choice of wood, as building material, seems to be one of them.
But there is wood and there is wood: indeed, the description of
its use in the bourgs of Bouillante and Baillif is far from corresponding to the one that could be made in Le Moule or Trois-Rivires.
There, instead of raw planking or wooden shingles for the walls, it
is the tongue-and-groove matching technique which is evident,
producing a standardization of the pieces of wood, a transformation of the way of building and finally creating the aesthetic visible on the facades.
In the same way, while openings (doors and windows) are
scarce for the single-storey buildings of Bouillante, for example,
their number and their regularity on a single faade of Trois43

Figure 20: Les Abymes, La Guadeloupe Illustre, collection Caill, 1907-1908.

Source: Private collection, Pointe--Pitre.
Figure 21: The church of Gosier, no date. Source: Fabre, C. De clocher en clocher,
dition Grand-Terre Sud.
Figure 22: The bourg of Trois-Rivires, 1906, dition Phos. Source: Muse SaintJohn-Perse.
44

Rivires (Fig. 8) offers a striking contrast, as does the presence of

dormer windows on the roof. Furthermore, elaborated details in
the opening such as skirting boards around the windows, or the
distinction between outside and inside shutters,80 found in Le
Moule (Fig. 9) or Les Abymes (Fig. 20) suggest an existing tradition
of carpentry, though this is not obvious everywhere.
However, the use of stone and metal sheets is established by
almost all the postcards. Stone is most often employed for the foundation or the ground floor of at least a two-storey house, while the
upper floors are made of wood (e.g. Trois-Rivires and more obviously Le Moule, Fig. 9). It can also be used for the construction of
important buildings such as the church, perhaps reflecting the
value attributed to the material. In this regard, the churches of
Gosier (Fig.21) and Trois-Rivires (Fig.22) look the same from the
outside, while a written description confirms the masonry work
for Gosier:

The first shutter, external, is made of plainwood, offering protection

against rain, heavy sun,
etc., while the second
regulates the air circulation by the moveable
integrated Venetian blind
(jalousie).
81
Source: Bishops
Archives in Basse-Terre,
Inventory of the goods
depending on the Fabrique
of the parish church of the
Commune of Gosier on
2.6.1911; Cest une construction en mur, couverte en
tle- la sacristie est en bois,
couverte en tle, le clocher
est en mur, couvert en tle.
80

It is a construction in masonry, covered with metal sheets.

The sacristy is in wood, covered with metal sheets; the belltower 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 at
the same time, for Grande-Terre is not as rich in natural stone as
Basse-Terre is.
At last, as suggested by the description of the church of Gosier,
the metal sheet is a material used for the faade coating (e.g. left
front house of the Port-Louis postcard, Fig. 14), but also for the
roof, replacing the initial wooden tiles. The houses of Capesterre,
Trois-Rivires and even some of Bouillante show this feature.
However, the question remains whether this material was considered noble at this time or not. Its common use from simple to
more elaborate houses may suggest it was not.
On the other hand, the appearance of a house is not limited to its
building material, for its general form (volume, shape of the roof),
and its final decorations are important attributes as well. Comparing the bourgs from this point of view, one might finally realize
what makes the difference between a bourg like Vieux-Bourg,
Baillif and Bouillante and others like Le Moule, Trois-Rivires and
Port-Louis: in the first group, it is not two-floor-and-attic houses, of
large size and with various types of roofs (e.g. pitched, hipped or
mansard roof) with dormer windows, that are dominant, but
rather small single-storey houses with a pitched and two sloping
sided roof. Similarly, it is not facades ornamented with iron balconies (Le Moule, Fig. 9) or fine gingerbread (Port-Louis, Fig.14) or
45

Figure 23: Pointe--Pitre, Rue de Nozires,

c.1905-1925. Source: Private collection, Pointe-Pitre.
Figure 24: Basse-Terre, GrandRue du Cours,
1925. Source: Private collection, Pointe--Pitre.
Figure 25: Pointe--Pitre, Le Faubourg Vatable,
La Guadeloupe illustre, 1907-1908. Source:
Private collection, Pointe--Pitre.
46

Figure 26: Le Hameau du Bananier, dition Phos, 1908. Source: Private collection,
Pointe--Pitre.
Figure 27: Case de Cultivateurs, 1912. Source: Muse Saint-John-Perse.

different shades of colour82 (the shutter in Trois-Rivires, Fig. 8)

that are displayed in the simple bourgs, but rather, bare faades.
Thus, the conclusion from studying of all these postcards cannot be clear-cut. The specificity of the bourgs of Guadeloupe is perhaps to be found in their diversity. Indeed, synthetically, even if
their morphology presents common characteristics (a general
form often resumed to a strip of more or less developed rowhouses along the road); a certain level of spatial appropriation; the
existence of urban vocabulary (albeit sometimes basic), the typology of the bourgs reveals more variables. On the whole, the hiproofed rectangular house, the absence of galleries (with the
presence 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 perpendicular or parallel to the street), nor the decoration (from bare
street faade to elaborate ones).
Furthermore, the different photographic angles do not consistently allow for accurate appreciation because the reality of the
bourg 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 the
highest buildings (two-floor houses and the church) are sometimes
detectable. Yet, some characteristics could also be assumed to be
non-existent (for example, is it possible to believe in a more developed street pattern and buildings for Baillif?)
Therefore, the hypothesis of differences among the bourgs
seems quite realistic, especially when considering the economic
characteristics of each bourg as well as the specificities concerning
their immediate surroundings (e.g. in terms of site configuration,
available natural resources, etc.). To assume a certain unity in the
shape of the various bourgs of Guadeloupe (dont the bourgs of Le

Because of the black and

white picture, it is not possible to talk about colours;
however, a polychromic
quality is visible in the
shutters displaying different shades.

82

47

83
Simultaneously, it is
interesting to note what
makes a bourg different
from the city: a higher
scale of the built space (e.g.
three-floor and attic
houses), streets that are not
colonial roads, an unlimited built space (in the
frame of the picture).
84
Source: Father Balleret
in 1901, De clocher en
clocher, op.cit. Le bourg
tait peu habit: lglise et
la cure, un mdecinchirurgien sur trois, les
deux autres tant au Trouau-chien et Grande-Anse;
le marchal-ferrant, une
boutique ou lautre () les
habitations sont sur les
hauteurs.
85
Source: Bishops Archives in Basse-Terre.
Description of the parish
of Saint Louis du Gosier
(1917-1918), no author.
Situ sur le bord de la
route coloniale de Pointe-Pitre Sainte-Anne, le
bourg du Gosier comprend
peine soixante maisons,
fermes en semaine pour la
plupart. Cest--dire que
presque toute la population
habite la campagne dans ce
que lon appelle les
Grands Fonds.
86
From the abundant bibliography on the subject,
see particularly Schnakenbourg, C. Histoire de lindustrie sucrire en Guadeloupe (XIX-XX sicles),
Vol. I , La crise du systme
esclavagiste (1835-1847),
Paris: LHarmattan, 1980.
87
For precise literature on
the subject, see AdladeMerlande, J. Historial
antillais, tome IV, or
Fallope, J. Esclaves et citoyens, les Noirs la Guadeloupe au XIX sicle, Basse
-Terre: Socit dHistoire
de la Guadeloupe, 1992.
88
The word agreement
might not be the best to
describe the different types
of contracts established
after the abolition, for the
interests of the dominating
class may not have been
exactly concomitant with
those of the former slaves.
However, since the issue is
beyond the scope of this

48

Moule and Port-Louis strikingly step away from the linear form
with their grid configuration?), as in their constitutive elements
(streets, buildings), would automatically silence the important
role geophysical constraints and historical events have played in
the land development of each, as in that of the island in general.
Besides, the bigger towns also reflect the same diversity. In the
cities of Pointe--Pitre and Basse-Terre, some districts are definitely at a city-scale (Fig. 23 & 24),83 while others, dominated by
coco-trees and single-storey houses (Fig. 25) are strongly reminiscent 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 and
the sometimes rudimentary dwelling. They thus allow one to position the bourg very well on the urban level: it is not a city, yet it is
no 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-Louis
or Trois-Rivires are richer than Baillif or Bouillante), little information passes through the pictures about how people lived in the
bourg. There is no doubt that a broader context is very needed, for
life in the bourg might not be what is expected from the pictures.
From two different looking types of bourgs, one could read:
Trois-Rivires 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; the
blacksmith, one shop or another () the habitations are in
the hills.84
Gosier in 1917-18:
Located on the side of the colonial road that goes from
Pointe--Pitre to Sainte-Anne, the bourg of Gosier counts
barely 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, international influences and local events. Even if many of those events
might be significant in the general picture, as far as the time span of
the study is concerned, four main events stand out because they
have been closely intertwined with each other to transform some
features of the Guadeloupean society and therefore produce the

society of the 1930s. These events are the abolition of slavery in

Guadeloupe in 1848, industrialization, and the emergence of a political consciousness by a group which had until then silent, in
parallel with a steady increase in population. All of these simultaneously provoked social and spatial changes.
Until 1848, the Guadeloupean territory had been divided and
organized according to a spatial hierarchy established by the ruling plantation economy:86 on the one hand, there were the plantations, the core of production, with their vast surfaces; and on the
other, cities and small towns scattered all around the island, places
of defensive, commercial, religious and institutional activities, developed at a more or less important level.
But emancipation marked a change in ways of developing the
land, for it was a matter of more than 85,000 persons87 who were set
free out of a total population of over 130,000 inhabitants. The
newly emancipated had the possibility to stay via an agreement88 with the owner of the plantation, which little by little lost
its territorial unity in favour of small and middle-sized properties;89 or to leave the plantation.
Even if, as Abenon suggests, abolition did not cause very important
migrations, a large amount of the population remained in the place where it
always lived,90 there nonetheless exists a movement of the population to the cities and the bourgs,91 which over the years brought
about the transformation of the bourgs in size, as well as in their
social functions, slowly changing them into small urban centres.
This fact was accentuated even further by the conversion of the
original plantation system to the industrialized system of sugar
factories, les usines centrales. Besides representing an attempt to
guard against the sugar market crisis in Guadeloupe, which was
heightened (among other reasons) by the lack of cheap labour and
the competition of European beet sugar, the second generation of
sugar factories,92 also played its part in the settlement choices of
people in search of work, for those factories were usually located
close to an urban centre, either in the city (as in the case of
Darboussier inaugurated in 1869 on the edge of Pointe--Pitre) or,
more commonly, in he bourgs (e.g. Duchassaing factory in Le
Moule (1862), Beauport in Port-Louis (1863), Sainte-Marthe in
Saint-Francois (1868), Blanchet in Morne--lEau (1868), etc.).
Furthermore, industrialization, on the scale of the Guadeloupean territory, amplified the phenomenon of distinction between
the two wings of the island. Indeed, Grande-Terre without doubt
constituted the heart of this industrialization (all fourteen of the
sugar factories with the highest production were located in
Grande-Terre in the 1870s), while Basse-Terres decline was accentuated by the scant augmentation of its population. The population

work it will not be discussed more extensively.

89
Attention should be
given here to the fact that
this situation, in comparison with Martinique, is
unique to Guadeloupe, for
in Martinique the white
dominant group (les bks)
managed to maintain their
power, even until today.
90
In Petite histoire de la
Guadeloupe, op.cit., p. 128.
Labolition ne donna pas
lieu des mouvements
migratoires trs importants.
Une partie notable de la
population resta sur les
domaines o elle avait
toujours vcu.
91
See more precisely the
work of, for example,
Lawson-Body, who analyzes the access to landownership from 1834 to
1910. Clearly the postemancipation period was
a time of changes. Source:
Lawson-Body, G. Ltablissement de la paysannerie en Guadeloupe: le cas
de lespace vivrier des
Grands Fonds in Burac
M. (dir.) La question de la
terre dans les colonies et
dpartements franais
dAmrique 1848-1998,
Karthala & GodeCarabe,
2000, pp. 37-71.
92
The first sugar factories
were erected in 1844-1845:
e.g. 1844: Acomat in Le
Moule and Duval in PetitCanal; 1845: Bellevue in
Port-Louis, Zvallos in Le
Moule, Marly in SainteAnne, GrandAnse in
Marie-Galante. Source:
Schnakenbourg, C. Histoire
de lindustrie sucrire en
Guadeloupe (XIX-XX
sicles), Vol. I , La crise du
systme esclavagiste (18351847), op.cit. For more on
this period, see: Schnakenbourg, C. La Compagnie
Marseillaise de Sucrerie
Colonial. Histoire de
lusine Blanchet de 1860
1933", Bulletin de la Socit
dHistoire de la Guadeloupe
n119-120, 1er et 2e
semestres 1999.

49

Source: Arch. Dp. Gua.

Annuaire Statistique de la
Guadeloupe.
94
145,417 inhabitants in
1876, 182,112 in 1901 and
243,243 in 1926. Idem.
95
The act of 1882-28-03
gives communes of the
colonies the right to elect
their mayor and his team
via the municipal council
(law voted in France on
August 12th, 1876, authors remark), in Histoire
des Communes, Gosier, op.
cit., p.52.
96
For more on the financial
aspect, see, e.g. Buffon, A.
Monnaie et crdit en
conomie coloniale, BasseTerre, Socit dHis-toire
de la Guadeloupe, 1979.
97
In Petite histoire de la
Guadeloupe, op.cit., pp 159160. For a more detailed
approach, see Sainton, J-P.
Les ngres en politique,
couleur, identits et stratgies de pouvoir en Guadeloupe au tournant du sicle,
PU du Septentrion, 1998.
Si Lgitimus se rclamait
du socialisme, ses positions
politiques taient valorises
par son appartenance la
race noire () En 1894,
Lgitimus devenait conseiller gnral. Son parti
sempara des mairies de
Sainte-Rose, de Gosier, du
Lamentin et de lAnseBertrand.
98
Abenon, Petite histoire de
la Guadeloupe, op.cit., p.155
99
Source: CAOM; fm,
agefom 100/4 in La Guadeloupe par lAgence gnrale des Colonies, Melun:
imprimerie administrative, 1926, p. 49. La guerre
na pas t sans influence
sur les conditions de la vie
matrielle dans la Colonie.
Ici, comme ailleurs, les logements, les vtements et les
objets de consommation ont
augment dans une proportion variant de 50 300%
sur les prix davant guerre
93

50

of the city of Basse-Terre, its main town, grew by only 1612 inhabitants between 1848 and 1936,93 while during the same period the
entire Guadeloupean population doubled, reaching 302,659 inhabitants in 1936.94
Finally, the gradual transformation of the society, with the
emergence of a political and syndicate consciousness and of a new
influential group (coloured people, represented by personalities
like Gerville-Rache (1854-1906), Legitimus (1868-1947), RenBoisneuf (1873-1927), Candace (1873-1927), to name a few), was another element that influenced the development of the bourg.
The new laws promulgated under the Second and Third Republics (and despite a break imposed by the authoritarian regime of
the Second Empire), enacted universal suffrage, the election of
deputies and the municipal council (1882)95, the creation of the general council, guaranteed freedom of the press and opinion. Along
with the constant decline in salaries since the early 1900s96 and the
obvious augmentation of the population, there were many factors
that supported social change and thus transforming the status of
the bourg, which itself became a place of power, and a place of
interest. The following quotation, describing the political carrier
of Lgitimus, illustrates the situation quite simply:
If Lgitimus introduced himself as a socialist, his political
statements were valorized by his belonging to the black
race () In 1894 Lgitimus became a member of the General
Council. His party won the city halls of Sainte-Rose, Gosier,
Lamentin and Anse-Bertrand.97
Nevertheless, once again, any type of extrapolation based on these
social changes is difficult because, in the 1930s, the Guadeloupean
population remained mostly rural and illiterate, despite the governmental emphasis on education (e.g. the opening of Carnot High
School in Pointe--Pitre in 1883, as well as 90 religious primary
schools and 49 public ones in 1900).98
Finally, and to return to the general climate of these years, the
aftermath of the First World War was hard on Guadeloupe because
there was no improvement in the economic situation. An official
report from 1926 described the situation:
The war has not been without influence on material living
conditions in the Colony. Here, as elsewhere, housing,
clothes, and products of consumption have increased from
50 up to 300% compared with pre-war prices.99

Indeed, although sugar production clearly increased during the

war (as well as alcohol production),100 for the simple reason that
there was less competition was reduced. The restrictions imposed
by the post-war government to revitalize the mainland economy
had a strong impact on Guadeloupe: it is not at all certain that the
economic situation improved during the ten years following the
war, ending exactly with the 1928 hurricane. However, on the social level, the participation of Guadeloupean men in the war101
exacerbated patriotic sentiment, which was also a way to demand
assimilation.102
To sum up, it becomes evident the changes in Guadeloupean
society paralleled the constant increase of population in the bourgs,
and thereby influenced the bourgs, because these factors accelerated
the pace of their development and gave them the opportunity to
significantly distinguish themselves from the rural world, even if
the latter remained very close both in distance and similarity.

Schnakenbourg, C. Histoire de lindustrie sucrire

en Guadeloupe (XIX-XX
sicles), op. cit.
101
In 1889, Guadeloupeans
gained the right, after
many demands, to perform their military service
and consequently to fight
for the Motherland. 11,021
men were mobilized and
1,470 died during the conflict. Source: Farrugia, L.
Historial Antillais, tome V,
La guerre de 14-18, p. 1.
102
For more on this topic,
see Erbs, P. Les monuments aux morts de la
guerre 1914-1918, mmoire de maitrise, Begot
(dir.), UAG, unpublished,
2003.
100

Then came the hurricane of 1928.

Figure 28: The ravages of the 1928 hurricane in Pointe--Pitre, general view. Source:
CAOM, 2fi2374.
Figure 29: The ravages of the 1928 hurricane in Pointe--Pitre. Source: CAOM,
2fi2374.
51

4. THE IMPACT OF THE HURRICANE OF 1928

The hurricane of 1928 was in every way catastrophic (material
damages, 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 evokes
quite vividly the event in Pointe--Pitre, while pictures portray the
full dimension of the disaster (Fig.28 & 29):
The streets of Pointe--Pitre were reduced to nothing but
depressing and pathetic piles of stones, bricks, branches,
metal sheets, slates, tiles, telegraphic wires, wood, beams,
etc., which were impossible to go through. Nine-tenths of
the houses were damaged, without roofs, without windows,
as dilapidated as though there had been a bombing. Others,
completely destroyed, formed a pile of rubble.

103
In Histoire des Communes, op.cit., p. 268. Les
rues de la Pointe--Pitre ne
constituaient quun amas de
pierres, de briques, de branches darbres, de feuilles de
tle, dardoises, de tuiles, de
fils tlgraphiques, de bois,
de poutres, etc., infranchissables, dun aspect dsolant
et lamentable. Les neuf diximes des maisons taient
endommages, sans toit,
sans fentres, dlabres
comme aprs un bombardement. Dautres, totalement
dtruites, formaient un amas
de dcombres.
104
For example, the French
ambassador to the USA,
Paul Claudel, signed his
report on his visit to Guadeloupe on October 18th,
1928 (one month after the
hurricane). Source: CAOM,
fm, sg, gua240/1464;
while the earliest reports
found from M. Muller, sent
as the General Supervisor
of the Colonies, Head of the
Supervision Mission in
Guadeloupe (1928-1933),
date from December 15,
1928. Source: CAOM, fm,
sg, gua252.1518.

52

The other communes of Guadeloupe were equally damaged by the

hurricane: Gosier, Sainte-Anne, Saint-Francois, Le Moule were in
ruins; Lamentin, Petit-Canal and Port-Louis buried their dead;
three hundred houses vanished from Basse-Terre; Capesterre lost
its famous royal palm tree alley (alle Dumanoir) and Trois-Rivires
its bell-tower.
However, if the ravages were many, one has to recognize that
seeking the best and fastest reconstruction was in many ways proportional. Although the imminent anniversary of the attachment
of Guadeloupe to France (1935) might have been one reason for a
quick reconstruction, archives seldom refer to it. In fact, no one can
deny the speediness with which the French government sent help
to its Old Colony (an affectionate nickname commonly given to
Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guyana and La Reunion).
In addition to the official visits and the various missions commissioned right after the disaster,104 the governments contribution can be explicitly seen in its involvement in the reconstruction,
mainly in terms of financial support, the sending of building materials and of specialists; but also implicitly in finding new ideas and
solutions to building methods. Instead of providing assistance that
was restricted to material details, the government, as well as other
agents such as local officials and architects, took the opportunity to
question and revive the concept of building and planning in the
colony.

4.1 Financial support

There was without doubt a substantial amount of financial support.
One hundred million francs were devoted to the reconstruction by
the government as an extraordinary subsidy, while various loans,
with low interests, were authorized by mainly two banks, Crdit
Foncier National and Crdit Foncier de France, for individual and communal reconstructions.
By virtue of the law enforced on January 1st, 1930 in
Guadeloupe,105 the Crdit Foncier de France granted a 28 million
franc loan to 28 of Guadeloupes communes over a period of 20
years.106
If Pointe--Pitre, the emerging economic city, borrowed 3 million francs, the other Guadeloupean communes also took out loans
of sometimes similar amounts (e.g. Le Moule 3 million francs, Le
Lamentin 2,6 million francs and Morne--leau 2,5 million francs),
but mostly less (e.g. Trois-Rivires 1 million francs, Gosier only
400,000 francs).107 The allocated money was to be used for the reconstruction, defined by the precise programme set up for the occasion, and rendered official in law in 1931, under the title Great
Works (les Grands Travaux). Nine priorities were selected:
1-roads and paths,
2-the port of Pointe--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 in
the communes,
9-other.
And, as these priorities suggest, reconstruction was not only a matter of rebuilding houses, but rather covered a large field, from
providing infrastructure to the colony to aesthetic considerations.
Thus, the communes, hence the bourgs were directly concerned by
this programme.
Yet, as V. Phalente judiciously notes the scale of the planning
policy started in the 1930s by the communes emphasizes the real lack in this
domain.108 Indeed, the debate between reconstruction or new
construction was an open one, dividing more than one politician
and civil servant on the question, while simultaneously providing
the occasion to reveal how people thought about Guadeloupe:

Only 5 days after the

law was promulgated in
France on December 28th,
1929.
106
Source: CAOM, fm1tp/
440. Mullers report on the
communal loans to the
Ministry (4.29.1933).
107
Idem.
108
In La Grande Encyclopdie de la Carabe, op.cit.,
p. 119. Lampleur de la
politique damnagement
entame par les communes
dans les annes 30 tend
dmontrer la ralit des
lacunes en ce domaine.
105

53

Source: CAOM, fm, sg,

gua249/1506. Extract of
the July 12, 1929 meeting
of the Committee in charge
of dispatching subsidies
and help to the victims in
Guadeloupe. PV analytique de la sance du 12
juillet 1929 du Comit
charg de repartir les subventions et secours aux
sinistrs de la Guadeloupe
- M. Tellier, en fait, ne fait
plus du rquipement mais
bien de lquipement. M.
Henry estime que cest bien
en effet cela et que les
sommes demandes par le
gouvernement local sont
vraiment exagres ()
Lintention du Parlement,
comme celle du Conseil des
ministres a t de rparer
les dommages subis par le
patrimoine de la colonie et
de particuliers et non de
faire du neuf grce au crdit
allou loccasion du
Cyclone. On doit sen tenir
donc comme lindique M. le
Prsident au terme de
rquipement et non damnagement neuf.
-M. Gubiand (inspecteur
gnral des ponts et chausses et des tp des colonies):
encore ne faudrait-il pas que
la colonie soit oblige de
reconstruire les choses dans
ltat ou elles taient et qui,
au point de vue sanitaire,
taient une vritable honte
pour cette colonie.
- Le prsident: A qui la
faute? A la colonie trs
certainement, qui aurait pu
employer dautres fins
plus utiles des ressources
employes autre part.
110
Source: CAOM, fm, sg,
gua244/1487 Nombre de
maisons reconstruites
depuis le cyclone: 3815 au
30 juin 1930, cble de
Pitri au dput Candace.
111
Source: CAOM, bib,
som, d/br/8728. Le
rgime des prestations en
nature venant dAllemagne
permettant descompter
lenvoi de matriaux de gros
uvre : fers ronds et ciment,
et de matriaux ouvrs tels
que : portes, fentres, appareils sanitaires, le bton
arm fut adopt pour la
construction des ossatures,
109

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 the
amounts demanded by the local government are very much
exaggerated () The Parliaments intention, as that of the
Council of Ministers, was to repair the damages to the
colonys patrimony as well as those of the individuals, not
to make everything anew thanks to the funds granted because
of the Hurricane. Thus, we should stick to the term of
reconstruction as indicated by Mr. President, and not to that
of new planning.
- Mr. Gubiand (General Inspector of the Highways & Civil
Engineering Department of the Colonies): The colony should
not, however, be forced to rebuild everything in the state in
which 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 colonys,
which could have put resources employed elsewhere to
better use.109
The above exchange again points to a debate that is still current
today: the use of funds.
As far as individual financial support is concerned, a fact-finding mission was as quickly commissioned to evaluate the costs of
private loss. Four months after the tragedy, a detailed report concerning 26,084 properties in the 34 communes of Guadeloupe was
written, assessing at FF 200,886,796 the amount of individual loss
(Table 1). The same document drew a distinction between estates
under and over FF 30,000, thus truly referring to an existing dichotomy in land ownership.
Beyond its precision in numbers, it documented some of the
spatial quality of each bourg, as previously evoked. For example,
the comparison of Gosier and Trois-Rivires speaks for itself. In
Trois-Rivires, where fewer evaluations were registered than in
Gosier, the estimated costs of loss remained however superior
both quantitatively and qualitatively. In the same way, whereas in
Gosier the highest claims represented only 14% of the total cost of
private loss, they represented 52% in Trois-Rivires: this most
likely reflected the higher economic status of Trois-Rivires.
Finally, to conclude with the last sentence of the previous
quote, how effective was the reconstruction? Almost two years after the hurricane, 3,815 houses were rebuilt as of June 30, 1930,
states a cable from Mr. Pitri to the Deputy Candance:110 this is very
little in light of the 26,084 assessments.

Communes

Gosier

Total amount

Total cost of

Number of evaluations

Cost of the evaluations

of evaluations

private loss

above FF 30,000

above FF 30,000

1,322

895,290

6,404,715

17

Trois-Rivires 985

7,606,827

38

3,965,695

Total

200,861,796

628

100,717,854

26,084

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, January
19th, 1929. Source: CAOM, fm, sg, gua252.1518.

4.2 Material support

The building material sent to the colony constituted yet another
aspect of governmental support. As a direct consequence of losing
the First World War, Germany had to furnish manufactured products as war reparations to the Allies (regime des prestations en nature). Mostly basic building materials (e.g. bags of cement, steel
framework) were involved, but also fixtures and fittings (e.g.
doors, windows, toilet bowls, and faucets). The French government allowed the colony to take advantage of this with a reimbursement over 30 years. The proposition was accepted and thus
marked Guadeloupes entrance into a new building period, for the
abundance of this type of building material increased the pace of
development of the associated methods of building and designing.
This simple cause and effect relationship is summarized by one of
its most famous agents, the architect Ali Tur:
The provision of goods coming from Germany permitted
the anticipation of certain materials for the structure of
buildings: re-bar and cement, and on finished materials such
as: doors, windows, toilet/bathroom equipment; reinforced
concrete was adopted for the construction of the building
skeleton, cement agglomerates as filling materials and
standardized types of doors and slatted-shutter windows
were designed to fit local demand.111

les agglomrs creux de

ciment comme matriaux de
remplissage et des types
standards de portes et de
fentres persiennes furent
tablis conformment aux
besoins locaux.
112
Indeed, Mullers report
(1.12.1929) is in great
contrast to what the
Governor writes: Wooden
construction is frequent in
Guadeloupe and the house
in masonry, or in reinforced
concrete, is the exception,
especially in the rural
agglomerations. Source:
CAOM ; fm, sg, gua252.
1518. Analyse de la reconstruction en ciment arm
des immeubles dtruits
par le cyclone du 12 septembre 1928, de lInspecteur Gnral des Colonies,
Muller, chef de la Mission
dInspection de la Guadeloupe Monsieur le Ministre des Colonies. La
construction en bois est dun
usage courant la Guadeloupe et la maison en maonnerie, ou en bton arm constitue lexception surtout
dans les agglomrations
rurales.

However, once again, a rapid conclusion cannot be drawn: if it

seems proper to say that until 1928 the use of reinforced concrete
was almost non-existent, such does not seem to be the case for
cement, as the Governor explains in December 1928 (even if his
assertion is nuanced):112
Non-reinforced concrete buildings are rare in Guadeloupe,
thus we cannot attest to their resistance capacity due to the
lack of experience. The situation is different for reinforced
cement, abundantly present in the colony and which has
55

Source: CAOM, fm, sg,

gua252.1518. Les constructions en bton non arm
sont rares la Guadeloupe,
on ne peut donc gure se
prononcer par exprience
sur leur rsistance. Il nen
est pas de mme pour le
ciment arm, abondamment
reprsent la colonie et qui
a partout offert une rsistance parfaite, sauf dans un
seul cas, la Mairie du
Lamentin, dont lexamen des
ruines par M. le Chef du
Service des Travaux
Publics rvla de graves
erreurs de conception.
114
Actually, a letter from
Governor Tellier implies
quite the opposite situation: Once it was sure that
the Crdit Foncier would
grant loans to the communes
for their reconstruction and
that the reconstruction of
colonial buildings could be
achieved through a major
fund from the State, it
became evident to give this
task to a body distinct from
that of the Civil Engineering Department, the latter
could not possibly accomplish this momentous task,
as it is indeed lacking in
technicians and the necessary means. Source:
CAOM, fm, sg, gua249/
1506. Lettre du gouverneur
Tellier M. lInspecteur
gnral, chef de Mission
Muller, St Claude le 11
avril 1929. Lorsquil parut
certain que le Crdit Foncier
serait autoris faire des
prts aux communes en vue
de leur reconstruction et que
les travaux propres la
colonie pourraient tre excuts sur une subvention de
lEtat des plus importantes,
il apparut ncessaire de
confier ce travail un
organe distinct de celui des
travaux publics de la
Guadeloupe, ce dernier ne
pouvant tre charg dune
oeuvre aussi considrable
manquant en effet des techniciens et des moyens
indispensables.
115
CAOM, fm, 1tp/440
116
Signed on April 1, 1929
with the Governor Tellier.
Source: Idem.
117
Source: Ibidem. M.
113

56

everywhere offered perfect resistance, except in one case:

the examination by the Head of the Civil Engineering Office
of the ruins revealed serious errors in the design of the City
Hall of Lamentin.113
The introduction of new technology into the building field would
not have fully succeeded without specialists. And here again, the
French government seems not to have hesitated.
4.3 The sending of specialists
If few statistics exist to give a picture of the extra amount of officers
and money that might have been used by the departments directly
concerned with the reconstruction (mainly Civil Engineering Department);114 there is sufficient data with regard to the contribution
of the architect Ali Tur.
Indeed, while specific funds were raised to cover the improvement of governmental buildings such as the Prefecture, General
Council, Court House, etc., mostly in the city of Basse-Terre; the
State commissioned architect Ali Tur, as Architect of the Ministry
of the Colonies, to design and supervise the construction of these
institutional buildings.115
But in addition to this official task, it was stipulated in his fouryear contract (1929-1933)116 that Mr. Tur is free to design and work for
the communes or for individuals.117 The results were incredible and
the force of this man has to be acknowledged: he designed more
than 50 buildings,118 including city halls (15), churches (7), presbyteries, schools (27), post offices, health centres, as well as various
urban plans (e.g. Pointe--Pitre, Basse-Terre, Lamentin). Without
doubt these buildings had a strong impact on the islands landscape. The impact was, however, not only physical, for Tur not only
brought 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 offer
in terms of building capacity, Tur quickly realized that the island
was mostly ignorant of the technique of concrete (there were neither qualified workers, nor building companies were familiar with
it) and therefore convinced the government to equip Guadeloupe
in this sense. Confirmed masons (mostly Italians) were sent to
Guadeloupe to achieve this goal while, at the same time, a procedure for inviting tenders was initiated with governmental support
for the installation of building firms coming from France.119
The consequences of this procedure were enormous for they
established the appearance of buildings with new materials, new
forms, and new styles, the latter feature owing a great deal to the

architectural bias developed by Tur (Fig. 30). It had a long-lasting

impact in Guadeloupe.
Nevertheless, not all of these developments could be possibly
the work of one or two men.120 The Civil Engineering Department
also played a decisive part in this process, for it questioned the
traditional way of building in the colony and obviously sought
solutions even before the arrival of Ali Tur in Guadeloupe.
4.4 Questioning building methods
The abundant correspondence between the Ministry of the Colonies and the civil officers in Guadeloupe, as well as the internal
correspondence between the latter, clearly display awareness on
the importance of reconsidering the rebuilding process.
From the start, which means the day after the hurricane, the
engineers began to seek improved solutions for a building that
could assure protection against hurricane and earthquakes, but
also against natural constraints such as the sun, humidity, insects;
as well as methods that could facilitate its construction. The idea
was thus to design a lasting type of building, and from the earliest
reports, it is evident that great attention was given to the possibilities reinforced concrete might offer.
After several studies (conducted during the emergency and afterwards) comparing the use of wood and concrete in terms of cost,
resistance and methods of construction, the conclusions were the
same: concrete was preferable, as stated in the reports of 1929 and
1935. In addition, standardization was required.
1929: () For all of these reasons, reinforced cement [sic]
must be used as much as possible for the reconstruction of
the public and private buildings demolished by the hurricane
of last September 12th.121
1935: () This is the reason why the wooden house, even if
more comfortable to live in than initial appearances would
have us believe, is outdated and should be replaced by
concrete and stone construction, which is more long-lasting,
less expensive to maintain, less dangerous in case of hurricane
or fire, healthier and more adaptable in every way to the
needs of our time.122
Concern with standardization is visible in some documents that
explain very precisely how models should be created and produced. But those documents mostly relate to the elaboration of
roads and bridges. Only in one case do they concern buildings.

Tur, sera libre de se charger

des projets et travaux pour
le compte des communes ou
des particuliers.
118
This number is based on
an examination of the
archives, yet it can not be
considered as definitive
because more precise
studies on the work of this
architect would be needed.
119
Galpin, C. Ali Tur,
Architecte, 1927- 1937,
Itinraire dune reconstruction, Ministre de la
Culture et de la Communication, Conseil gnral de
la Guadeloupe, 1990, p. 6.
120
In fact, one should
acknowledge the presence
of other specialists for the
reconstruction in Guadeloupe, like that of Ren
Danger, a chartered surveyor and professor in
urban planning at the Ecole
Spciale des Travaux
Publics in Paris, who
collaborated with Ali Tur
for the development and
extension plan of Pointe-Pitre in 1929.
121
Source: CAOM, fm, sg,
gua252.1518. In Analyse
de la reconstruction en
ciment arm des immeubles dtruits par le cyclone
du 12 septembre 1928, de
lInspecteur Gnral des
Colonies, Muller, chef de la
Mission dInspection de la
Guadeloupe Monsieur le
Ministre des Colonies le 12
janvier 1929. De tout ce
qui prcde, il rsulte que
dans luvre de reconstruction des btiments publics et
privs dtruits par le
cyclone du 12 septembre
dernier le ciment arm
devra tre employ dans
toute la mesure du possible. The confusion in the
usage of the terms reinforced concrete and
reinforced cement may
actually suggest an ignorance of their precise
meaning.
122
In Les travaux publics de
la Guadeloupe, par G.
Robert, Ingnieur principal
des Travaux Publics des
Colonies, Chef du service
des Travaux Publics de la
Guadeloupe, Paris: Librairie militaire L. Four-

57

nier, 1935, pp. 244-247.

Cest pourquoi la maison
de bois, pourtant plus agrable habiter quon ne pourrait le croire premire vue,
a cependant fait son temps,
elle doit cder la place la
construction en bton et en
pierre plus durable, moins
coteuse entretenir, moins
dangereuse en cas de cyclone ou dincendie, plus
saine et en dfinitive de
mieux adapte tous les

Figure 30: Some buildings designed by architect Ali Tur: the hospital of Pointe--Pitre,
the square of Morne--lEau and the church of Sainte-Anne. Source: La Guadeloupe,
Librairie des Arts Dcoratifs, Paris, c.1935.
58

Aiming at an ease of construction and of acquisition, this

project was actually a type of habitations bon march (affordable
dwelling), that is a type of dwelling constructed for low-income
individuals, the ancestor of social housing.123 Engineer Roberts,
who presents the project in his book, carefully explains the different steps from building to renting the dwellings. Established by
the Civil Engineering Department, this type of housing was actually based on a model, from which larger types were designed. The
size, cost, material, technique of construction, inner equipment and
loans system were also set up. Ultimately, three types were proposed: type A (about 34m2) including one common room, one bedroom, one kitchen, one toilet and one shower room; type B (about
45m2) similar in its dimensions to type A, but with an extra bedroom, and type C (60m2) including two more bedrooms and dimensions slightly superior to those of type A.124 Unfortunately, no
drawings illustrate his descriptions. Besides, it is not certain
whether those models have ever been built because no document
was found on the subject.125
However, to return to Ali Tur, it becomes clear why Ali Turs
ideas received such quick approval: they were in direct line with
the conclusions of the Civil Engineering Department. Concrete
and standardization were also indeed significant elements of his
design work. If his preference for concrete cannot be doubted, for
all of his buildings are in concrete, the application of the standardized design is less visible even though it actually exists. Many of
his buildings were actually prototypes more and less adapted to
different 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 the
communes of Sainte-Rose, Sainte-Anne and Trois-Rivires,
they include: an operating room, a pharmacy, the doctors
office, two bedrooms with two beds, wc, a bathroom. On
both sides of the buildings, there are galleries. The floor
surface is around 90 m2. ()
Three post offices have been built: one in Trois-Rivires,
one in Bouillante, another in Marigot (Vieux-Habitants).
Those three buildings are almost identical, including a
ground and an upper floor. At the ground level, there is a
floor surface of 100 m2, and of 64 m2 for the upper floor. At
the ground level, we find: the public office, the office of the
Receptionist, the living room, the kitchen and the wc, and at
the upper floor there are three bedrooms.126

points de vue aux besoins de

notre temps.
123
An office of available
dwelling has been created
by the act of August 17th,
1931 [in Guadeloupe].
Source: Les travaux publics
de la Guadeloupe, op.cit., p.
271. Un office des habitations bon march a donc t
cr par arrt du 17 aot
1931.
124
Les travaux publics de la
Guadeloupe, op.cit., pp.
272-273.
125
Again, this would be an
interesting topic to analyze
and research further.
126
Robert, G. Les travaux
publics de la Guadeloupe,
op. cit., pp. 219 & 238.
Trois dispensaires peu
prs identiques ont t
identifis dans les communes de Sainte-Rose,
Sainte-Anne et TroisRivires, ils comportent:
une salle dopration, une
pharmacie, un cabinet de
mdecin, deux chambres
deux lits, des wc, une salle
de bain. Des galeries bordent les btiments sur deux
cots. La surface btie est
denviron 90m2. () Trois
bureaux des postes ont t
construits: un TroisRivires, un Bouillante, un
Marigot (commune de
Vieux-Habitants). Ces trois
bureaux peu prs identiques comportent un rez-dechausse et un tage. La
surface au rez-de-chausse
est de 100m2, la surface
ltage de 64m2. On y
trouve au rez-de-chausse:
le bureau public, le bureau
du Receveur, la salle
manger, la cuisine, la
douche et les wc, et ltage
trois chambres coucher.

59

Source: CAOM; bib,som,

d5196. La Guadeloupe du
tricentenaire, 1635-1935,
prsente par le Gouverneur L. J. Bouge, BasseTerre, 1935. A lheure
actuelle, la Guadeloupe si
souvent prouve, sest mise
courageusement loeuvre.
La vieille Colonie des Seigneurs des Isles dAmrique se modernise. Les
grands travaux entrepris
la suite du cyclone de 1928
lui ont donn un aspect
nouveau. Lamnagement du
port de Pointe--Pitre, la
rfection de la belle route
coloniale de Pointe--Pitre
Basse-Terre, linstallation
de la force et de la lumire
lectrique, la construction
ddifices publics et
dcoles que de nombreuses
communes franaises lui
envieraient, dmontrent une
sret de direction, une
comptence dans la ralisation des oeuvres et une
activit cratrice qui font de
la Guadeloupe une Colonie
digne de la sollicitude de la
France Depuis trois cents
ans, elle na jamais cess de
ltre.
128
Source: CAOM. Bulletin
Mensuel dInformations,
n18-19-20.
129
Source: CAOM. Bulletin
Mensuel dInformations,
n9-10.
130
Les travaux publics de la
Guadeloupe, op.cit.
127

60

Finally, the main question arises: what were the results of all of the
different kinds of support provided to the colony?
4.5 Assessment of the reconstruction of 1935
Today, the sorely tried Guadeloupe has courageously
started to work. The vieille colonie des Seigneurs des Isles
dAmrique is becoming modernized. The great works after
to the hurricane of 1928 have given it a new look. The
development of the port of Pointe--Pitre, the repair of the
beautiful colonial road from Pointe--Pitre to Basse-Terre,
the installation of power and electric light, the construction
of public buildings and schools, which many French
communes would envy, show a certainty of direction,
competency in the realization of the work and creative
activity, which are making Guadeloupe a colony worthy of
French devotion. For three hundred years, it has never
stopped being so.127
Despite this optimistic opinion, written by the Governor of
Guadeloupe in 1935, on the occasion of the tercentenary anniversary of the annexation of Guadeloupe to France (which, in many
ways, also represents an opportunity to discover the island in detail, through various reports, newspaper articles, pictures, and exhibitions made for the occasion), the assessment of the
reconstruction in 1935 is far from being so positive.
If it is possible to prove that the program concerning institutional buildings was carried out, the seven other priorities do
not seem to offer the same certainty. Rather, it seems that very little
was achieved in the seven years compared to what was planned. In
fact, if the Bulletin Mensuel dInformations (a monthly bulletin published by the French Overseas Agency on the colonies) confirms
the existence of a power plant and of an electrical network, as suggested by Governor Bouge, it also says this network is constituted
of only one high voltage cable and of six minor voltage cables128 covering a limited area: this is very little when considering Guadeloupes area. In the same way, as far as the hygiene and assistance
program is concerned, if in 1935 four hospitals were erected
(Pointe--Pitre, La Dsirade, Grand-Bourg and Saint-Martin), only
three health centres can be counted (in Sainte-Anne, Port-Louis and
Trois-Rivires) instead of the 30 planned, while the renovation of
the hospital in Saint-Claude was not completed.129
Furthermore, the contribution130 of G. Robert, the Principal
Engineer at the Civil Engineering Department of the Colonies and
Head of the same department in Guadeloupe, is crucial on this

matter because he methodically evaluates the results of the reconstruction program. In general, the critical tone of his comments and
the many sentences in the conditional tense (e.g. could influence the
aspect of the towns, could make the decayed buildings disappear, etc.)
emphasize the still-to-be-done works or incomplete works. For
example, when discussing the road works, he evokes how the
roads are classified and on whom their maintenance depends.131
Engineer Robert also notes how there is an inherent dilemma in
how to interpret the reality:
Thus the Guadeloupean road network, in spite of the great
works recently accomplished to renovate it, does not yet
essentially correspond to what seems to be on paper and a
large part of the byroads, as well as some sections of the
colonial roads, could be more precisely called trails.132
Similarly, elsewhere, Engineer Robert, in his analysis tries to convince the reader of the importance of establishing regular drainage. 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 rather
than contaminated water, the Colony cannot rely on an
immediate profit measurable in coins, unlike works on roads
or ports. It can only envisage a more remote, less tangible
interest. For example, increasing the productive capacities
of individuals and the amount of workers by improving
hygiene and general living conditions...
Concerning the drainage of Pointe--Pitre, the Colony
should act like an estate agent, as defined in Article 14 of the
Act 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, is
perhaps the most expressive document (Table 2). The reconstruction effort barely reaches half of the goals (45.9%) of all the programs: only 4 programs exceed 50 % and three developed less than
20% of their aims, one of them being the task of urban planning for
the communes.
Obviously, the reconstruction program clearly failed to fulfil
its aims. Despite this fact, two points are worth noting: first, the
failure of the reconstruction cannot be associated with a shortage of
funds, for there was quite continuous financial support coming
from France (Table 3); and second, although the building process
did not fully develop, its challenging and implementation of the

Colonial roads and

byroads are the two
categories established by
the Civil Engineering
Department. Rural paths,
though numerous, are left
out of this classification
because the Act of August
20th, 1881 was not
enforced in the colonies.
Source: idem, p.61.
However, concerning the
byroads, since the Act of
May 21st, 1836 has not
been enforced in the
colony, their maintenance
depends on the communes
where no one is doing
anything. Source: Ibid, pp.
95-96.
132
Ibid, p. 62. Aussi le
rseau guadeloupen,
malgr les grands travaux
effectus rcemment pour le
remettre en tat, ne correspond-il pas encore sur le
terrain, ce quil parat tre
sur le papier et une bonne
partie des chemins vicinaux, ainsi que certains
tronons de routes coloniales, pourraient tre plus
exactement dsigns sous le
nom de pistes.
133
Ibid., pp. 179-180 & 189.
En assainissant une ville,
en distribuant de leau
potable au lieu deau contamine, la Colonie ne peut en
effet escompter un profit
immdiat pouvant faire
lobjet dun dcompte en
deniers, pas comme les travaux de route ou de ports,
elle ne peut plus envisager
quun intrt plus lointain,
mois tangible, par exemple,
accrotre les capacits
productives des individus
et le nombre des travailleurs
par lamlioration des
conditions de lhygine et
de lhabitat en gnral. ()
Pour lassainissement de
Pointe--Pitre la Colonie
jouera en loccurrence un
rle de lotisseur tel quil est
dfini dans larticle 14 de la
loi du 19 juillet 1924, non
promulgue en Guadeloupe.
131

61

Dupr, K. Permanences
et ruptures des formes
urbaines des bourgs de
Guadeloupe: cas de Gosier
et de Trois-Rivires, de
1928 nos jours,
Mmoire de DEA, Bgot D.
(dir.), Universit des
Antilles et de la Guyane,
2002, p. 106.

134

Programmes

Realized works by 1940

Roads and paths

62 %

Port of Pointe--Pitre

100 %

Secondary Ports

35 %

Drainage

19 %

Hygiene and assistance

Administrative buildings

80 %
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.
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 dquipement 1946 Direction
politique, Sommes dpenses pour la mise en valeur de la Guadeloupe de 1919
1934 (extrait). Note 1: French money was constantly devaluated in the period of
study as indicated by this document, and it was impossible to state whether those
numbers were given in terms of a constant Franc. The numbers might only partially
reflect the actual given budget. Note 2: Note the vocabulary shift from Great Works
or reconstruction to revalorization.

use of new materials, and technologies insured a very long-lasting

impact on the design and building process in Guadeloupe.
Indeed, after several years, the use of concrete was no longer
restricted to public buildings, but had spread to include wealthy
families. This was because concrete embodied a certain image of
modernity and represented a certain social ascension, on top of its
comforting features.134 This way of thinking continued for the next
sixty years and was eventually extended to the entire population,
supported by the ease of finding and using concrete in comparison
to the rare, and therefore expensive, local building material
(wood) which requires carpentry skills. Besides, the introduction
62

of modern town planning in Guadeloupe during the same period

found one of its earlier implementations in the city of Pointe-Pitre in the Assainissement district.135
Nonetheless, the forms taken by the extension of the bourgs still
remain unexplored. If, thanks to the introductory historical context, some of the architectural and urban characteristics have been
evoked and shape the understanding of the basis on which the
bourg began its reconstruction, it is now time to focus more precisely on the contemporary period (1928-2003) via the specific case
studies of Gosier and Trois-Rivires.

At the north of the

existing city of Pointe-Pitre, the new district was
planned in 1931 as part of
the reconstruction programme (source: CAOM,
tp624); yet by 1952 only
one-third of the district
area was built. Source:
Giordani, J-P. La Guadeloupe face son patrimoine,
op.cit., p. 86.

135

63

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

Source: CAOM,bib, som,

c/br/6327. Guadeloupe,
1946-1971, 25 annes de
dpartementalisation. Il
nest pas possible dtre un
petit point tout seul sur la
terre, il faut faire partie
dun tout qui se constitue.
137
Source: Annuaire statistique de la Guadeloupe &
INSEE 2003.
138
Carpentier, J. & Lebrun,
F. (dir.) Histoire de France,
Seuil, 1987, p. 329.
139
Economically, Guadeloupe was bound to France
by the exclusive pact
restricting trade to the
exchanges between France
and Guadeloupe. Although
the free trade pact was
signed in 1860, reality
demonstrates that the
main lines of the exclusive
system were kept. Source:
Boutroy, J-M Le dveloppement des les du Nord,
Mmoire de DESS, Verdol
P. (dir), UAG, unpublished,
1995. For more, see e.g.
Sempaire, E. La situation
conomique des Antilles
de 1919 1945: le cas de la
Guadeloupe; Suvlor R.
(dir.), Historial antillais,
Fort-de-France, Dajani ,
s.d, tome V, 1981, pp. 75112. or Schnakenbourg, C.
La Compagnie Marseillaise de Sucrerie Coloniale.
Histoire de lusine Blanchet de 1860 1933"
op.cit., pp. 44-50.
140
Celma, C. Le mouvement ouvrier aux Antilles
de la Premire Guerre
mondiale 1939, in
Suvlor R. (dir.), Historial
antillais, Fort-de-France,
Dajani ,s.d, tome V, 1981,
pp. 169-243.
141
Creole saying which
refers to wartime Guadeloupe, directly inspired
136

64

5. MORPHOLOGICAL CONTEXT
It is not possible to be a tiny dot isolated on the earth; one
must 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 now
concentrated in the biggest agglomeration of the island (Pointe-Pitre/Les Abymes), with the remaining part in the smaller towns
(Fig. 31). Yet, from the ruins of the post-hurricane to the present
urban configuration, there is no doubt that the socio-economic context played its part in the general process of Guadeloupes urbanization.

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

The period 1928-1946 is symbolized by a succession of events that

greatly affected the island because they paralyzed its economy. As
previously seen, the hurricane of 1928 is one of these events, but in
a broader context the following years did not bring the stability
that could have supported the reconstruction: the crash of 1929,
with the collapse of the world economy, also had important repercussions on the French political climate138 and hence on the French
colonies. The succession of the different laws (e.g. 1923, 1934) establishing a quota system139 for the export of rum and sugar respec-

tively, also aggravated the social climate of the island, already

shaken up by strikes.140 By imposing a blockade, the Second World
War (an tan Sorin141 in Guadeloupe) created a shortage of goods and
materials that consequently ruined the islands economy.
Comparatively, the post-war period witnessed many social
changes, the most significant being the change in status, in 1946, to
that of a department from that of a colony.142Although the demand
for assimilation was not new,143 its practical implementation was
largely acclaimed by the political elite and the population, together reflecting the immense hope placed in the central government to improve the general situation of the island as well as the
development of its economy.
Through the access to political equality and the extension of
social services, starting from the founding of basic social security
(e.g. diverse versions of the system of health benefits in 1947, minimum wage in 1950) to the development of various infrastructures
(e.g. transport, schools); the island believed its society to be equal
to that of France.
However, even if the gross domestic product (GDP) continuously increased after 1946144 and although the dismantling of the
French colonial empire in the 1950s-1960s145 allowed the central
government to renew its interest in the Old Colonies,146 the particular status of the island emphasized by the successive constitutions of 1946 and 1958147 (being at the origin of many delays in the
real application of the laws), as well as the progressive deterioration of Guadeloupean exterior commerce (Table 4), reveal how far
economic development was from meeting expectations.

(%)

1938

1946

1956

1966

1977

1985

1995

2002

118

134

80

38

23

12

Table 4: The evolution of the importations coverage by exportations between 1938

and 2002. Source: CAOM bib, som,c/br/9319 & INSEE.

Sector of activity

1954

1967

1982

2001

36

18

II

15

15

28

13

III

12

67

68

84

Table 5: The evolution of employment by sector of activities in Guadeloupe from

1954 to 2001. Source: CAOM bib, som,c/br/9319 & INSEE 2003.
Note: The activities sector is determined according to the French categorization
established by the census national agency INSEE. I: agricultural activities, II:
industry, III: services.

from the name of the

governor in place, Sorin C.
(1940-43). For more on
this period, see the work
of Sempaire, E. La
dissidence en tan Sorin,
Fort de France : Ed. E.
Kolodziej, EDCA, 1984.
142
Assimilation law on
March 19, 1946, applicable to Guadeloupe,
Martinique, French
Guyana and La Runion.
143
Bills for the same
purpose were already
unsuccessfully introduced
in parliament, for example
in 1890 by Senator Jules
Isaac, in 1915 by RenBoisneuf. Source: Miles,
W. Fifty years of assimilation, in Islands at the
Crossroads, Rienner, 2001,
p. 48.
144
Daniel, J. The construction of dependency in
Islands at the Crossroads,
Rienner, 2001, p. 62.
145
For example, Indochina
in 1954, Morocco and
Tunisia in 1955, Mali (exSudan), Senegal and Mauritania in 1960, Algeria in
1962. Source: Ageron, C-R.
Histoire de la France coloniale, III, Le dclin, Paris:
Colin, 1991, pp. 273-283.
146
It is only after 1958
that a development policy
with subsequent means
started in the French
islands. Source: Giacottino J-C. Croissance
urbaine et dveloppement
aux Antilles in Espaces
Tropicaux, Talence,
CEGET-CNRS, n4, 1991,
p. 89. Une politique de
dveloppement avec des
moyens suffisants ntant
entreprise dans les les
franaises quaprs 1958 .
147
Articles 73 in 1946 and
74 in 1958. For more on
the subject, see for example, Michalon, T. Sur les
spcificits de lOutremer: enqute et proposition, in La France et les
Outre-mers, lenjeu
multiculturel, HermsCNRS, 2002, pp. 423-433.

65

Town Population

1961

1974

1982

1990

3,000

1999
5

3,001-10,000

18

18

18

16

14

10,001-20,000

10

Over 20,001 (over 50,000)

2(-)

2(1)

2 (1)

4 (1)

8 (1)

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

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

400

7,725

Communication services Count of phones

Water distribution

Count of inhabitants
reached

Electric network

Actually, an academic
centre was already opened
in 1970, and transformed
into a college, Universit
des Antilles et de la Guyane
in 1982. Source: Bouchet, H
& Richet, G. Rapport dvaluation de lUniversit des
Antilles et de la Guyane,
CNE, 1991, pp. 26-27.
149
Source: CAOM bib,
som,c/br/9319, 1974.
Nothing is left of the
wooden terminal and the
basic runway of the 1950s.
1, 600m long in 1950, the
runway reaches 3,105 m in
1961, thus facilitating the
landing of Boeing 707 and
Boeing 747 since November
1970. Plus rien ne subsiste de larogare en bois et
de la piste sommaire des
annes 50. De 1 600m en
1950, la piste a t porte
3 105m en 1961, ce qui a
permis laccueil des Boeing
707 et des Boeing 747
partir de novembre 1970.
148

66

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

Count of inhabitants
reached

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

Education

Count of classrooms

550

2,700

Sport

Count of stadium

25

Social

Social centers

12

Hospital

Amount of beds

1,000

4,145

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 la
Guadeloupe, op.cit., 2466 in 2000. Note: This document is to be reconsidered, for in
1974, according to INSEE, only 32% of the population was connected to a watersystem: can we believe that in 3 years the network totally crashed?

The creation of a policy aiming at the development of a tertiary

economy and at the development of an urban society truly bore
results, for in less than 30 years the island drastically changed its
economic orientation (Table 5) as well as its territorial configuration (Table 6).
The modernization of the transportation system (ports, e.g.
Jarry, and the road network), the policy of urban development (initially symbolized by the renovation of Pointe--Pitre), the development of public services (e.g. the opening of the Fouillole campus
in Pointe--Pitre in 1976),148 that of high level private services and
of tourism (e.g. first charter of tourists),149 must be acknowledged
(Table 7). Even the decentralization process (starting 1982), initiated under Mitterrands presidency, is significant at least symbolically - because it aimed at providing more power to local
authorities.

The population of the Pointe--Pitre/

1954

1967

1982

1999

72,060

109,117

130,294

166,713

Abymes/ Gosier/ Baie-Mahault/ Lamentin/

Petit-Bourg agglomeration

Table 8: The evolution of the Pointe--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 gathers
almost 40% of the whole population of Guadeloupe in 1999)

Yet the closure of almost all the sugar factories in the same time
span (1950s-1980s),150 and the situation of a housing market insufficient to meet the housing demand, even more so after natural catastrophes (e.g. hurricanes of 1956, 1964 and 1966), reflect the
profound malaise of a territory whose economic growth mainly
relies on heavy national subsidization and whose urbanization is
strongly bound to the proliferation of poor-quality housing districts.151 The following decade (1990s) merely confirmed the decline of the rural world and the growth of the urban population
(Table 6). But a closer look at the location of this urban population
may show variations over time.
Previous years (1970s-1980s) were symbolized by the attraction
to the city (e.g. Pointe--Pitre) and its closest neighbourhood,
whereas the more recent period alternatively displays an urban
settlement highly concentrated in the neighbourhood towns to the
detriment of the cities, which are actually declining in population. 152
Furthermore, the different functions inherent to this type of
urbanization (e.g. the bedroom community or escape-towns, villedortoir, ville-chappatoire) and to the new economic activities,
boosted by a tradition of local tax incentives,153 have generated
the creation of various morphologies in the territory and even
within the towns, not necessarily gathered in a homogeneous
whole (Table 8) or offering an equal standard of living. The hurricane of 1989 sadly represented one occasion to reveal this disparity
to mainland France.
Finally, today, there is no doubt that the island has clearly left
its economy of production in favour of one of consumption; yet the
high rate of unemployment,154 the frequency of strikes and the
continuing housing problem, among others, offset the verdict of a
wealthy island with a successful urbanization process. This brief
overview of Guadeloupes history thus not only reveals an economic transformation, but also a spatial one, strengthened by the
constant increase of the population.

150
For example, 1950: La
Retraite, 1968: Marquisat
in Capesterre, 1978: Blanchet in Morne--lEau,
1980 : Darboussier in
Pointe--Pitre. Source:
Bgot D. Le sucre antillais
et sa patrimonialisation,
in Hocquet J.-C (dir.), Le
Sucre, de lAntiquit son
destin antillais, Actes du
123 congrs national des
socits historiques et
scientifiques, Paris, CTHS,
2000, p. 390, excerpt from
table.
151
For more precision on
the subject, see for example,
Giacottino, J-C. Croissance urbaine et dveloppement aux Antilles, op.cit.,
pp. 81-101.
152
Between 1990 and 1999,
the city of Pointe--Pitre
lost 20% of its population
and that of Basse-Terre,
11%. Source: INSEE.
153
For example, the law of
1955 changing the status of
the shoreline into a private
one instead of a public one
and thus allowing the constructions in this zone; the
Pons law (1986) reducing
taxes to favor overseas
investment
154
25.1% of the active
population of Guadeloupe
was unemployed in 2001.
Source: INSEE.

67

Despite the long

tradition of such a
practice: already in 1732
cadastral maps were
issued by the Engineers of
the King, reproducing the
land division of the island.

155

The next aim of this study is to look closely at the urbanization of

two case studies, and to establish more precisely, within the general context, the forms taken by the process of extension.
Besides, since the assumption of interrelations between space
and social components is adopted in this study, the question arises
as to whether it is possible to read social events from the urban
fabric.
Because of the late introduction of communal land-use plans in
Guadeloupe (not before the 1970s), and especially, due to their
discontinuous production concerning the case studies, as well as
the difficulty to find contemporary cadastral maps (precisely on
the 1928-1986 period),155 such documents, few in number, cannot be
used chronologically in comparison with one another. They have
thus intentionally been omitted in this part of the analysis. The
materials used to conduct the morphological analysis are the following:
-the maps of the French mapping agency (IGN) that present
the advantage of a synthetic view of the forms and of the
street 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 starts
after 1955, almost 30 years of the chosen time span remain
uncovered).
-the municipal archives of each town that provide further
information about the commune, specifically through its
municipal minutes.
-the available historical research on the communes.
-interviews with the inhabitants.
Because of the errors found in documents while researching, corrections 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 minor
changes have been made for the most obvious mistakes. In addition, conjectural plans have been drawn to facilitate the readability
of the study, despite the degree of unreliability they contain.

68

Figure 32. Gosier. Source: IGN 2001.

69

6. MORPHOLOGICAL CASE STUDIES

6.1 Gosier
Then we arrive at Gosier. The village has been razed and
the inhabitants camp under disjointed wooden boards.
(10.18.1928)156
Source: CAOM, fm, sg,
gua240/1464. Report from
the French Ambassador to
the US, Paul Claudel, on
October 18, 1928. Puis
nous arrivons au Gosier. Le
village a t ras et les habitants campent sous quelques
planches disjointes.
Rapport de lambassadeur
de France aux USA
Claudel, 18 octobre 1928.
157
As underlined by
Adlade-Merlande, J. in
Histoire des communes
(tome I, pp. 5-9: Historique de linstitution
municipale des origins la
fin du XIX sicle, Guadeloupe-Martinique), the
district is the administrative circonsconscription
during the 17th and 18th
in Guadeloupe and Martinique. The limits of the
district are almost fitting
those of the parish, the
religious circonscription.
After 1790, with the French
Revolution municipalities
(les communes) emerge, but
starting 1802 the parish
word comes back in Guadeloupe to qualify the
district. It is only in 1837
that Guadeloupe and
Martinique are definitively divided into towns.
158
In Atlas des Dpartements Franais dOutre
Mer, III, Guadeloupe,
CEGET-CNRS-IGN,
Talence-Bordeaux, 1982.
159
485 inhabitants in 1699
and 4,644 inhabitants in
1797 (5% of the
Guadeloupean population)
of which 48 lived in the
bourg. Source: Histoire des
Communes, op.cit., Vol. 3,
pp. 43 & 47.
160
Histoire des Communes,
op.cit., Vol. 3, p. 48.
161
Histoire des Communes,
156

70

It is at the end of the 17th century that the first vestiges of the parish
of Gosier157 may be found, on a site benefiting from relatively
good 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 Fort
Louis in 1695 and that of Fort Fleur dEpe between 1759 and 1763,
it seems few interests existed in developing the village itself,
which was scarcely inhabited, reflecting the small population
present in the parish as a whole.159 At that time, it suffered from the
continuous French-British rivalry: it was largely destroyed during
the battles of 1794.
The 19th century greatly favoured the extension of Gosier,
transforming the parish into a commune by the 1837 Act,160 for the
constant increase in population and the period of relative peace
ensured its growth. The second and final emancipation in 1848 perpetuated what had begun with the French Revolution and been
stopped by the reign of Napoleon (who reintroduced slavery in
1802, after it had already been abolished once in 1794): namely, the
dismantling of homesteads into smaller-sized ownerships. The
bourg itself is a good example of this process because its territory
remained in the hands of the same family (the Boyvins) from the
end of the 17th to the end of the 18th century (Fig. 33), after which
the selling out to various owners started.161 Furthermore, the research conducted by G. L. Lawson-Body162 on land transactions between 1834 and 1910, including Gosier, which ascertained the
growth of transactions in the commune after 1848 (Table 9), confirms this land-division phenomenon.
TIME SPAN

GOSIER

1834-1848

1849-1874

35

1875-1900

32

1901-1910

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.

Figure 33. The cadastral map of Gosier in 1732 (detail). Source: Arch. Dp, Gua.
op.cit., Vol. 3, p. 44.
162
Lawson-Body (2000)
Ltablissement de la
paysannerie en
Guadeloupe : le cas de
lespace vivrier des
Grands Fonds , in Burac
M. (dir.) La question de la
terre dans les colonies et
dpartements franais
dAmrique 1848-1998,
Karthala & GodeCarabe,
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 very
small importance, representing only 2.75% of the Guadelou-pean
population with its 4,611 inhabitants in 1895.163 They were mostly
involved with fishing activities.164
Concerning the form of its bourg, while one anonymous person
describes it as barely sixty houses (see footnote 80), maps
vaguely show a ribbon development along the secondary colonial
road (Fig. 34), which seems to have evolved little until 1928. A
witness (born in 1912 and living in Gosier) says:
In 1928, there was only one road, with nothing but the
woods around it. All the streets of today which go down [to
the sea], did not exist. () There were small single-floor
wooden houses, not joined, with wooden slats () The
plateau Saint-Germain, Mangot, behind the city-hall, there
71

165
Note: Plateau SaintGermain, Mangot and
lEnclos are given names
for different sub-districts
in the bourg. En 1928, il
ny avait quune seule route,
le reste ctait un bois.
Toutes les rues daujourdhui qui descendent nexistaient pas.() Ctait des
petites maisons en bois sans
tage, mais pas colles, en
essente () Le plateau
Saint-Germain, Mangot,
derrire la mairie, ctaient
rien que des bois sauf
quelques sentiers pour la
mer. Sur le boulevard, il y
avait dj la maison de
lorthophoniste. A lEnclos,
il ny avait rien sauf une
maison, celle de la famille
Gillot.
166
8,624 inhabitants in
1931. Source: Arch. Dp.
Guadeloupe. Census on
July 1st, 1931.
167
The celebration of the
tercentenary anniversary
of the attachment of
Guadeloupe to France.
168
Letter sent on August
6th, 1932. Source: CAOM;
fm,sg,gua249/1506.
169
Source: Arch. Dp.
Guadeloupe, srie continue
6265, 2025. Minutes of the
municipal council on April
21st, 1931: () for the
construction of the
presbytery of the city hall,
etc2,500 barrels of
cement, 30 tons of re-bar,
50m3 of wood for forms, 5
toilets, 6 wash-basins,
2,000kg of Corpenol, 1,000
m3 of Coritect, 100 metal
sheets. Matriel et
matriaux commands par la
Commune au titre des
prestations allemandes ()
pouvant servir dans la
construction du presbytre,
de la Mairie, etc2500
barils de ciments, 30 tonnes
de fer pour armature, 50m3
de bois de coffrage, 5 wc
siges la Turque, 6 lavabos
complets, 2000 kg de
Corpenol, 1000 m3 de
Coritect, 100 feuilles de
tles ondules.
170
Source: Arch. Dp. Guadeloupe, srie continue
6265. Minutes of the municipal council on January
28, 1930. Note: So far, no

72

Figure 35: Gosier after the hurricane of 1928. Source: Album of Gosier-1935. Arch.
Dp. Gua. n1856. 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 of
the houses fell down, except that of Doctor Hlne. My mother lived in front of the
grocery shop. When our house started to fall, my mother said we had to go to take
refuge at doctor Hlnes house. I went outside and I dont know what happened but
the wind carried me up to the cliff, over there. I went all alone to the Doctor Hlne. In
the house was a woman who delivered in the midst of everyone. The evening, we
stayed in Doctor Hlnes house. All of lHouezel [name of a district] was in that
house. We were so many that we had to stand. What I remember is that there was
one person who had hurt in his arm, and it would not stop bleeding. He died. And a
woman, who came to take refuge in our home, and who was carrying in her basket
what she was selling, she also died. In the bourg, they all took refuge in the church.

was nothing but woods, except for some footpaths leading

to the sea. On the boulevard, there was already the house of
the speech therapist.
In lEnclos, there was nothing, except one house, that of
the Gillot family.165
The hurricane of 1928 hit the bourg strongly; yet if the damages
were important (Fig. 35), so, too, were its consequences to a commune characterized by chronic poverty: reconstruction is a long
process that does not always reach its goal. On the other hand, the
dynamism generated by the increase of the population (almost
doubled in less than 40 years),166 mainly concerned with focused
farming activities (Table 10), and the forthcoming celebration of
1935167 seemed to offer more optimistic prospects.
Extraordinary measures were quickly taken by the government to help the island and its communes to recover from the
damages. Gosier did not, however, benefit much from them because the commune was literally ruined and thus could not afford
them. The modesty of the loan taken out by the commune for its

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

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 in
Gosier, on January 1st, 1935. Source: Robert, G. Les Travaux Publics de la
Guadeloupe, op. cit., pp. 34-35, 224-225.

reconstruction (FF 400,000), granted in proportion to the communal budget,168 and the list of materials ordered from Germany,169 as
well as the date of the claim (as late as 1931) all emphasize this fact.
Similarly, the municipal councils cautious answer to architect
Ali Turs request to work for the commune reflects this fact as well:
Moreover, the mayor presents to the council Mr. A. Turs
letter of January 25th, 1930 pertaining to the establishment
of the pre-project concerning the communal reconstruction,
mentioned at the meeting held on July 1st, 1929 ()
considering that the Communes budgetary resources are
too 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 central
administration.170
Furthermore, the communes unsuccessful attempt, four years after the hurricane, to make the State reconsider the financial organization of loans, calling for generous assistance () and the diminution
() of the financial obligations tied to the loan granted by the Crdit
Foncier de France and to the German services171 again emphasizes the
continuing paucity of its budget.
Nevertheless, even with a limited budget, the necessary recon-

contract or building in
Gosier proves such support. Thus, it can be
assumed that Ali Tur
never worked for the
commune of Gosier. En
outre M. le Maire communique lAssemble la lettre
en date du 25 janvier 1930
de M. A. Tur au sujet de
ltablissement de lavantprojet concernant les travaux communaux dont il fut
question dans sa sance du
1er juillet 1929. () considrant que les ressources
budgtaires de la Commune
sont trop pauvres et ne la
permettent pas dentreprendre des dpenses ()
met lavis que la municipalit, avant de sengager
envers M. Tur, soit dabord
assure de lappui de
lAdministration.
171
Source: CAOM, fm, sg,
gua249/1505. Minutes of
the municipal council meeting, on August 6th, 1932.
The dry answer to that demand was attached: negative, for everything is
defined by law and cannot be
changed just for Gosier.
Note: The author did not
find any other communes
of Guadeloupe that formulated such a claim. une
aide gnreuse () la diminution () des obligations
contractes par elle au titre
des emprunts au Crdit
Foncier de France et des
prestations allemandes.

73

50 pas gomtriques
stands for a 81.2m wide
strip along the shore of
Guadeloupe and Martinique, originally owned by
the Kingdom of France
and then by the State.
173
M. le Maire expose au
Conseil que dans le plan de
reconstruction de la Commune, il est prvu la cration si longtemps projete
de deux nouvelles rues dans
le bourg, parallles la Rue
principale avec les deux
autres crer dont les tracs
seraient les suivants:
1- Au Sud, une rue de 8 m
de largeur la limite de la
zone des 50 pas gomtriques avec celle des propritaires riverains ()
2- Au Nord, une rue dgale
largeur traverserait des
parcelles de terrain de
propritaires qui consentiraient des cessions gratuites
ou contre des faibles indemnits la Commune ()
Source: Arch. Dp. Guadeloupe, srie continue 6265,
dlibration n1785. The
proposition has been
accepted the same day for
the following reasons By
embellishing the bourg, (the
creation of those streets)
will solve the sanitary
situation and will develop
the interest of the whole
community, by facilitating
the constructions of all
kinds, which will provide
more vitality in the bourg
and therefore will contribute to the prosperity of the
Commune. Source: idem.
Tout en embellissant le
bourg, y remdiera la situation sanitaire et dveloppera
les intrts de toute la
collectivit, en facilitant les
constructions de toutes
sortes, ce qui mettra un peu
de vitalit dans le bourg et
partant contribuera la
prosprit de la Commune.
174
Source: Arch. Dp.
Guadeloupe, srie continue
6265, Gosier 2065.
Minutes of the municipal
council on 7.11.1931. Le
Maire expose que le chemin
dit bord de mer ou
embarcadre en bas du
bourg, conduisant la plage
si frquente des touristes,
172

74

Figure 36: The map of Gosier c.1935. Source: Album of Gosier - 1935. Arch. Dp.
Gua. n1856.

struction provided the opportunity for Gosier to consolidate some

morphological features of the bourg (e.g. the central axis) and to
restructure others (e.g. public building position, street system).
More precisely, concerning the street layout, there was an attempt to further develop the single main street into a wider system
while keeping the main direction parallel to the coastal line. A
proposal was made and accepted by the municipal council, less
than one year after the hurricane on July 31st, 1929:
The mayor presents to the council that, as part of the
reconstruction plan of the Commune, the creation of two
new 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 of
the 50 geometric steps 172 zone with that of the
neighbourhood owners ()
2 - in the North, one street of equal width would cross
the parcels of the owners who would accept free cessions or
small indemnities to the Commune.173
Two years later, if it is not still evident whether those new streets
have been built (for they do not appear on maps before 1956, and
remain strangely absent from the map of 1935, Fig. 36), the lasting
desire to improve the street system is apparent from the municipal
minutes. The records call to proper maintenance of the existing
street:

The mayor puts forward that the path called the sea side
or wharf down the bourg, leading to the beach, which is
so frequented by tourists, strollers, and where the sea bathing
is excellent and pleasant, needs urgent repairs.174
Concerning the buildings themselves, little information is available about the reconstruction of the domestic architecture, although the public buildings are further documented, for the
commune was directly or indirectly in charge of them.175
In general, the post-1928 period appears to have favoured a
reorganization of the public buildings in terms of position and
methods of reconstruction. New plans were made for the city hall,
the presbytery, the schools and the funeral home, while the partially destroyed church was renovated according to its original
form.
But again, one could be surprised at the dates of this programmes implementation: at least from 1928 to 1932 for the
schools, 1929-1931 for the presbytery,176 at least from March 1931 to
November 1932 for the city hall.177
If it is not possible to state precisely whether the funeral home
and all the schools were rebuilt on the same site, what is certain is
the change of the position of the city hall and the presbytery. Taking the lot that was until then occupied by the presbytery, the new
city hall was erected in a more central position than it previously
had in the bourg. The box-shape cement two-floor volume, the flat
roof, the exterior monotint, the simplicity of the faades, slightly
ornamented with round openings and a balcony, obviously reflect
the bias towards architectural modernity,178 which can be seen on
the island at the time through the works of Ali Tur (Fig. 37).
In contrast, the presbytery rebuilt near the church presented
more of the aspects of a traditional building (Fig. 38). On a cement slab, the wooden symmetrical single-floor rectangular main
volume was ornamented with an inner gallery, decorated with
wooden arches and balustrades, while covered with a double gently sloped hipped roof using metal sheets.
The same traditional characteristics could be noted of the building functioning as the police station, which was even less elaborated and was most likely rented as a temporarily option (Fig. 39).
After the hurricane, in answer to the demand of the Mayor of
Gosier concerning police services, the Government replied:
In response to your letter n256 of November 2nd
concerning your Communes police-station, I have the
honour of informing you that all necessary arrangements
will be made to install a brigade of Gendarmes in the bourg

des promeneurs ; o le bain

de mer est excellent et
agrable, demande des
rparations urgentes.
175
For example, the laws of
1833, 1837, and 1884
gradually instituted the
obligation of the commune
to have separated public
schools and city hall, and
to maintain them. Source:
Agulhon, M. La mairie,
op.cit, p. 180.
176
The still existing commemorative plaque states
the inauguration of the
presbytery on the 14th of
July 1931, while an excerpt
from the Official Journal of
Guadeloupe clarifies the
starting date of the construction, voted on July
31st, 1929 : On Saturday
January 24th, 1931 ()
proceeding of the following
act (): construction of a
presbytery with dependencies. Work expenses: FF
115,000 () Source: Arch.
Dp. Gua., Journal Officiel
Guadeloupe n3, 1.15.
1931. Il sera procd le
Samedi 24 janvier 1931 ()
ladjudication () de
lentreprise suivante: construction dun presbytre
avec dpendances. Montant
des travaux: 115 000 f,
caution provisoire
177
Signs of the project
found in the minutes of the
municipal council, on
December 3rd, 1931: The
municipal council () gives
its agreement for the following projects (), the project
of construction of a city hall
in reinforced cement,
according to the plans
estimations on October 3,
1931, evaluated at FF 304,
500 not including the three
tall iron gates. Sources:
Arch. Dp. Guadeloupe,
srie continue 6265, 2065
(Note: The minutes for
October 4th, 1931 were not
found). The minutes for
December 11th, 1932 state:
urgency of this command
for the forthcoming
inauguration of the city
hall. Source: idem.
178
Acknowledged by the
town [the city hall] is in
reinforced concrete and of
modern architecture.

75

Source: Arch. Dp. Guadeloupe n1856. Album of

Gosier 1935.
179
Source: Arch. Dp. Gua.
Srie continue 6265. Lettre
on November 28, 1931
En rponse votre lettre
n256 au 2 novembre courant relative au service de la
police municipale de votre
Commune, jai lhonneur de
vous faire connatre, que
toutes les dispositions utiles
seront prises en vue de
linstallation dune brigade
de Gendarmerie au Bourg
du Gosier, sous rserve que
la Commune mette la
disposition au service de la
Gendarmerie un local
susceptible de servir de
caserne provisoire.
180
Specifications approved
for the renovation of the
buildings of the Prison
From the Governor to the
Mayor of Gosier, on October 27th, 1930. Source:
Arch. Dp. Gua. Srie continue 6265, bordereau n
2974. Cahier des charges
approuv relatif la mise en
tat des btiments de la
Prison.
181
Source: Arch. Dp. Gua,
srie continue 6265, 102.
Minutes of communal
council on 11.13.1928:
But, for the moment, it is
urgent to plan the construction of basic buildings to
temporarily house the
schools to satisfy the pupils
who can attend class () the
municipal council votes the
creation of the following
schools: 1. in the bourg one
school with 4 classrooms for
boys and girls, following a
half day schedule ()
Mais, en attendant, il est
urgent de prvoir la construction de baraque-ments
pour linstallation provisoire des coles afin de
donner satisfaction aux
lves qui pourront les
frquenter () le conseil
municipal vote la cration
des coles suivantes : 1- au
bourg une cole comprenant
4 classes destines aux
filles et garons, et fonctionnant la demi-journe ()
182
Source: CAOM; fm ,sg,
gua249/1506. Minutes of
municipal council on June

76

Figure 37:
Dp. Gua.
Figure 38:
Dp. Gua.
Figure 39:
Dp. Gua.

The city hall of Gosier, c.1935. Source: Album of Gosier - 1935. Arch.
n1856.
The presbytery of Gosier, c.1935. Source: Album of Gosier - 1935. Arch.
n1856.
The police station of Gosier, c.1935. Source: Album of Gosier - 1935. Arch.
n1856.

of Gosier, with the condition that the Commune provides a

building to the Gendarmerie for use as temporary
barracks.179
The building was a small wooden single-floor house, covered with
wooden shingles (essentes) on the exterior facades and with metal
sheets on its hipped roof (Fig. 38), strongly reminiscent of the type
of dwellings found in the bourgs of Baillif or Bouillante (Figs. 16
&17).
Unfortunately, even if the municipal minutes evoke the
prison,180 it was impossible to find traces of the precise site of this
building.
Regarding the schools, it seems their reconstruction had priority, for only two months after the hurricane, the decision was made
to rebuild them.181 Nonetheless, it took quite some time to rebuild
the previous number of classrooms, because in its 1932 call for
generosity 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, reconstruction
does not necessarily mean building anew; rather it provides the
opportunity, in a first phase, to use existing buildings via land
transactions.
- I, the undersigned Gaston Billy, commit to sell to the
commune of Gosier a land property which I own, situated
in the bourg of Gosier. Consisting of a wooden single-floor
house, covered with metal sheets, with galleries and
dependencies damaged by the hurricane of September 12th,
1928. Located along the Main Street, Colonial Road, with a
lot of 28.809m x 122.209m, with the short sides facing the
road on one end and the sea on the other.
- The municipal council votes to buy Billys land property,
considering that, according to the Mayors explanation, this
property is very useful for the commune and can be used as
a lodgings for the schoolteacher as well as for the
construction of basic buildings projected by the Assembly
to 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 in
reinforced concrete in the bourg is voted on March 12th, 1931,184 although the execution of the work appears to have been problematic: on December 11th, 1932 the new school was still not built.185
Finally, the celebration of 1935 allowed a certain assessment of
the reconstruction efforts in Gosier. Even if the different maps

8, 1932.
183
Source: Arch. Dp. Gua,
srie continue 6265.Minutes of municipal council
on March 27, 1929.
- Je soussign, Gaston
Billy, mengage vendre
la commune du Gosier, une
proprit que je possde au
Bourg du Gosier. Consistant
en une maison basse, construite en bois, couverte en
tle avec galeries et dpendances- endommages par le
cyclone du 12 septembre
1928. Situe le long de la
Grand Rue- Route Coloniale,
avec un terrain de 28m809
de faade sur la route,
compris la maison et
122m209 de profondeur,
finissant la mer.
-Le conseil municipal vote
lacquisition de limmeuble
Billy, considrant que cet
immeuble, suivant les
explications du Maire, est
dune grande utilit pour la
Commune et pourra servir
de logement de matre ; la
construction du baraquement prvu par lAssemble
pour linstallation dune
cole quatre classes.
184
Source: Arch. Dp. Gua,
srie continue 6265.
Minutes of the municipal
council on March 12th,
1931.
185
Proposition of the opening of a seventh classroom
() while waiting for the
construction of the Girls
School. Source: Arch. Dp.
Gua, srie continue 6265.
Minutes of the municipal
council. Proposition dune
septime classe () en
attendant la construction de
lEcole des Filles. Note: It
is not clear for this new
building whether it was
planned on the same lot as
the school which existed
prior to the hurricane. No
documents were found to
confirm or deny this.

77

186
In Robert, Les travaux
publics de la Guadeloupe,
op. cit.
187
While the length of the
official driveable roads is
only 15 km on the map!
Source: Idem, p. 64.
188
Robert, G. Les travaux
publics de la Guadeloupe,
op. cit., p. 36.
189
Even detailing: in the
bourg, one boys school with
5 classrooms and 249
pupils, and one girls school
with 4 classrooms and 234
pupils. Source: Idem, p.
280. [on compte] dans le
bourg, une cole des garons
avec 5 classes et 249 lves,
et une cole de filles de 4
classes pour 234 lves.
190
Gosier: construction of a
hotel. The groundwork on
the lot granted to Chamber
of Commerce of Pointe-Pitre for the development of
the beach and the construction of a bar-restaurant, will
start soon. Obviously, the
work will be done quickly,
the Chamber of Commerce
having taken out a loan of FF
350,000 for it. Source:
Arch. Dp. Gua. Le Nouvelliste de la Guadeloupe, 26
avril 1933. A travers la
Guadeloupe, Gosier: Construction dun htel. Les
travaux de dfrichage du
terrain concd la
Chambre du commerce de
Pointe--Pitre pour lamnagement de la plage et la
construction dun restaurant-bar, vont commencer
sous peu. Tout laisse
penser que ces travaux
seffectueront rapidement,
la Chambre du Commerce
disposant dun crdit de
350 000 f cet effet.
191
Thus far, only hotels or
inns in Basse-Terre, Pointe-Pitre, Gourbeyre, SaintClaude, Trois-Rivires and
Dol-les-Bains were listed,
proving how Guadeloupe
had few hotels to accommodate its tourists. Source:
CAOM, fm, agefom100/4.
To know more about the
tourist infrastructures in
the 1930s, see for example
Bgot, D. Les Antilles et le
Guide des colonies franaises de 1931, in Abenon
L.-Fjic N., La Carabe et son

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.
Dp. Gua. n1856.

made for the occasion do not show anything other than the colonial road and some vague symbol for buildings around it at the site
of the bourg (Figs. 36 & 40), nothing is really different from the 1902
map (see Fig. 34). The details provided by engineer Robert are
worth noting in this regard.186
First of all, by acknowledging that the existing lane system
does not appear at all on the map (44km of it in Gosier),187 Robert
supports the idea of the existence of a more extended street system.
Besides, by warning of the gap between what is drawn on paper
and the actual state of the roads (see footnote 131), he highlights
how reality might not always coincide with strict data. Admittedly, the Main Street of Gosier is in quite a poor state circa 1935,
only covered with white stones (tuff), lacking any kind of urban
vocabulary such as proper surfacing, sidewalks, lampposts, etc.
(Fig. 41).

Figure 42: Map of the population density by the engineer

Robert in 1935 (detail, Gosier). Source: Robert, G. Les
Travaux publics de la Guadeloupe, op.cit.

With regard to the built space, although

houses are not documented in terms of material, shape, etc., a number of built properties
are given (1,601) in relation to their value (FF
5,194,610). This is a precious fact for it gives an
idea of the position of Gosier, as a commune, in
comparison to the 33 other communes of
Guade-loupe: Gosier holds the 13th rank in the
amount of built properties, while their financial value positions it in the 26th position.188
This again confirms the poverty of the commune. Furthermore, Robert introduces the first
notions of population density and surprisingly
shows at the same time how, on Grande-Terre,
Gosier is one of the most densely populated
communes, along with that of Le Moule (Fig.
42).
Finally, Robert confirms the reconstruction
of the presbytery, the city hall and the girls
school;189 and puts into evidence the presence of a new hotel-restaurant in Gosier (symbol R in Fig. 40).
Although not belonging to the commune, for the hotel-restaurant was commissioned by the Chamber of Commerce of Pointe-Pitre,190 this new type of building still represents, by its strategic
position in the bourg, one of the first signs of the awareness of the
prospect of tourists in the commune of Gosier.191
Situated on the shoreline, on top of a little hill, the new building, known as Chez Mario or La Pergola, was resolutely characterized
by a modern architectural style, using a multitude of the international movements vocabulary: a slight boat shape, some round
windows, big openings, white concrete material, and terrace-roof
(Fig.43).192 Furthermore, its location in the communal landscape as
well as its morphological features, contrasting with the bourg in its
background (Fig.44), forecast the future of the small town: a twosided development, relying on a growing interest in tourist activities and yet not reaching the same level of accomplishment for
the bourg.
However, it is not until the beginning of the 1970s that such a
development was acknowledged in the maps because the first IGN
maps of the 1950s still reflect a moderate extension of the bourg
(Fig.45, map of 1956).

histoire, ses contacts avec le

monde extrieur, Martinique, Ibis rouge ditions,
2001, pp. 145-148.
192
Unfortunately, it has not
been possible to define precisely who has designed
this hotel: pictures of it are
associated with the article
on Ali Tur and his work in
the magazine LArchitecture dAujourdhui (1936),
but there is no mention of it
in the text written by the
architect nor in other documents evaluating his work.
Additionally, the present
owners, civil servants and
the Chamber of Commerce
have no idea about the
designers identity.

79

Figure 43: View on the new club restaurant in the bourg of Gosier. Source:
LArchitecture dAujourdhui, Mars 1936. CAOM, bib, som, d/br/7233.
Figure 44: Seaside resort hotel in Gosier, c.1936. Source: Muse Saint-John-Perse.

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)

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

Gosier

1961

1990

Primary sector

51

1999
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.

It is easy to recognize
the two new streets north
and south of the main
street, although the
northern street remains
non-classified.
194
Source: Lasserre, G. La
Guadeloupe, op.cit., p. 548.
193

80

Even though the building densities of the ribbon development

may certainly have increased in 20 years, the overall ground density remains quite modest, displaying a continuity of row of
houses along the main street without backyard filling; and therefore reflecting not only the economic recession of the war and postwar periods, but also the dramatic slump in the populations
growth (Table 11).
Similarly, if the early pattern of the bourgs differentiation into
three morphological areas (coastal, central and inland) emerged
via the implementation of the streets planned by the municipal
council in the 1930s,193 the street system remained simple: two
main streets parallel to the shoreline with few perpendicular intersections (Fig. 46). The street system most likely fulfilled the needs
of a population still mainly employed in the primary sector (Table
12) and mainly living in the other sections of the commune: only
1,304 inhabitants lived in the bourg in 1954.194
Furthermore, the absence of grands projets (great projects) or

Figure 45: The evolution of the building density in Gosier, 1956-2001. Source: Based
on a site survey and IGN maps of 1956, 1969, 1985 and 2001. (KD)
81

Figure 46: The street system of Gosier in 1956, from the electrification plan of May
27th 1955. Source: Arch. Dp. Gua, sc 2256.

Source: Arch. Dp.Gua,

srie continue 2226, PV du
19 mars 1955. M. le
Maire explique que pour
lagrandissement et
lembellissement du Bourg
de la commune du Gosier, la
concession provisoire dun
terrain de la contenance de 5
ha 75a 17cm situ dans la
zone des 50 pas gomtriques dans les limites du
dit Bourg a t accorde
cette Commune par arrt
gubermatrial du 17 janvier
1942. () Plusieurs maisons dhabitation en dur,
ciment arm, sont bties
dans la dite concession. ().
Toute la zone serait dj
btie sil ny avait pas
remplir les formalits
rglementaires pour
lexcution dun plan de
lotissement, le service
dpartemental de lUrbanisme et de lHabitation ne
donne plus davis favorable
pour dlivrer des permis de
construire sur cette zone des
50 pas gomtriques sans la
ralisation du lotissement.

195

82

even smaller projects within this period (1935-1955), for example,

renovating public buildings or creating new ones, clearly enhances the morphological features developed in the immediate
post-1928 period. At the same time, this shows the small impact of
the assimilation law on the bourgs urban development.
Yet, as already indicated, the IGN maps do not show everything. 1955 really was a significant year in terms of urban planning
for the bourg of Gosier: it was the beginning of the urbanization of
the 50 pas gometriques, as well as the further development of the
street system in this zone, both directly inspired by the 1955 Act
that transformed the public status of the 50 pas gomtriques into a
private one.
Nevertheless, it seems that already in the 1940s the advantages
of exploiting this area had been perceived by the town, for it was
within its limits that the new boulevard (A. Clara) was built. Urban
regulations seem to have initially delayed the building of this
area:
The mayor explains that the temporary concession of a 5ha
75a 17cm lot, situated in the area of the 50 pas gomtriques
within the limits of the Bourg has been given to the commune
by the act on January 17th, 1942 to extend and embellish the
Bourg of the commune of Gosier. ()
Several houses, in reinforced concrete, are built in this
concession () The entire area would have already been
built were not for the necessary procedures to execute the
project of a housing development programme. The
Department of Urban Planning and Housing no longer grants
building permits in this area of the 50 pas gomtriques
without the realization of housing development.195

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

But, very quickly, the commune became aware of the opportunities offered by the governmental incentives to develop housing
construction, and, demanded the extension of its bourg.196 Thus, the
appropriation of the coastal strip led to the creation of the seashore
district (Fig. 47). More than access to new lots and the creation of a
new district, it meant the introduction of a new type of planning
and of urban forms in the bourg. Indeed, it was no longer a question
of prompt construction and more or less fitting planning into the
existing urban fabric (e.g. the reconstruction of the city hall, of the
school, etc.), rather, it involved the elaboration of a programme;
not only providing lots for housing, but also planning the shape of
each lot, the access road, the water and electricity networks, as well
as its aesthetic quality (trees will be planted).197
Furthermore, the deliberate choice to urbanize this coastal area
in particular (why not the area north of the colonial road?) reflected the considerable ongoing change regarding land use. The
lot with a sea view became attractive due to its tourist potential, an
activity on the rise in Guadeloupe, but also because of the change
in attitude. If most of the population saw the advantage of selling
lots with no value only in terms of cultivation, the officials made
no mistake about land value. The coastal lots were the first offered
for sale to professionals (e.g. lawyers, doctors),198 though no comments on this process can be found in the municipal minutes.
Moreover, the fact that architects Corbin and Amarias designed
almost all of the houses from lots 8 to 22 had a strong architectural
impact: it meant a rupture with the traditional way of building, in
terms of location on the lot, building shape, plan and materials;

Demand on October 4th,

1954. Source: Arch.Dp.Gua, srie continue 2226.
197
The full programme is
detailed in the minutes on
June 17th, 1955. Source:
Arch. Dp. Gua, sc2256.
198
Interview with M.
Corbin, May/June 2003.
Owner of one of the coastal
plots.
196

83

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

even though some concrete box-like domestic architecture already

existed.
Nevertheless, it is not before the map of 1969 that evidence of
this urbanization is revealed, reflecting the slowness of the process. The other projects of the same year such as the creation of a
public square behind the city hall (Fig. 48),199 the electrification of
the streets of the bourg,200 the construction of sidewalks for the two
boulevards,201 new streets, and particularly the project of constructing a new boys school (already passed in 1950 and not yet
built in 1958),202 encountered the same phenomenon. They first appeared on the map of 1969.

Source: Arch. Dp. Gua,

sc2256. Minutes on May
27th, 1955.
200
Idem.
201
Ibid.
202
Source: Arch. Dp. Gua,
sc2256. Minutes on
October 31st, 1955.
199

84

By 1969, the process of internal morphological differentiation in

the bourg and of its general densification was further advanced,
although the street network remained quite identical to that of
1956. Even if the municipal planning of 1955 showed results (e.g.
the extension of Boulevard A. Clara, new streets at west of the
Pergola Hotel), the street systems development mostly consisted
of the classification of lanes and their extension (in 6 cases, all
located in the inland area). Only in one case did new short street
seem to have been planned, while 5 other lanes, not classified,
were added to the eastern inland area (Fig. 49). However, what is
characteristic of this period was the incredible building multiplication that took place throughout the entire bourg (the total count of
buildings more than tripled, see Fig. 50), echoing the significant
growth of Gosiers population: it had almost doubled since 1954
and quadrupled to 5,143 inhabitants in the bourg (Table 11).
Most of this increasing ground density was characterized by
housing construction along the streets and along the lanes, but
backyard filling was also a new emerging characteristic. As such,
the morphological areas of the bourg then acquired certain unique-

Figure 49: The evolution of the streets (classified and non classified) in Gosier, 19562001. Source: Based on a site survey and the IGN maps of 1956, 1969, 1985 and
2001. (KD)

85

Figure 50: Backyard filling and building multiplication in the bourg of Gosier, 19561969. Source: Based on a site survey and IGN maps of 1956 and 1969. (KD)

Interview of Mrs. C.,

born 1912 in Gosier and
still living in Gosier. En
1956, il fallait se mettre
quatre pattes si on voulait
russir sabriter. Toutes
les maisons en pilotis-bois
sont tombes. () En 1966,
Ins a tout cass ma maison
et jai alors dcid de la
reconstruire en dur.

203

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 boulevard (the current Boulevard A. Clara) on its south side, is materialized in a succession of street blocks mostly characterized by
ribbon development on their long sides (facing the boulevards)
and some backyard buildings. Although building development
was recognizable in this area, it did not double (82 buildings in
1956 to 123 in 1969), except on the eastern and western limits of the
bourg, that actually correspond to the new zones gained by the
bourg. One reason that could explain this amount of building coverage could be the impact of hurricanes on Gosier (Betsy and Greta
in 1956 and Ins in 1966), which, due to their severity, made reconstruction a priority.
In 1956, you needed to get down on all fours if you wanted
to succeed at finding shelter. All the houses made with
wooden pillars fell down. ()
In 1966, Ins tore my house apart and I decided to
reconstruct it in concrete.203

Figure 51: The extension of the Gosier city hall.

(KD) - See colour plate.

On the other hand, new public buildings

appeared along the Boule-vard General
de Gaulle, finally showing up on the
map: from east to west, namely, the post
office (in front of the cemetery), the new
extension204 of the city hall (Fig. 51) and
its public square, the boys school extending the traditional rectangular volume.
North of the main street, in the inland area, building densification was far
more significant, giving shape to the different sub-districts (Plateau SaintGermain, la cour Numa, la cour Bonchamp, LEnclos and Mangot)
commonly gathered under the general name of arrire-bourg
(back of the bourg) (Fig. 52). In this area, the streets spread in the
shape of a comb from the main boulevard and, if earlier settlements followed quite regularly the lines of this perpendicular
street system, the more recent ones break this tendency: this is even
more apparent in the eastern part of this inland area (Mangot),
where the constructions clearly appear in random positions. Is this
due to the lack of continuity in the planning, as in the case of Pre
Coudray Street, which was still not classified in 1969, or uncontrolled settlement due to population growth? It is difficult to say
for both arguments seem to be interrelated. But a witness, still
living in this district, reveals that the commune was definitely not
a factor to her migration:
My house was carried here in 1952 onboard a truck and I
moved in on the 2nd of May 1953. The lot was used to store
all the excrement from the school; it is I who cleaned
everything. My house was nicknamed the castle when I
built it, because all around there were only small cases.
Me, I have built a veranda with bricks. There were much
fewer houses than there are today.205
Similar to the lack of evident planning for this area is the absence
of the location of new public buildings in this part of the bourg
which seems to support the idea that it was considered an uninteresting area in terms of urban development. However, in actuality,
the church-presbytery complex, the covered public market, one of
the schoolteachers houses and the public movie theater bring
some nuances to this judgment. They are indeed all located in this

The extension, made in

1968, consisted in building
a supplementary level
above Victor Schlcher
Street. Another volume has
been built on the full length
of the existing building,
doubling the initial width.
205
Interview with Mrs. F.
2002 (Gosier). On a transport ma maison ici en 1952
sur un camion, et jai
emmnag le 2 mai 1953. Le
terrain tait le lieu de dpt
des matires fcales de
lcole, cest moi qui ai tout
nettoy. Ma maison, on
lappelait le chteau quand
je lai construite car tout
autour ce ntait que des
petites cases. Moi, jai
construit une verandah en
briques. Il y avait beaucoup
moins de cases quaujourdhui.
204

87

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

Figure 53: Public buildings in the bourg of Gosier, 1969. Based on a site survey (KD)
88

area, and even if the year of construction remains uncertain for

some buildings (e.g. the market, the movie theater), one cannot
help but notice that all but the presbytery are located in direct
contact with the main boulevard (Fig. 53).
Finally, concerning the coastal area, the concretization of the
1955 housing development programme was a determining factor.
Reaching so close to the shoreline and having so much of an individualized pattern compared with the other urban forms of the
bourg, it prefigured the basis of a new policy based on tourism to
benefit the town. Unlike what seems to have been uncontrolled by
the local authorities in northern areas of the bourg, the change is
also in the involvement of the town in such a development.
If one remembers that already in 1950 the Pan American and
Air France airline companies launched the first flights to Pointe-Pitre,206 and that most of the tourists go to Chez Mario (Gosier!) or to the
Grand Htel (Pointe--Pitre),207 it is easy to understand what was at
stake. Furthermore, the absence of public buildings devoted to
functions other than tourism one reinforces the particular characteristic of this coastal area. It has been nicknamed the balcony,
describing very well its main purpose: to look at the sea, or to soak
up the sun, and nothing else.

206
Pan American: Miami/
Puerto Rico/Pointe-Pitre/Fort-de-France/
Trinidad, Air France:
Paris/New York/Pointe-Pitre, launched on August
9th, 1950. Source: M.
Oudet, Service du Controle
Arien de Pointe--Pitre.
See more on the launching
of airline companies in the
Carib-bean in Chardon, JP. Gographie des transports maritimes et ariens
du bassin cariben, op.cit.
207
Source: Idem.

By 1982, the population of Gosier was over 15,000 inhabitants (Table 11) and partly because of this, one could expect a building impact in the bourg. However, the development of the street system
and the evolution of the building density were far from revealing
a parallel growth.
Except for the creation of one street next to the church and one
lane in Mangot, there was no addition to the street configuration of
1969. The main changes were constituted by the classification of
existing streets, mostly situated in the inland area (Fig. 49). Moreover, in the same area, some lanes disappeared in favor to uncontrolled urbanization, while the old road to Pergola followed the
same faith.
Similarly, the morphological organization of the bourg was not
questioned, or fundamentally transformed. The only exception
was 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 religious function such as the new church, the old presbytery and the
enlarged cemetery; as well as a new pre-school, evidently was of
public vocation, signalling one of the most important goals of
communal planning. Yet, a look at the years needed to accomplish
such a block, raises questions about the efficiency of the planning:
already in 1959, funds were granted by the municipal council to
89

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

Source: Archives of the

Bishop, Basse-Terre. Letter
of Father Coudray to the
Archbishop.

208

90

build a new church, designed by the architects Corbin and

Amarias,208 but it was only in 1965 that the demolition and construction work started and only in 1977 that the work was completed. The process took almost twenty years.
But, returning to the building pattern transformation, what
was significant, at this time, was the coexistence of different kinds
of processes, the newest being the beginning of building clearance
in some street blocks, and the stagnation of the building density in
others (Fig. 55).

Figure 55: Building evolution in the bourg of Gosier, 1969-1985: evidence of building
clearance 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 part
of the inland area (up to Mangot) that both phenomena were predominant, resulting of building processes already started years
ago: individual building replacement or transformation, and the
progressive dominance of one material (concrete), as well as the
increase in land prices. A more detailed analysis of these phenomena will be further developed elsewhere in this study, but what
remains essential to keep in mind is that they both concerned public and private buildings. For example, the construction of the new church used a design based
on the augmentation of proportions, reinforced
concrete, industrial references (e.g. the bell
tower like a three-dimensional netting), and a
reinterpretation of the T-plan (here the building
is made of three equal naves, with two main facades) (Fig. 56).
Figure 56: The new church of Gosier. (KD) see colour plate.
91

This number seems very

small when considering
the amount of new buildings constructed: it is
most likely an evidence of
the habit of building without a permit. An analysis
of this practice will be
developed further in the
next part.
210
Building permit
requested on May 23rd,
1980 and granted in 1981.
Source: Municipal
Archives of Gosier.
209

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

In the same way, the only four209 building permits applied for
in 1980 in the bourg exhibited the same features: changes of proportion, material, references and shape (Fig. 57) compared with the
usual type of building in the bourg.
Nevertheless, in the same street block facing the stagnation or
slump of its built density, it was still possible to see the apparition
of new buildings on empty lots: such was, for example, the case of
the health care centre, built at the end of the 1970s (Fig.58).
However, the development in the coastal area and in the eastern part of the inland area (Mangot) were of different nature, for
the infilling of the remaining land within street blocks was the
predominant process, expressing the well-established position of
Gosier 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 the
housing development programme, the building density of the
eastern part of this area faced no changes. The extension that took
place in the western part was more surprising. Indeed, although it
is not clearly shown on IGN documents, contrasting with the regularity and homogeneity inherent to the planning of the 1950-60s,
the western developments of the coastal area suggest a loss of control on the part of the local authorities at the mercy of high landvalues: the buildings erected in this part are no longer family
houses, but hotels. The evolution of the surroundings of the Pergola
is one example. From a lonely building on top of a
hill in the 1930s, surrounded by trees, the proposal
made and accepted in the 1980s210 not only transformed the surroundings, by the construction of
smaller buildings which covered the entire surface,
but also doubled the original buildings mass (Fig.
59).

Figure 58: The Gosier health centre (2002). (KD) see colour plate.
92

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

Furthermore, the fact that not a single public building was built
in this area during the period (1969-85), whereas the few businesses
that opened were almost all tourist-oriented (e.g. hotels, nightclubs, restaurants), demonstrates the impact of real estate value on
land use. Selling land seemed profitable. However, this idea of
profit in building up the shoreline was not accepted by all and
resistance appeared: the polemic surrounding the Calvary of
Gosier was one example.
Built in 1892,211 the Calvary of Gosier immediately became a
symbol of the commune, the same as the lighthouse erected on the
small islet facing the commune and Poucette, a site known for fresh
water bathing. Like the two other symbols, the Calvary (designed
as a two-metre high cross with a Christ) stands on a coveted lot,
whose ownership was in doubt (Fig. 59). After years of debate, it
was not only the ownership that proved problematic but also the
function that should be attributed to the lot. Already in 1944, the
mayor had granted one building permit for a house; in 1955 the
next mayor wanted to sell the lot but because of private and clerical
protest, an agreement was finally made to develop this lot as a
public space in 1983. The realization of the project and its unanimous acceptance among the population show the success of that
decision.212
The later debate concerning the lot around the municipal beach
known 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 a
parking lot. No solution has been found, yet the existence of such a
problem exposes how the urbanization of the shoreline is not al-

211
In Histoire des Communes, vol.3, op. cit., p. 54.
212
To the question what
are the most popular sites
of the commune? Calvary
and petanque are unanimously ranked first in our
interviews.

93

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

Literally a Soufrire
school, like Soufrirehouse, hospital, etc., after
the name of the volcano
Soufrire in Guadeloupe,
which almost erupted in
1976, provoking the
exodus of more than
20,000 inhabitants of
Basse-Terre towards
Grande-Terre. Many
public buildings were
erected as a matter of
urgency to meet the needs
of the new population.
214
Interview with M. C.,
inhabitant of Gosier,
Mangot (2001-2002). Il
ny avait pas beaucoup de
maisons Mangot, avant.
() Tout Mangot appartenant la famille C. Mais un
peu avant Ins et surtout
aprs, les gens ont commenc louer, puis de plus
en plus. Et ils sont tous
venus. Et ils ont construits
leurs petites cases.()
Lcole a t faite en 1976,
cest une cole-Soufrire
() Les gens qui navaient
pas leau chez eux venaient
se servir lcole. Je me
souviens mme que trs tt
le matin il y en a qui
venaient prendre leur
douche avec un baquet.
213

94

ways an easy process.

In the eastern part of the inland area (Mangot), building multiplication also emerges as the main process of this period, yet features of development obviously followed other rules than those of
the coastal area.
First of all, although in this area, the street system became
partly categorized, two principal changes occurred that were absent in the other two areas of the bourg: the creation of new streets
and the disappearance of old lanes.
However, both changes represented more a necessity due to
population growth rather than actual planning: the fact that the
new streets were not even classified, their shape (again perpendicular to the main street) providing access to houses, but not
breaking the enclosure of the district suggest it.
Furthermore, the position itself of the new primary school (une
cole-Soufrire),213 although acknowledging the district as such,
paid little attention to its reality in terms of traffic and access, reflecting an obvious lack of planning. Located in a dead-end, surrounded by houses that are almost connected, there is no other
option for parents, bringing their children by car, but to wait patiently in the traffic jam.
Thus, the augmentation of housing in this area also revealed
the absence of the creation of true street blocks and, furthermore, a
construction process mostly characterized by randomness and lack
of urban control, socially favouring some (the land owners) in
terms of income and hindering others (the newcomers) in terms of
housing quality.
There were not many houses in Mangot before. () All
Mangot belonged to the C. family. But shortly before Ins
[hurricane in 1966] and especially afterwards, people started
to rent, then more and more. And they all came. And they
built their little cases. () The school was built in 1976, its
a Soufrire school () Those who did not have water at
home came to get it at the school. I even remember that

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

very early in the morning some came to take their shower

with a bucket.214
Finally, change in the bourg between 1985 and 2001 is of a different
nature because it marks the stagnation of the street system and of
the building densification in most the areas of the bourg, as well as
the first implementation of social housing programmes. If the
population, still increasing (Table 11), thrusting Gosier into the
category of a town of over 20,000 inhabitants, and the lasting renown of Gosier as a seaport cannot always explain the reasons for
this change, another major factor does: Hurricane Hugo, in 1989,
which devastated Guadeloupe and particularly Grande-Terre, including Gosier (Fig. 61). Once again, everything had to be rebuilt.

Figure 62: Building evolution in the bourg of Gosier, 1985-2001: evidence of building
clearance and building multiplication. Source: Based on IGN maps and a site-survey. (KD)
95

Figure 63: Gosier police station. (KD) see colour plate.

Figure 64: Gosier multi-media library. Photo: Brochure de la Mdiathque du Gosier.
see colour plate.

Thus, one can easily understand that priority was given to reconstruction: public buildings (e.g. schools, gendarmerie) were
affected, but also private ones. Basically, depending on the inhabitants incomes, reconstruction was either undertaken or not, which
then 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 reconstruction
period was an opportunity (like the post-1928 period!) to reconsider the organization of the public buildings by investing lots in
different areas, although there was little question about redefining those areas.
The construction of a new police station on the ruins of the old
girls school in the coastal area (Fig. 63), of a multi-media library
facing the sea in the central area (Fig. 64), and the absence of development of the street system in general, constitute evidence of this
phenomenon.
But, more radical were the processes concerning the inland
area. If the western part was, at first, little concerned by changes only the building of the school canteen near the church- most municipal attention focused on its eastern part, Mangot.
The creation and classification of new streets (Fig. 49), the
building of a public day-care centre (Fig. 65), of a district house
(2001-2002), and of social housing were the consequences of a new
type of planning, initiated by the commune in 1991: the renovation of derelict housing (RHI).
Similarly to what had been done in 1955, a precise programme
was elaborated for a delimited perimeter, but this time including
not only the construction of houses and their access, but also public
services. Nonetheless, the major difference between the two programmes lay in the fact that the district of Mangot existed before
the start of the renovation: it was no longer a question of extending the bourg, but rather of changing its internal character.
96

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

By 2003, the RHI of Mangot was almost achieved, after years of

struggle 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 solution to the incessant housing demand. Whether the programme
fulfills its social goal is the question the next part will attempt to
answer. But, in light of the new RHI programme launched in 2002
concerning all the remaining arrire-bourg (inland area, Fig. 67), it
seems the commune of Gosier found its way to revitalize urban
developments in the bourg.
Finally, some information is of course missing and working
without very detailed or concise documents has certainly limited
the precision of this presentation. Nevertheless, morphological
patterns have emerged from the analysis, and comparison with the
municipal land-use plan, only introduced after 1986, or with cadastral maps, just confirm what has been stated: the bourg is divided
into mainly three areas, each of them having their own specificities
(Fig. 68). It will be the task of the typomorphological operations to
provide a more detailed analysis.
This brief historical review of the contemporary settlements in the
bourg of Gosier offers the occasion to verify how socio-economic
activities definitely shape the landscape, for, in this particular case,
tourism has been the hastening factor towards the development of
a special urban morphology (coastal area). Similarly, the evolution of the population of Gosier cannot be dissociated from the
success of the town as a tourist resort, despite hurricanes: like everywhere else in the world, people tend to move closer to a place
that offers better job opportunities.
Furthermore, there is obviously an interrelation between municipal and individual wills and actions that results in a system of
hierarchy among the streets and as well as among the districts. The
97

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

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

98

most significant evidence of this phenomenon is the regular classification, over the years, of almost all the lanes and by-roads initially created by the inhabitants. Also, if there is no doubt that the
commune is the main agent of urbanization of the southern part of
the bourg (coastal area), simultaneously, and until the 1990s, the
inhabitants were the ones shaping the northern part (inland area).
Subsequently a duality appears in the urban development of the
bourg, which does not necessarily imply contradiction or conflict.
The very different urban forms, produced by each group (private
or communal) have, until recently, managed to coexist. Perhaps
architectural creolization would be a more appropriate qualification than architectural cohabitation, for many private buildings
in the inland area strongly refer to the housing model of the coastal
land: the task of the forthcoming typomorphological analysis will
be to prove this.
Finally, what is striking about of the urbanization of the bourg
of Gosier is the slowness of the process (the bourg being still in 1956
barely half of what it is now), so much dependent on the topography and on the occasionally destructive weather conditions. There
is almost no flat street in Gosier; they all are constrained by the
exigencies of the site, going up and down. Similarly, the combshape on the northern sub-districts was not born of mans imagination: they simply follow the elevations of the site; while the
difficulties of making this area accessible via the creation of new
streets reveal problems due to the geophysical conditions. On the
other hand, there is no longer any doubt about how the different
hurricanes or even the tedious waking of the volcano have influenced urbanization: by reconstruction often combined with new
planning in the worst events, or by punctual operation due to the
sudden migration of the population (e.g. Soufrire school).
But are those features specific to the bourg of Gosier or common
to other bourgs? The following description of the bourg of TroisRivires may provide some answers.
6.2 Trois-Rivires
One of the few sites in Guadeloupe presenting massive archeological vestiges is Trois-Rivires, which is also the location of an old
European settlement. When the parish of Trois-Rivires was
founded in 1640, the French colonial occupation was only five
years old.215 Benefiting from the fertile sides of the Mount
Madeleine, which offers relative protection against hurricanes; irrigated by three main rivers (Trou-au-Chien, Petit Carbet and
Grande-Anse), and having the advantage of a gentle climate and
direct access to the sea, the parish of Trois-Rivires was largely

Calise Nazaire TroisRivires in Histoire des

Communes, op.cit., Vol. 6, p.
261.

215

99

Figure 69: Trois-Rivires. Source: IGN.

100

used by the earliest colonials for cultivation and fishing activities.

By 1664, there were 214 inhabitants in Trois-Rivires.216 Although
subsistence crops were certainly predominant at first, the rapid
growth of the laborer population217 revealed the intensification of
economically 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 as
the reintroduction of slavery in 1802 had repercussions in TroisRivires, where the majority of the population was enslaved.218 For
a period of time, the place was renowned for massacres.219
The final emancipation (1848) took place during a period of
economic crisis in Trois-Rivires, as in Guadeloupe as a whole. The
wealthiest planters very quickly found a way to alleviate the problem of the lack of cheap labor through the recruitment of indentured laborers, largely from India. Although the needs of the
planters may not have been fully satisfied220 (because the start of
the decline of the grand plantations also brought new adjustments), the restructuring of cultivation to replace sugar cane with
vanilla and later banana maintained the communes level of
wealth. In parallel, the growth of small farmers, due to the land
division process, favored the development of new settlements in
Trois-Rivires: new districts such as la Plaine, Montchappe, la
Regrette appeared. On the whole, the population continued to increase, reaching 8,058 inhabitants in 1915.221
Finally, what long characterized Trois-Rivires, like other
places in Guadeloupe that successfully sustained a sugar-based
economy, was relative wealth. This was expressed not only in the
plantations but also in the bourg through its development and the
architectural quality of its buildings.
In the mid-1920s, the bourg of Trois-Rivires was already organized and urban: compact, crossed by a small ravine, with a central
church facing shops (including a health care centre).222 It developed
along the colonial road joining Pointe--Pitre to Basse-Terre and
presented some genuine city patterns (Fig. 70). The strict alignment
of the houses along the street, the multi-storey houses with elaborated regular facades, the existence of sidewalks, were evidence of
this organization as was the municipal councils encouragement
for the inhabitants to abandon rural habits.
Mr. Latapie (mayor of Trois-Rivires, 1920-1929) forbids
pig breeding in the Bourg.() The owners and tenants of
houses, inhabited or not, have to maintain their yards,
gardens, sidewalks and lots constantly clean: It is forbidden
to let animals alone in the communal cemetery or on the
church square.223

Idem, p. 264.
In 1664, there were 214
inhabitants in TroisRivires, and 721
inhabitants in 1699, of
which 71% were enslaved.
Source: Ibid.
218
By 1772, 82% of the
2,385 inhabitants were
enslaved. Source: Ibid.
Note: This percentage was
nothing exceptional; on the
contrary, it reflected quite
well the composition of
Guadeloupes population:
84% of slaves in 1790, 80%
in 1813. Source: Arch. Dp.
Gua, Annuaire Statisique de
la Guadeloupe.
219
1802: fights against the
reestablishment of slavery
in Dol and at the church of
Trois-Rivires. Source:
Lacour, A. Histoire de la
Guadeloupe, 1858, reed.
Fort-de-France/Pointe-Pitre, Edition et diffusion
de la Culture Antillaise,
1978, tome 3, pp. 284-285.
220
From 1855 to 1857,
Trois-Rivires asked for
933 indentured laborers,
70% of which came. In
1882, there were 734.
Source: Ibid, p. 268.
221
Source: Arch. Dp. Gua.
Annuaire Statistique de la
Guadeloupe.
222
Source: CAOM, fm,
agefom111/40. Rapport
sur le fonctionnement du
service de sant de Guadeloupe, 31 mars 1939, par le
Mdecin LieutenantColonel Vernon.
223
Source: Municipal
Archives of Trois-Rivires.
Arrts municipaux 1 et 2,
1925. M. Latapie interdit
dlever des cochons dans le
Bourg. Les propritaires et
locataires de maisons,
habites ou non, sont tenus
dentretenir constamment
en tat de propret leurs
cours, jardins, trottoirs et
terrain. Il est interdit de
laisser en divagation des
animaux dans le cimetire
communal ni sur la place de
lglise.
216
217

101

Figure 70: The bourg of Trois-Rivires, c.1910. Source: Martin, R. La Guadeloupe en

zigzag, journal du gendarme cheval Georges Bonnemaison (1900-1903), Ed. Caret,
2001.
Figure 71: An example of a stone house in Trois-Rivires. (KD) - see colour plate.
224
The term river stones
may not be the most
appropriate to specify the
nature of those volcanic
stones, but it is the one
most commonly used by
locals.
225
Source: Archives of
Bishop in Basse-Terre. L
Echo de la Reine, 1936, pp.
70 & 72. Aux TroisRivires, beaucoup [de
cases] sont entirement
construites en moellons et
en pierre de taille. () Le
quartier des Trois-Rivires
est le plus pittoresque de
Guadeloupe, avec les
pierres volcaniques qui
couvrent son primtre
entier.
226
By 1931, Trois-Rivires
has regained its main activities: Pointe--Pitre, a
city of 40,000 inhabitants, is
totally lacking truck farming produce, which comes in
large part from TroisRivires (45 km) and whose
prices are doubled by the
transportation. Source:
CAOM, fm1tp/441. La
Guadeloupe, projet de
refection du rseau routier,
tude gnrale du 1er aot
1931. Pointe--Pitre, ville
de 40.000 habitants est
totalement dpourvue de
produits marachers qui
viennent en grande partie
de Trois-Rivires (45 Km)
et dont le prix est doubl par
le transport.
227
Source: Arch.Dp.Gua.
Annuaire Statistique de la
Guadeloupe.
228
Source: CAOM, fm, sg,

102

But the bourg of Trois-Rivires also benefited from the presence of

a large amount of river stones,224 which not only served the interests of the road department but those of the builders as well. Many
houses in Trois-Rivires were built with these stones, either entirely, from the basement to the roof, or partially (Fig. 71).
In Trois-Rivires, many houses are entirely built with
stones and dressed stones () The district of Trois-Rivires
is the most picturesque of Guadeloupe, with the volcanic
stones that cover its entire perimeter.225
The use of stones ensured the protection of many buildings against
hurricanes, and, by extension, the permanency of the morphological organization of the bourg. The aftermath of the 1928 hurricane
provides an example of this phenomenon.
As was the case elsewhere in Guadeloupe, Trois-Rivires was
badly hit by the hurricane: the church lost its bell-tower, and numerous houses were completely ruined, crops destroyed, etc. But
the communes economic position of wealth, prior to hurricane,
permitted an easy reconstruction based on existing finances and
urban structures, as well as on the desire to take advantage of the
opportunities offered by the central government. Thus, the reconstruction consolidated the established urban patterns, while the
advantages of Trois-Rivires prosperous natural surroundings allowed it to quickly regain its position in the economic market.226
Additionally, the continuous population increase, from 8,788 inhabitants in 1926 to 10,462 ten years later,227 was another sign of the
dynamic found in Trois-Rivires, even after the hurricane.
In late 1928 attention focused on reconstruction. Four months after
the tragedy, 985 properties were registered as damaged, of which
38 claimed a loss above FF 30,000.228 The amount of the loan taken

gua252.1518. Statement of
the loss, estimated according to the communal
commissions, whose files
have already been centralized in the colonys main
town, January 19th, 1929
(see table 1 p. 66).
229
Source: CAOM, fm1tp/
440. Mullers Report on the
communal loans to the
Ministry on April 29th,
1933.
230
For a short description
of Ali Turs work in these
communes, see Le Patrimoine des Communes de la
Guadeloupe, op.cit., pp.
167-168 (Lamentin) & p.
328.

Figure 72: The public block in 1931 (Trois-Rivires). Source: Municipal Archives of
Trois-Rivires.

by Trois-Rivires (1 million francs)229 from Crdit Foncier de France

in 1931 was not surprising, for, as already stated, the municipal
budget could afford it. Whether the town received manufactured
products from the German war reparations remains unknown, because no evidence of it was found; but what is certain that TroisRivires benefited from the reconstruction program initiated by
the government (in terms of health improvement and communications development).
Furthermore, the town decided to use the services of Ali Tur,
the architect commissioned by the central government. Once
again, this decision revealed the towns financial security (it was
able to pay his fee) but also, in a wider context, revealed the municipalitys control over the urban, for all the works of Ali Tur in
Trois-Rivires were restricted to the design of public buildings.
There are no signs of his assignment being extended to rethinking
of the bourgs structure, as was the case in the bourgs of Sainte-Anne
or Lamentin, for example.230
103

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

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

Figure 75: Salin house, in front of the post office in the bourg of Trois-Rivires. (KD)
see colour plate.
Figure 76: The present post office in Trois-Rivires, designed by Ali Tur in 1932. (KD)
see colour plate.
104

Figure 77: The Trois-Rivires church before 1928.

Source: Municipal Archives of Trois-Rivires.

In the bourg of Trois-Rivires in the

1930s, the street layout was not questioned, nor was the position of the main
public buildings or the functions they
hosted. The block that contained the city
hall, the schools, and the prison maintained its main features for twenty years
more (Fig. 72).231 Similarly, the colonial
road remained the main artery for decades. The smaller road leading to the sea
was unchanged. The only noticeable transformations were the extension of built areas along the colonial road (in both western and
eastern directions) as well as the architectural characters of the new
buildings. The transformations were major as far as the architectural style introduced in the bourg by Ali Tur was concerned.
Basically, the reconstruction period offered the occasion for the
municipal management to provide the bourg with new public
buildings, but in limited number, because the commune already
had services (all major public services were found in the public
block). Ali Tur was in charge of all the work. Between 1931 and
1933, Tur designed the church, the post office232 and the health care
center of Trois-Rivires, imposing a new architectural style (directly inspired by the French Arts Dco and Modern movement)
and a new building material: concrete (Fig. 73).
Both the post office and health centre were erected on a plot
situated along the colonial road, at the western end of the bourg,
thus creating a logical continuity with the bourg (Fig. 74). Moreover, the building of private houses (Fig. 75) at the same period and
in the same area underlines the probable desire on the part of the
municipality to extend the bourgs limits. The shapes of the post
office and health centre differed, yet their architectural style was
the same, of simple proportions and displaying a terrace roof,
regular white facades, large and small openings to facilitate natural
ventilation and with concrete as the main material (Fig. 76).
With regard to the new church, its position (on the site of the
oldest one) was never questioned, although debates multiplied
over the choice of whether to enlarge the initial building or to
reconstruct it.233 Furthermore, once the decision was taken, comments and criticisms continued unabated because the new church
was distinctive within the urban landscape of Trois-Rivires.
From the classical structure of the old church, composed of a
main body extended by two chapels at its sides (Fig. 77), and de-

Henceforth, this particular block will be termed

the public block to avoid
repetition with regard to
its main functions.
232
On March 28th, 1932
the project of a post office
designed by Architect Ali
Tur was approved by the
Governor of Guadeloupe.
Source: CAOM, 1tp/447.
Note: In this document, the
health care center is
already drawn, thus
confirming its design
period.
233
In De clocher en clocher,
Trois-Rivires, op. cit.
231

105

Figure 78: Demolition of the old church in Trois-Rivires, and the cornerstone laying
ceremony of the new church, April 1931. Source: Municipal Archives of TroisRivires.

Idem.
In De clocher en clocher,
Trois-Rivires, op. cit.
236
Anecdote told by most
witnesses and even written
about in Le Patrimoine des
Communes de la
Guadeloupe, op.cit., p.365.
237
See Part II for a brief
reminder.
234
235

106

molished in 1931234 (Fig. 78), Ali Tur only kept the orientation and
the idea of green areas surrounding it. If the principle of the long
nave remained, the general silhouette of the building and the new
material (reinforced concrete) definitely proposed a different aesthetic, far from the former building references. The simple rectangular volume of the building, its perfect geometry and its external
monotint could be seen as architectural features already existing in
the past, but the monumentality of the building (in its plan and
elevations, see Fig. 79), its new type of openings (bulls-eye windows, very long and narrow shutters or geometric-pattern shutters, frontal and lateral entrances), or even the porches jutting out
from the wall, were doubtless evidence of a new style, a modern
one. The spaces around the church, planted and paved with river
stones, reducing the traces of the old cemetery to one or two
graves, remained identical in their conception to those in place
prior to the new construction, yet their proportion shrunk, and
imposed contrast between built and non-built space as well as between the new church and the surrounding neighborhood.
Founded in April 1931, the new church was finally inaugurated
and sanctified in July 1933 (Fig. 80).235 The building was quickly
nicknamed the prison wall by the inhabitants,236 reflecting well
how not every one applauded such modernity.
Finally, one could think that the celebration of Guadeloupes
attachment to France motivated the rapid completion (before 1935)
of the new three buildings, yet locally nothing confirms this. More
interesting is the fact that the three buildings were actually started
after 1931, that is after the government passed the law precisely
defining the reconstruction program.237 Thus, it could be assumed
either that there was no emergency or that the delay was intentionally used in order for Trois-Rivires to take advantage of the gov-

Figure 79: Plan and section of Trois-Rivires new church. Source: Conseil Gnral
de la Guadeloupe, Basse-Terre.
Figure 80: The inauguration of the new church of Trois-Rivires, July 1933. Source:
Muse Saint-John-Perse.
107

Trois-Rivires
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-Rivires 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-Rivires). Source: Robert, G. Les Travaux publics de la Guadeloupe, op.cit.

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

108

ernment incentives and to reinforce its urban organization.

No new elements belie this impression in the assessment established by Engineer Robert.238 On the contrary, by presenting general data about the communes, Robert confirmed the idea of
Trois-Rivires as a wealthy town (holding the second position for
the value of its built properties, just after the city of Pointe-Pitre),239 dependant mostly on agriculture (44% of its territory was
dedicated to it, of which 54% was for coffee, cacao and banana, see
Table 13), with a clearly marked urban center and relying on the
same road system as in 1902, apart from the junction to the seashore

Figure 82: Doctor Simons house in the bourg of Trois-Rivires. 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-Rivires. (KD)
see colour plate.

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 the
town.240 Furthermore, Robert evoked the introduction of electricity in the town:
Since 1935, the Colony has been benefiting from a power
plant of 2,750 kilowatts in Baie-Mahault () The distribution
network presently includes a high-voltage line (), and
beside this, the low-voltage networks in Pointe--Pitre,
Abymes, Baie-Mahault, Petit-Bourg, Goyave, Capesterre,
Trois-Rivires, Dol, Gourbeyre, Basse-Terre and SaintClaude.
The streets of those cities and towns are lit up at night
and electricity has brought, even in the smallest places, the
significant economic and social progress that it induces. The
clear and clean electric bulb has replaced the smoky lamp
and ventilation, refrigeration, and phone use are rapidly
increasing.241
Yet, little was said about the built space of Trois-Rivires and its
characteristics, even if Robert specified that Trois-Rivires held the
9th position out of 34 Guadeloupean towns due to the amount of
built properties (1547).242 Only some still existing renowned
houses, like that of Doctor Simon, built around 1929 (Fig. 82), or
that of the center (today the Tout Affaires shop, Fig. 83) can provide a glimpse of the architecture of this period.
They were either built in the traditional style, but at a magnificent level (full wooden building surrounded by a gallery with
ornamented posts and gingerbread details) or in the modern style,
and thus reminiscent of the architectural bias developed by Ali Tur

Ibid., p. 64.
Source: CAOM; fm, 1/
affpol/2984, dossier 3,
Industrie Guadeloupe
December 1938. La
Colonie dispose, depuis
1935, Baie-Mahault,
dune centrale thermique de
2750 kilowatts (...)Le rseau
de distribution comprend,
lheure actuelle, une ligne
haute tension (...) et, en
outre, les rseaux bassetension (200-115 volts) de
Pointe--Pitre, Abymes,
Baie-Mahault, Petit-Bourg,
Goyave, Capesterre, TroisRivires, Dol, Gourbeyre,
Basse-Terre et St Claude.
Les rues de ces villes et
bourgs sont claires la nuit
et llectricit a apport,
jusque dans les agglomrations de modeste
importance, le grand
progrs quelle constitue au
point de vue conomique et
social. Lampoule lectrique
propre et claire sest
substitue la lampe
fumeuse et la ventilation, la
rfrigration, lusage de la
tlphonie sans fil se
dveloppent rapidement.
242
Robert, Les travaux
publics de la Guadeloupe,
op.cit., p. 36.
240
241

109

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

Figure 85: The map of Guadeloupe in 1938 (detail, Trois Rivires). Source: Arch.
Dp. Gua, Service Gographique du Ministre des Colonies, 1938.

(full concrete house, terrace-roof, geometric ornaments). Without

doubt, the town displayed some wealth.
Nonetheless, the review also showed that Trois-Rivires had a
small population density (less than 100 inhabitants per km2, Fig.
84), a relatively small road network (restricted to the colonial road
and the road which provides access to the sea, Fig. 85) and was
mainly devoted to agricultural activities (81% of the working force
was employed in this sector) when, comparatively, this sector had
decreased to 58% in Guadeloupe as a whole. And, perhaps, those
details are the most significant because they demonstrated the
weaknesses of a town that would not manage to adapt to the transformations of the next decades.
110

Figure 86: The evolution of classified and non-classified streets in Trois-Rivires,

1956-2001. Source: Based on a site survey and the IGN maps of 1956, 1969, 1985
and 2001. (KD)
1926

1931

8,788

9,325 10,462

1936

1946

1954

1961

1967

1974

1982

9,922 8,059 9,099 9,268 8,869 8,094

1990

1999

8,556

8,738

Table 14: The evolution of the population in Trois-Rivires, 1926-1999. Source:

Annuaire Statistique de la Guadeloupe & INSEE.

Between 1935 and 1936, Trois-Rivires population increased by

12%. Between 1936 and 1954, it decreased by 23%, barely exceeding
8,000 inhabitants (Table 14). If this slump in the populations
growth was not only characteristic of Trois-Rivires, for the whole
of Guadeloupe faced the same phenomenon (from 203,454 in 1936
to 229,120 inhabitants in 1954), more specific was the evolution of
the bourg during the period 1935-1955. This time can be characterized by a desire for renewal, evidently inspired by the islands
111

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

After the war, in 1945,

Doctor Simon was elected
mayor of Trois-Rivires, a
choice that also symbolized the end of the dominance of rich planters.
Simon remained mayor
until 1977.
244
In De clocher en clocher,
op.cit. Note: This event
was not innocent symbolically, for in the quest for
progress/modernity, the
church anticipated the
other public buildings.
243

112

status change and the modification of the municipal team.243

Actually, from 1935 to 1955, one could say that very little
moved in the bourg of Trois-Rivires. By 1955, the street layout had
not developed at all; the colonial road remained the main artery of
the bourg (Fig. 86). The ground density was very modest, displaying a discontinuous ribbon development along the colonial road
and disseminated houses here and there (Fig. 87). The core of the
bourg remained almost identical, with the public block still being used for the main public functions: religious (church), administrative (city hall) and educational (schools); while, in the western
end of the bourg, the post office and the health care center stood as
symbolic limits.
The electrification of the church in 1937244 and the construction
of the parish house were exceptions. Yet, the scale of these projects
was proportional to the general lack of development. The parish
house was started right after the electrification of the church:

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

In October 1938, Father Casimir Blanc began the

construction of a large and modern parish house, 25m long
and 12m wide, to which he gave the apostle Saint Paul for its
patron. This house was inaugurated on August 15, 1939.245
A long rectangular building, the parish house appeared as a compromised version of different styles, in comparison to the resolutely modern church. If the shape of the building, the use of
reinforced concrete and its structural composition (post/beam) recalled the Modern style, the fronton ornamented with balusters
evocated the Baroque style (Fig. 88). Even its location, behind the
church and in front of the presbytery, half-built against the downward slope, might be evidence of the intention to construct a less
important building than that of the church. This was a small project
(Fig. 89).
However, a general survey of municipal archives shows that if
the period of 1935-1946 was quite calm, the 1950s definitely
signaled the beginning of a municipal planning period in the bourg
of Trois-Rivires. The aim was to renew the buildings hosting public services such as schools, the market square, city hall, the public
garden, and to upgrade the sewer system. The coincidence between
the date when these projects were conceived and that of
departmentalization (1946), leaves no room for doubt as to the

In De clocher en clocher,
op.cit. Le Pre Casimir
Blanc, en octobre 1938,
difiait une salle doeuvre
spacieuse et moderne, de
25m de long sur 12m de
largeur laquelle il donnait
laptre Saint Paul pour
patron. Cette salle fut
inaugure le 15 aot 1939.

245

113

No negative or positive
connotation is intended
here.
247
Source: Arch. Dp.Gua.
sc80, Conseil Gnral de la
Guadeloupe: Premire
session ordinaire de 1946.
Rapport prsent par Me
Omer Ninine au nom de la
commission des Grands
Travaux (10 juin 1946).
Aux Trois-Rivires, reconstruction dun groupe
scolaire de 18 classes avec 1
atelier (), gouts dans les
communes de TroisRivires (),Trsor (),
construction dune mairie
Trois-Rivires et marchs
couverts au bourg et au Bord
de mer de Trois-Rivires.
248
The mayor insists on
the urgency and need for the
commune to buy lots for the
building of a city hall, of a
school complex, and other
municipal buildings.
Source: Arch. Dp. Gua. Sc
1031, municipal minutes
on November 15th, 1949.
Le maire fait ressortir
lurgence et la ncessit de
ces acquisitions par la
commune en vue de ldification dune mairie, dun
groupe scolaire, et autres
difices communaux.
249
Interview with Sister
Elisabeth, Trois-Rivires
2001-2002. Je suis arrive
en 1951 Trois-Rivires. A
lemplacement du couvent,
ctait la savane, cest
comme a quon appelait. La
savane appartenait la
famille Roussel, les vaches y
broutaient. Comme les surs
de Notre-Dame ont fait vu
de pauvret, elles ne pouvaient pas acheter. Il a fallu
attendre que lvch le
fasse. Il y avait seulement
une petite maison en bois
() Les surs passaient par
le presbytre pour se rendre
la savane. Ce nest quen
1960 que la Ruelle des
Surs a t faite. Il y avait
un chemin en face de
lglise, mais pas de route
pour le bord de mer. Des
trois btiments daujourdhui, il y avait dj le
petit btiment dentre, mais
quon a compltement refait
depuis, et ensuite on a construit la grande maison et la
246

114

strategy quickly implemented by the municipality. Exactly as in

the post-1928 period, the post-1946 period was an era of public
projects for Trois-Rivires, showing perhaps the ability of municipal representatives to take advantage of the new politico-social
situation.246 In the first meeting of the new General Council of
Guadeloupe, Trois-Rivires already had some requests:
In Trois-Rivires, the reconstruction of a school complex
including 18 classrooms and one workshop () as well as
the 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 processes did not progress at a rapid pace.
From 1946 to 1955, few buildings were realized, making them
rich subjects for anecdotes, in spite of the municipal will to speed
up the process,248 and though their physical impact might be significant. One of them was the convent and another the new city
hall.
The convent was actually a private initiative, with no relation
to the municipal planning. Consisting of several buildings on a lot
located further down from the presbytery, the convent was inserted in the bourg in direct continuity with the other religious
buildings such as the church, the parish house, and the presbytery.
Sister Elisabeth (born in 1918) explains the initial stages of the convent construction:
I arrived in Trois-Rivires in 1951. Instead of the convent,
there was the savannah; that is how we called it. The
savannah belonged to the Roussel family, the cows grazed
there. Since the Notre-Dame Sisters took a vow of poverty,
they could not buy the lot. We had to wait for the bishop to
do it. Before, there was only a small wooden house... The
sisters had to walk through the presbytery to reach the
savannah. It was only in 1960 that the small street Ruelle
des Surs was built. There was a path across from the church,
but no road to the sea. Of the three current buildings, the
small house at the entrance already existed, but has been
totally reconstructed since then. After that came the big house
and the second house at the entrance. The yellow house [the
second house at the entrance] was built after 1951 for the use
of the chaplain or tired priests, who were traveling. That is
where they slept. We started to build the big house in 1958.249
(Interview with Sister Elisabeth, Trois-Rivires 2001-2002)

deuxime petite maison

lentre. La maison jaune a
t faite aprs 1951 pour
laumnier ou les prtres
fatigus qui voyageaient.
Cest l quils dormaient.
On a commenc construire
la grande maison en 1958.
250
Source: Arch. Dp. Gua.
Sc 80.
251
Source: Arch. Dp. Gua.
Sc 1026, Municipal
minutes of March 27th,
1953.
252
Of historical interest is
the fact that many
witnesses told me that
when the digging started
for the foundation of the
city hall, many bones were
excavated, remains from
the cemetery, which had
previously been located on
the site.
253
Source: Arch. Dp. Gua,
sc 1031, PV du 10 juin
1950, 27 fvrier 1951.

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

From this statement, it appears that the process of several stages

(building construction first, and then street access), was still in
progress in 1960. A similar length of time was registered for the
building of the city hall.
The initial idea for the project emerged in 1946, under the municipal administration of Mayor Simon.250 In 1950, the first building phase began, with the second and final phase in 1953.251 The
building was finally inaugurated in 1956: it took 10 years to be
completed. But, despite the duration of the project, the impact of
the new building on its surroundings was significant: the organization of the existing public institutions was questioned for the
first time in the bourg. The aim was not actually to fundamentally
modify the existing public block, but rather to dispatch some of
its functions elsewhere. The new city hall was planned on an
empty lot, behind private houses.252 But direct contact with the
public block was maintained by the creation
of a new street, made possible by the demolition of a private house,253 and the disruption of
the traditional alignment in this part of the
bourg (Fig. 90). Thus, the new building directly
Figure 91: The Trois-Rivires church and city-hall: the
confrontation of two symbols? (KD) - See colour plate.
115

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

Another argument is the

choice of the new city
halls position. In light of
the fact that the bourg was
relatively empty at the
time, it becomes obvious
that apart from the interest
in centrality, other factors
may have played a role.
255
Guadeloupean architect,
educated at the Ecole
dArchitecture de Paris,
graduated in 1944.
256
In many documents the
confusion between the
works of the two architects
is visible: even in the very
serious La Grande Encyclopdie de la Caraibe, Architecture, op.cit. (confusion
found p. 121.)
257
Interview with G.
Siarras, 2001-2002. La
tlvision est arrive en
1964, et je me souviens
quon allait tous en mairie
car le docteur Simon avait
achet un poste. Ctait en
noir et blanc mais les gens
venaient de loin pour
regarder le programme de
20-22h. Ils venaient avec
leurs couvertures et on tait
tous assis l dans la grande
salle quil y avait avant
quon la divise en bureaux.
254

116

faced the church. Was there any desire to challenge the monumentality of the church by the monumentality of the city hall, to place
the two symbols in confrontation with one another (Fig. 91)? This
hypothesis seems plausible when looking at the architecture of the
new city hall.254
Designed by Architect Chrubin,255 the building contrasted
strongly with the old city hall. Here, there is no traditional rectangular two-floor house, but rather a concrete building with imposing proportions and a style reminiscent of the works of Ali
Tur.256 The T-shaped plan, with a scale contrasting with the
neighborhood houses, long faades (up to 30m for the front faade),
alternating horizontal and vertical lines, enhanced by columns and
galleries, many elements of the new building emphasized the
modernist architectural bias, contrasting with the surrounding
stone/wooden houses (Fig. 92).
The construction of the city hall was therefore not a project
merely concerning one building: it was also a real act of planning,
including street modification and architectural choice, as well as
probably constituting a strong symbolic act (Fig. 93). Though the
church was, at a certain time, ahead in the move towards modernity, the city hall seemed to overtake it:
Television came in 1964, and I remember that we all went
to the city hall to watch it because the Doctor Simon [the
mayor 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 big
room, 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 of
developing a square nearby the city hall, along with the

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

installation of benches, which will serve as a promenade for

the population.258
Finally, if in the period of 1935-1956 only a few buildings were
erected (and even if they do not appear on the 1955 map), it was
nonetheless a period of planning, which bore results during the
next decades. It is impossible to say whether the long building
process was due to a more limited municipal budget or to dependence on the central government (in terms of money or timetable),
because no data were found on the subject. What is certain, however, is the fact that those new projects were intended to renew the
bourg, not only physically but also in terms of customs. The 1970s
confirmed this.
By 1969, the structural elements of the bourg of Trois-Rivires
(street layout and built space) were little changed (Figs. 86 & 94),
although all of the projects planned in 1946 were realized. In the

Source: Arch. Dp. Gua.

Sc 1027, municipal
minutes of 8.4.1956. (Le
Maire) fait ressortir
lurgence et la ncessit de
lamnagement dune place
prs de la Mairie avec
installation de bancs qui
servira de lieu de
promenade la population.

258

117

Figure 94: The evolution of building density in Trois-Rivires, 1956-2001. Source:

Based on a site survey and the IGN maps of 1956, 1969, 1985 and 2001. (KD)

Source: INSEE.
Interview with
G.Siarras, 2001-2002
(Trois-Rivires). La rue
qui descend dans le bourg a
t recouverte dasphalte
vers 1970. Avant, ctait
juste un petit chemin. Je
men souviens bien car
ctait plein de manguiers.
Entre la rue et la ravine, il y
avait une maison et le
boulanger avec un four
bois.
259

260

118

same way, it would seem that a contradiction emerged when confronting the population and building numbers: in 1967, TroisRivires had 9268 inhabitants (a 15% increase when compared with
the data of 1955), yet the amount of main homes decreased by 10.5%
between 1961 and 1967.259 Yet, far from being contradictory, this
information reflects a specific process in the bourg: renewal without heavy building multiplication.
The general concept of the main artery remained untouched
with regard to the street system. Only two new streets appeared
perpendicular to the colonial road, but like almost all the other
perpendicular streets, they were country lanes (not classified in the
street system, see Fig. 86), like the one behind the city hall, as
explained by G. Siarras, Head of the Technical Department of TroisRivires:
The street going down towards the bourg was covered in
asphalt around 1970. Before, it was only a path. I can
remember that it was full of mango trees. Between this street
and the ravine, there were a house and the baker with a
wooden oven.260

Figure 95: The market of Trois-Rivires. Source: Flohic, J. L. Patrimoine des

communes de la Guadeloupe, Ed. Flohic, 1998, p. 365.

Furthermore, the main characteristic of the streets existing in 1969

(except for the colonial road) was that they developed as a result of
the earlier construction of some areas. Such was the case, for example, in the area around the city hall (first the city hall was built, then
the communicating street was opened), around the convent or in
the eastern part of the bourg. But, what was most significant about
this period was the particular transformation noticeable at the
built space level.
First, the projects of 1946 were finished by 1969. The city hall
completed in 1956 was now surrounded by a public garden, while
halfway up the hill, behind it, the tax office was built, as a concrete
block lacking much inspiration.
Situated at the previous site of the girls school,261 the public
market was designed by architect Chrubin in 1956 (Fig. 95).
The Chairman presents to the Assembly the brief detailed
estimate concerning the realization of a covered market,
situated above the fire station (), and evokes the urgency
and usefulness of building a covered market in the bourg
including stalls, butchers and fishers blocks () The
Council, in light of the urgency and the necessity of
developing a covered market in the bourg in order to prevent
the selling of provisions, vegetables and fish in front of the
grocery stores; and after deliberation, unanimously agrees
with the brief detailed estimate concerning the realization
of a covered market, estimated at 10 million FF, by requesting
a metal-sheet roof with a fiber-cement ceiling, 4 butchers
blocks and 4 fishers 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 dominant material), Chrubins proposal for the markets design was a
simple volume limited by a slab supported by pillars. The central
dome, made of claustras, brought natural light inside, where the

Exactly at the site of the

present market was where
you earlier found the girls
school. It was a wooden
building. I was a teacher
there. Source: Interview
with Sister Elisabeth,
Trois-Rivires 2001-2002.
262
Source: Arch. Dp. Gua.
Sc 1027, municipal
minutes on June 9th, 1956.
Mr le Prsident soumet
lAssemble le devis
descriptif sommaire des
travaux damnagement
dun march couvert au
dessus de la Caserne des
Sapeurs- Pompiers () et
fait ressortir lurgence et
lutilit de construire un
march couvert au bourg
comprenant loges et
boucherie et poissonnerie.
() Le Conseil tenant
compte de lurgence et de la
ncessit damnager au
bourg un march couvert
afin de pouvoir supprimer
la vente de vivres, lgumes
et poissons devant les
piceries, aprs en avoir
dlibr, approuve
lunanimit le devis
descriptif sommaire des
travaux damnagement
dun March couvert
slevant la somme de 10
millions de francs en
demandant une toiture en
tle avec plafond en fibrociment, 4 loges de boucherie
et 4 loges de poissonnerie.
Adopt.
261

119

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 traditional limits of the bourg, the school complex not only reflected a
change in the way the municipality thought about its public facilities, but also announced the end of the renting system. But let Mr.
Sainte-Luce Tholade,263 former headmaster of the new school
complex, explain the genesis of this complex:

This statement has been

extensively confirmed by
other statements, as well
as by the municipal
archives, which is itself a
useful shortcut into the
bourgs memories!
264
Since a new library
opened in 2003 behind the
city hall, more precision is
needed because the interview took place in 2002.
The informant is therefore
talking about the previous
library, the one in front of
the city hall.
265
Confirmed in the
municipal minutes of
December 30th, 1953, for
example. Source: Arch.
Dp. Gua. Sc 1026. The
mayor asks the Council to
vote for the allocation of the
necessary funds to pay the
various rents of houses
functioning as schools. Le
Maire invite le Conseil
voter les crdits ncessaires
pour les diffrentes locations de maisons servant
dcole.
263

120

I was born on January 23rd 1929 in the family house. At the

time, there was no pre-school so between the age of five and
six, I went to school at a womans house, the stone house in
Schlcher. Today that house is abandoned. My mother died
when I was six years old. Then, I went down to the bourg,
and I started primary school in the colonial house, which
does not exist anymore. This colonial house was destroyed
and the schoolteacher replaced it with the one that is still
standing now.
That was when the schools in the center of the bourg
were founded. There was a school for boys and one for girls.
The city hall was between the two schools, which were for
the first to ninth grades. But, in reality, the fifth to ninth
grade 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 headmasters
apartment, which was the same size as the three classrooms
of the lower floor, were on the upper floor. The girls school
had three long classrooms.
A little later, since the number of pupils was increasing,
the boys school was reorganized. New classrooms were
built and we entered through a corridor. On the upper floor
there were the classrooms and downstairs, in the new wing,
was the school cafeteria.
The students in the highest grades were in the building
parallel to the Pre Labat deadend.
When the number of pupils really became too high (around
1945), the students in the highest grades were moved to the
site of the present library.264 It was not like that before. It
was a wooden storey-house, which belonged to the Frmont
family, who had inherited the house from the Siarras family.
At first there were three classrooms, and then very soon
after a fourth.
By the end of the 1950s, since there definitely was a lack
of space, the municipality rented several private houses:265
they were the two facing the city hall, which are now derelict,

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

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

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

121

and the ground floor of the current hairdressers house.

Then, since the space was still too restricted, there was a
need for an explosion. Four classrooms for boys were
built on the present site of the pre-school, and one classroom
for girls in the building which now hosts the senior citizens
club. The classrooms for the boys have disappeared, but we
can still see the masonry foundations. All those classrooms
were for the first to the fourth grade. It was at that time that
the gender separation was reintroduced. When the girls went
to the fifth through ninth grades, they stayed in the building
near the church. There was also a private school, which I
have always known, run by the woman, who had taught me
in first grade. In this private school, there were four
classrooms. In general, this was for the children who had
problems.266
Later, the school complex Quatre Chemins was built267
and all the remaining buildings were for the fifth to ninth
grades. I remember the opening of the school complex well
because just before, as a young schoolteacher, I was on
holidays in France and upon my return we moved in.

In response to the question who attended this

school, the children of the
richest, of the whites? M.
Sainte Luce answered no,
no, the poor people would
pay. It is not like in France
here, the parents make more
sacrifices for their children.
My own children never had
to work during their
studies.
267
Approval of the plans
and detailed estimate of
the school complex on
April 13th,1956. Source:
Arch. Dp. Gua. Sc 1026,
municipal minutes of the
same date. Note: the school
complex owes its name to
its site configuration, at the
intersection of four lanes.
The complex was completed in 1976.
268
Source: CAOM, bib,
som, d3905.
266

122

Through this long narration, one clearly understands that, before

the creation of the school complex Quatre-Chemins, there were several other buildings, usually privately owned, that functioned as
schools in addition to those present in the public block. They
were all located in the bourg (Fig. 96).
Similarly, the first plans for the school complex, designed in the
bourg between 1946 and 1954 (again by the architect Chrubin),
showed that the first projects revealed an interest in keeping public
functions within the bourg (Fig. 97).
Why the decision was finally made to push the complex towards the outer limits of the bourg remains uncertain. Yet, the scale
of the project, its style (resolutely contrasting with the general look
of the bourg - Fig. 98), the probable traffic jam that a location in the
center of the bourg would generate, are among the possible factors.
However, the construction of the complex outside the traditional boundaries of the bourg (completed in 1969)268 was a significant act in three areas:
- it signaled the end of the practice of renting buildings
- it extended the bourgs limits
- it showed the historical tendency of municipal planning
for building conservation and less frequently for replacement: indeed all of the previous municipal school buildings
would eventually be used for other public activities.

Figure 99: Successive locations (1-3) of the gendarmerie in Trois-Rivires. Source:

Based on a site survey and IGN maps. (KD)

Figure 100: Pattern of early densification, 1955-1968, in the bourg of Trois Rivires.
Source: Based on a site survey and IGN maps. (KD)
123

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

Source: CAOM; bib,

som, d/br/11552. Le sud
basse-terrien, approche
gographique, de J-C
Baptisitide et M. Etna,
p.30.

269

124

The same process can be observed some years later in regard to the
new site of the gendarmerie, which confirmed the new directions
taken by municipal planning. Contrasting with the case of the
schools, which were always located in old municipal buildings
within the bourg, the new gendarmerie was built outside the bourg
(Fig. 99).
In light of the economic change of the 1970s, these points became even more evident because the bourg provided 75% of the
communal occupations269 at the time. Decentralization could thus
be considered to be logical to avoid traffic jams, for example.
On the other hand, apart from the public planning, what
emerged from the built space analysis was a pattern of true
densification. The total amount of buildings in the bourg more than
doubled between 1968 and 1985, but the multiplication was actually spatially uneven. Even if it still was not very significant (it
concerned less than 33% of new buildings), the discontinuous ribbon development along the colonial road showed evidence of filling, more noticeable on the upper eastern part of the bourg and in
direct continuity with the public block (Fig. 100). Buildings of
various styles and functions materialized on both sides of the road,
reflecting the influence of the new municipal architecture (Fig.101).

However, it was in the areas slightly off the colonial road that
significant multiplication took place. There, and mostly in the
northeast part of the bourg, building multiplication took the form
of backyard infilling since most of the time the buildings appeared
parallel to the direction of country lanes, but not in direct contact
with the street (examples of this visible along the colonial road,
Fig. 101). Furthermore, buildings were sometimes erected completely independent from the street structure. This generated the
creation of small new districts, whose buildings tried to tame the
hilly and rocky landscape. The Notre-Dame Sisters had the experience of undertaking construction before the existence of an access
road, when finishing the last and biggest building of their convent
(Fig. 102):
The big house is made with the hard rocks from here, which
we broke. We had a very difficult time. We had to dynamite
the lot to be able to build. But the rocks are so hard that we
could not break them all. That is the reason why, today,
there are differences in level and this ramp: because of the
rocks we could not destroy which remained. This house is
strong I am not afraid of hurricanes because it is made
with those rocks!
We started to build this house in 1958, and the lower part
is made of rocks, the rest of concrete and rocks. I remember
when we made the first concrete slab because the priest was
supposed to visit us and I wanted the slab to be ready for his
visit. So, we were encouraging the workers and we were all
the time on the construction site. Finally, we succeeded. Then,
since at first there was only the ground floor, we used to
sleep with two other sisters on the slab, under the moon.270
Building multiplication was the major phenomenon of the 19551969 period. Yet, considering the duration of the building process
for all the public buildings from their conception to their inauguration (over ten years), one could wonder why. There was no evidence found to confirm a link between the origin of funds or
restrictions due to the municipalitys need to buy new lots, but
what is undeniable is the part played by Mother Nature in the
municipal budget. On August 11, 1956 a public calamity (Hurricane Betsy) destroyed 99 buildings in Trois-Rivires, of which 82
were houses (47 wooden houses, cases) and 17 other types of buildings. In the bourg itself, 12 houses were ruined and 27 partially
damaged.271 In 1964, it was Hurricane Clos turn to hit TroisRivires and in 1966 that of Hurricane Ins.272
Between 1974 and 1982, Trois-Rivires population dropped to

Interview with Sister

Elisabeth, Trois-Rivires
2001-2002. La grande
maison est faite avec les
roches dures dici quon a
casses. On a eu vraiment
du mal. Il a fallu dynamiter
le terrain quand on a voulu
construire. Mais les roches
sont tellement dures, quon
na pas pu toutes les dtruire. Si aujourdhui il y a des
diffrences de niveau ou
cette rampe, cest cause
des roches quon na pas pu
dtruire et qui sont restes.
Cette maison, elle est solide,
je nai pas peur des
cyclones, car elle est faite
avec ces roches! On a
commenc construire cette
grande maison en 1958, et
tout le bas est fait des
pierres, et le reste en bton
et roches. Je me souviens
quand on a coul la premire
dalle, car le prtre devait
nous rendre visite, et je
voulais que ce soit prt pour
sa visite. Alors, on encourageait les ouvriers et on tait
tout le temps sur le chantier.
Finalement, on a russi.
Ensuite, comme au dpart il
ny avait que le rez-dechausse, on dormait sur la
dalle, dehors la lune, avec
deux autres surs.
271
Source: Arch. Dp. Gua.
Sc 1666.
272
Those were the most
important, but minor
hurricanes were noted in
1955, 1956 (Greta), 1963
(Helena). Source:
Mtorologie Nationale.
270

125

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

126

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

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

8,094 inhabitants, contrary to the general tendency in Guadeloupe, where

the entire population increased 1.2%
during the same period.273 And like
the declining nature of Trois-Rivires population (very well expressed also in the rise in empty houses: +388% between 1961 and
1982!),274 the street layout and the evolution of building density
revealed a similar lack of development.

273
274

Source: INSEE.
Source: INSEE.

By 1985, apart from the changes in the classification of existing

lanes, the main modification in the street system was the creation
of a new street joining the colonial road to the street behind the city
hall (Fig. 86). Built in 1982, this section was conceived in order to
relieve car traffic in the bourg and to give direct and independent
access to new buildings behind the city hall. Otherwise, the idea of
the main artery was not questioned.
Similarly, the morphological organization of the bourg was not
fundamentally transformed, but seemed rather to perpetuate the
previously existing development logic. The construction of new
public buildings and the slow building multiplication of private
housing were the main processes of this period, although the practice of building clearance started to appear (Fig. 103).
Concerning the public buildings, the planning of new public
blocks was reinforced. If the old schools were kept to house associations, behind the city hall the public garden was re-planned to
house a new pre-school and a House for Youth. By 1971, both buildings were in use and the transfer of the war monument to one
extremity of the public garden in 1977 from its position in the
ancient public block, completed the planning of this area (Fig.
104). The pre-school and the House for Youth were typical of the
1970s architectural trend: concrete buildings with strong volumes

Figure 106: The House of Youth in Trois-Rivires. (KD) - See colour plate
Figure 107: The new health centre in Trois-Rivires. (KD) - See colour plate
127

Source: CAOM; bib,

som, d3905.
Source: INSEE.
277
The decision to evacuate the city did not only
concern Trois-Rivires, all
at-risk areas were subject
to the same law. However,
the decision was widely
contested by many; one
reason being that some
renown scientist had said
that there was actually
little chance of eruption.
One hypothesis held by the
detractors was that the
decision was really a way
to reduce the Basse-Terres
economic power or to
appropriate the lands. On
the subject, see a more
scientific account: Yacou,
A. (dir.) Les catastrophes
naturelles aux Antilles,
dune Soufrire lautre,
Ed. Karthala-CERC, 2000;
or for a fictionalized
version, the novel Maximin, D. Soufrires, Edition
du Seuil, 1987.
278
Sources: Municipal
Archives of Trois-Rivires,
Urban Planning
Department.
279
By 1985, 43.6% of
Guadeloupean families
had a car and it increased
to 54.3% by 1995. Source:
INSEE.
275

276

128

(one circular, the other irregular), contrasting with traditional

domestic architecture (Fig. 105). Yet, their small size and their responses to the exigencies of the site (e.g. the difference in level accommodated by a composition with stairs and various volumes for
the House of Youth) proved to fit the new public block (Fig. 106).
In the other part of the bourg, towards the post office, a new
health centre was built, right behind the pharmacy. Already
planned in 1968, the construction finally started in 1971 and was
completed in 1972.275 Part of the central government programme to
develop health and hygiene services in Guadeloupe, the new
building was quite similar to many of those built in the same period in the other Guadeloupean communes (e.g. Gosier): a long
rectangular concrete volume, with a terrace-roof (Fig.107).
However, it was at the private level that the lack of development was the most significant. Less than 40 new houses were built
between 1968 and 1985 (confirmed by the census established between 1961 and 1982, noting a 2.9% increase in main houses in
Trois-Rivires),276 while 10 of the older constructions disappeared
from the 1985 map. If the small building multiplication was logical
when considering the population decline in the same period, another factor could further explain this process: the waking of the La
Soufrire volcano and its consequences.
Indeed, on August 15, 1976, Trois-Rivires population totally
deserted the commune for several months, in accordance with official orders.
If the idea here is not to debate whether interests other than
safety were at stake,277 the event admittedly could be seen as having reinforced the towns observed tendency towards slow development. But in 1985, the town of Trois-Rivires registered 79
building permit requests, of which only three concerned buildings
in the bourg.278 This basically, reflected the form of development
over the following years: a renewal of the commune, but only
minimally in the bourg.
Between 1982 and 1999, Trois-Rivires population increased by
8%. However, if an attempt to revitalize the street system was noticeable, the 1985-2001 period was marked by an apparent stagnation of built space in the bourg.
Like other towns in Guadeloupe, Trois-Rivires faced problems due to car traffic.279 In the bourg, whose street system relied
upon 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--Pitre to Basse-Terre. It went through

Figure 108: The one-way

streets in Trois-Rivires.
(KD)

Figure 109: The evolution of built space in the bourg of Trois-Rivires, 1985-2001.
Source: Based on a site survey and IGN maps. (KD)
129

Decision voted on July

6, 1995: On July 6th, the
municipal council decided
on the installation of a oneway traffic in the agglomeration. It aims to relieve the
main artery of the bourg,
which is facing problems
with daily traffic jams. This
project has been agreed
upon with the Union of the
merchants. Source:
Municipal magazine,
Notre Trois-Rivires, January 1996, p. 22. Le
conseil municipal du 6
juillet dcidait la mise en
place dun sens unique de
circulation dans lagglomration. Ce dispositif a
pour consquence de soulager lartre principale du
Bourg, confronte aux
problmes quotidiens
dembouteillage. Ce projet a
fait lobjet de dcision avec
le Prsident de lUnion des
commerants.
281
Interview with G.
Siarras, 2001-2001 TroisRivires. Avant, il ny
avait quune seule route, en
double sens, qui reliait
Pointe--Pitre directement
Basse-Terre. Elle passait
par Trois-Rivires. Cette
route existe toujours
aujourdhui mais est
maintenant en sens unique.
Jusquen 1996, ctait la
route principale double
sens. Devant lglise, le
Crdit Agricole tait la
place des coles. Quand
lEcomax sest install
(1996) et que la CA a boug,
cela a provoqu de gros
embouteillages. Il a fallu
dsenclaver le bourg.
282
The contouring road
going from Lovelace and to
the bourgs schools is of
general interest. It will help
relieve traffic in the bourg
and achieve a certain fluidity. It will be a two-lane road.
Several intersections will be
created or developed ()
According to our provisions, the detour can be
operational within the next
five months. Source:
Municipal magazine,
Notre Trois-Rivires, July
1997, p. 7. La route de
contournement du Bourg de
Lovelace aux coles Mixte I
280

130

Trois-Rivires. () Until 1996, it was the principal road ()

In front of the church, there was the Crdit Agricole bank
where the schools used to be. When the Ecomax [small
supermarket] opened (1996) and when the bank moved up
the street, it provoked huge traffic jams. We had to open up
the 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 efforts did not seem to bring full satisfaction:
The contouring road inaugurated in 1998 has helped to
open up the bourg considerably. Nevertheless, a traffic jam
persists at the stop sign, when arriving at the main artery.283
Today, a person arriving in Trois-Rivires can experience the crossing of the bourg in two ways. By car, the experience principally
consists of one-way, stop and no entry signs at several street intersections, totally undermining the street layout based on a main
artery (Fig. 108). On foot, the experience becomes simpler and allows one to sense the main artery because all the traffic signs do not
apply.
Thus, contrary to what V. Phalente wrote in her analysis of the
Trois-Rivires street system,284 it becomes clear that the development of the street layout of the bourg was not made without an
apparent structure; the case is rather the opposite situation: it has
centered on a main artery structure, the street layout was developed to bypass it.
Concerning the built space, for the first time, the analysis of
building densities displayed a quasi-stagnation of building multiplication and the emergence of a new process: comprehensive redevelopment.
Indeed, building multiplication in the bourg was a very mild
process, for the overall ground density increased only modestly
(only 12 new buildings, Fig. 109). Representative of this phenomenon is the small amount of building permits requested in the
years 1990 and 2000: 303 requests in both years and only 12 with
regard to the bourg.285 But, despite their small number, what
emerges is the fact that they are privately owned (even in a publicvocational area, e.g. the scout house, built with private funds, Fig.
110), with the exception of the building housing the municipal water department (Btiment de la Rgie des Eaux), built in 1992.
The water department of the commune of Trois-Rivires
did not have enough working space in the decayed rooms of

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

the bourgs old school building, as much for its offices as for
storage. A beautiful building was thus constructed in the
city hall yard for the cost of FF 1,700,000. Designed by
Architect Jack SAINSILY, and construction executed by the
firm Frise JEREMIE Benjamin, it is a functional building,
well integrated into the city halls neo-classical style. It also
hosts the municipal police.286 (Fig. 111)
However, it would be wrong to believe that municipal management had disappeared from the scene: by directing its actions towards comprehensive redevelopment, municipal management
became less obvious on the map. Actually, comprehensive redevelopment accounted for substantial change, which largely concerned
public buildings built before or around the 1930s.
Redevelopment consisted in small modifications to adapt the
building to its new functions: for example, the remaining school
buildings were transformed to host activities for the senior citizen
association (Fig. 112) or the municipal library (Fig. 113); the old

et II du Bourg est une route

dintrt gnral. Elle
permettra de dcongestionner le Bourg qui trouvera
ainsi une certaine fluidit.
Elle sera double circulation. Divers carrefours
seront crs ou amnags
() Selon les prvisions, le
contournement pourra tre
oprationnel dans les 5 mois
venir.
283
Source: Municipal
magazine, Notre TroisRivires, January 2000, p.
11. La route de contournement du bourg inaugure en
1998 a permis de dsengorger sensiblement le centre
bourg. Toutefois, il persiste
un goulot dtranglement,
au niveau du panneau stop
au moment de rattraper la
route principale.
284
In La Grande
Encyclopdie de la Carabe,
op.cit., p. 113.
285
Source: Municipal
Archives of Trois-Rivires,
Urban Planning Department.
286
Source: Municipal magazine, Notre Trois-Rivires,
1992, p. 7. Le service des
eaux de la commune de
Trois-Rivires tait

131

ltroit dans les locaux

vtustes de lancien collge
du bourg tant pour ses
bureaux que pour sa capacit
dentrept de matriels. Le
bel difice dans la cour de la
mairie a donc t construit
pour un cot de 1 700 000 F.
Conu par larchitecte Jack
SAINSILY, ralis par
lentreprise Frise JEREMIE
Benjamin, cest un immeuble fonctionnel bien intgr
au style no-classique de la
mairie. Il abrite galement la
Police municipale.
287
Since 1998, the former
fire-station has closed, the
fire-men now being in
Gourbeyre. The building,
part of the communal
heritage, has been restored.
Now it hosts a youth center,
an ambulance service and
four apartments on the first
floor. Source: The municipal magazine of TroisRivires, Notre TroisRivires, n6, 2000, p. 11.
Depuis 1998, lancienne
caserne des pompiers a
ferm ses portes, les soldats
du feu ont lu domicile sur
la commune de Gourbeyre.
Le btiment, lment du
patrimoine communal, a t
rcupr et restaur. Dsor-

132

Figure 114 (Top left): The Initiative Centre, Trois-Rivires. (KD) - See colour plate.
Figure 115 (Top right): From fire station to housing and public services, TroisRivires. (KD) - See colour plate.
Figure 116 (Bottom): From dispensary to childrens recreational centre, Trois-Rivires.
(KD) - See colour plate. Note: The modifications were made without building
permission or an awareness of the patrimonial value of the building: civil servants did
not 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 childrens
day care center and, in 2001, into a sport and leisure center (Fig.
116).288 But redevelopment also addressed more complex programs
as revealed by the case of the old public block.
Until the 1990s, the remaining buildings of the old public
block were partly used for public services (e.g. housing the municipal water department), and partly rented to private businesses.
After the construction of a new building to house the water department (1992), municipal management quickly made known its intention to tear down the old buildings in favour of a housing
programme (Fig. 117).
The commune, as the owner of very rundown buildings
located in the bourg, those which previously housed the
school, wishes to reconstruct all of the buildings for security
reasons on the one hand, and to improve the bourgs

Figure 117: The old building before demolition (left) and a model of the redevelopment
project (right). Source: Municipal magazine Trois-Rivires en marche, n7, 1992, p.10.

appearance on the other. Today the buildings are occupied

by artisans and businesses. The project aims at satisfying
them first.289
Local events and attitudes (e.g. modification of municipal team in
1995, doubt about the projects legacy, etc.) seemed to have delayed
the undertaking and somehow reversed the primary ambitions
(insertion of small businesses within the housing programme instead of insertion of housing within the commercial centre); yet the
fundamental idea to build anew remained.
Started in 1997, 21 social housing units and 5 business spaces
were finally ready in 2001, replacing the last buildings from the
old public block and covering the river, which crosses the bourg
a bit more. With, there was a desire to keep some past urban
features, witnesses of our history and our heritage,290 such as its
city-house type or roof (of) traditional form291 (Fig. 118) in the
new municipality. By keeping its construction within the traditional contours of the old public block, municipal management
achieved a successful insertion into the site. The program was thus
perceived by many to be at the appropriate scale (Fig. 119).
But this specific case of comprehensive redevelopment was
also important for another reason: for the first time in the bourg,
municipal buildings were re-oriented towards new housing with
private partnership. It clearly marked the change in policy on the
part of the municipality. It was apparently convinced of the success
of this type of building operation because, already in 2001, twice
the number of similar social housing units was being planned in
the bourg.
Thus, despite the 48% increase in main houses between 1982
and 1999, which occurred in the commune as a whole, though definitely not in the bourg, it would seem that the bourg had been given
a second chance through redevelopment.

mais, il abrite un Point

Jeune, un service ambulancier et quatre appartements
au premier tage.
288
Source: The municipal
magazine of TroisRivires, Notre TroisRivires, n 9, 2001, p. 21.
289
In the municipal magazine of Trois-Rivires,
Trois-Rivires en marche,
no. 7, 1992, p. 10.
290
Idem, n 3, 1996, p. 16.
291
Ibid, n 5, 1998, p. 7.

133

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

Figure 119: The old public block, Trois-Rivires, before and after. Source: Municipal
Archives of Trois-Rivires.
134

Finally, what emerges from the examination of the urban development of the bourg of Trois-Rivires is an urban morphology based
on relatively simple components, which were themselves structured by the successive municipalities and, on a smaller scale, by
private dynamics.
Indeed, the bourgs street layout remained restricted to the colonial road for a very long time and it was only in the 1980s that an
extension was constructed. Similarly, the built space of the bourg
has, on the whole, faced little transformation: building multiplication was often limited to a ribbon development along the principal
streets with rare backyard fillings.
Yet, in this slow and reduced process of development, what
remains characteristic of the bourg of Trois-Rivires is the major
role played by municipalities. In creating and extending new public blocks year after year, in redeveloping old public blocks or
individual public buildings, there is no doubt that the municipalities have greatly contributed to the bourgs urban renewal. In comparison, the private initiative seems to lack ambition.
The municipal land-use plan, introduced in the late 1970s in the
commune, confirms the morphological patterns that have been
observed, as well as the towns importance in matters of land use.
There are still lots of large dimensions in the bourg (reflecting the
small extent of land division), except those corresponding to the
ribbon development, which are smaller (Fig. 120). Furthermore,
the fact that in 1985 (before the redevelopment operation) the town
still owned 18% of the lots within the bourg (Fig. 121) is a major
element in the understanding of municipal management.292
Is it then possible to see in the built spaces evolution a parallel
with the social, economic and cultural changes of the bourg?
The answer is certainly positive because in many ways the created landscape reflects the life of Trois-Rivires. After a period of
economic wealth (before World War II) visible in the bourgs services, the town went through a long period of population loss and
economic crisis. The absence of real economic transformations for
many years and the slow decline of the farming sector (31% of
Trois-Rivires population still worked in the agricultural sector in
1990 (Table 15) favored the relative stagnation of the built space.
TROIS-RIVIRES (%)

1961

1990

1999

Primary sector

59

31

11

Secondary sector

27

16

12

Tertiary sector

14

53

77

292

Source: SEMAG 1985.

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

135

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

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

The fact that the population did not increase until the 1990s also
supported the bourgs urban inertia. Yet, this inertia was simultaneously thwarted by other elements: relative protection against
natural disasters and a strongly public- oriented policy.
Indeed, despite the different hurricanes or volcano alerts that
hit Trois-Rivires after 1928, none of them fully destroyed the
bourg: most of the time, the question was more one of compensation rather than reconstruction after the event. This is in contrast to
136

many other Guadeloupean towns that did not withstand these disasters, as in the case of Hurricane Hugo in 1989. Thus, the sites
characteristics ensured the endurance of many buildings, which,
had they been in other places, would have already vanished. At the
same time, the fact that the communal budget did not need to focus
on massive reparation expenses stimulated a public-oriented municipal policy of building and planning.
Finally, when the population started to increase again in TroisRivires, even if private initiatives showed little revitalization,
municipal policy opted for comprehensive redevelopment within
the bourg. Without a doubt, the bourgs morphology has been influenced by the general climate of the town, which in its own way also
reflects the island of Basse-Terres general evolution.

7. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS
Obviously, the bourgs of Gosier and Trois-Rivires did not follow
the same type of development. Many similarities are however
worth noting because they underline how the predominance of
certain elements, at a given time, unquestionably influences the
entire development process.
First, with regard to the street layout, it was observed that in
both cases the bourgs street pattern was originally restricted to a
single axis of communication, joining one town to another. Apart
from being of a methodological interest, since this finding confirms the necessity of historical background to avoid erroneous
conclusions; this finding adds a new perspective to the understanding of the bourg development. Indeed, a reading of contemporary
road maps hides the historicity of the street layout, but once the
development process of the street system is taken into consideration, certain influences on the development of the bourgs of Gosier
and Trois-Rivires become more evident. In short, the renewal of
the Guadeloupean road infrastructure served the interests of the
bourg of Gosier, by facilitating its accessibility. On the contrary, by
contouring the bourg of Trois-Rivires, the new road (RN1) accentuated its isolation.
Second, the development of the street layout is in both cases
recent and consequent to car traffic development. While in 1935
there are no more than 1200 cars in Guadeloupe,293 more than
40,000 motor vehicles were registered in 2002.294 The bourg of TroisRivires, like that of Gosier, relied for a long time on the same
street pattern. It is only between 1950 and 1960 for Gosier, and 1970
and 1980 for Trois-Rivires, that the street fabric started to evolve

In Bgot, D. Les Antilles

franaises travers les
guides touristiques de 1913
nos jours, Exposition la
Mdiathque du Gosier,
January 2002 (CD-Rom).
294
Source: INSEE.
293

137

in response to the necessity of opening the bourg to improve the

traffic situation.
Third, the development of the street system extends the limits
of the bourg. Although it appears to be clear in this study that prior
to the streets, buildings may have already been constructed (e.g.
Mangot in Gosier or the convent in Trois-Rivires), it is equally
clear that it is only when street classification occurs that built-up
areas start to be officially considered as within the limits of the
bourg.
Fourth, in both cases, the earlier morphological pattern is a
ribbon development.
Fifth, the forms taken by the bourgs extension are dependent on
the site exigencies and on the natural disasters.
Sixth and last, both bourgs seem to have developed in parallel
with the development of the part of the island on which they are
situated. Gosier on Grande-Terre benefited from the tourist boom,
while Trois-Rivires, on Basse-Terre, declined along with the farming activity of the area.
Finally, the contextualization and the documentation of the
forms taken by the process of extension of the bourgs of Gosier and
Trois-Rivires provided the opportunity to consider the way in
which the created urban landscape was modified in parallel to the
bourgs social, economic and cultural changes. Sometimes, the reason for a transformation can only be inferred, but one aspect of the
analysis that leaves no room for doubt is that any layout is the
consequence of decisions, whether made by public agents or by
individuals. If at this stage of the analysis, the extent to which social
dynamics are linked with spatial dynamics can be understood, it
now becomes necessary to examine more deeply the agents involved in this process, as well as its consequences on the typomorphological operations.

138

PART IV:
ANALYSIS OF THE PROCESS OF
MODERNIZATION

The aim of this part is to analyze the processes of modernization

from an urban and architectural viewpoint. Starting from a
broader context to establish how the concept of modernization was
understood, the analysis gradually centers on the typomorphological operations proper to the case studies of this work, to seek
out the implementations of modernization in Guadeloupe.

139

8. FROM DISCOURSE TO REALITY

8.1 Preamble: on the choice of discourse

295
Larousse Dictionary,
Paris, 2002.
296
Nouveau Petit Robert
Dictionary, Paris, 1993.
297
Revised Unabridged
Dictionary, Chicago:
MICRA Inc, 1998.
298
Cohen J-L La marche
de larchitecture moderne
in Histoire de lArt,
Larousse 1988, p. 212.
299
For example, the severe
attitude that dominated
towards Loos (18701933)s Raumplan (spatial
plan), a proposal to
renew the rules of the
internal distribution in a
building, reflected quite
well the fixedness of the
intellectual establishment
in the beginnings of the
20th century.
300
For example, see Ragon,
M. Histoire mondiale de
larchitecture et de lurbanisme modernes, Casterman,
Paris-Tournai, 1986,
Tribillon, J.F. Lurbanisme,
Ed. La Dcouverte, 1990;
or for a more critical view,
Choay, F. LUrbanisme,
utopies et ralits, Editions
du seuil, Paris, 1965.

140

Modernization is not a process limited to a period, nor to the conflict opposing ancients and moderns. The meaning of modernization is not unambiguous, a number of definitions reflect different
perspectives which results in the difficulty in grasping the full
concept. Some see modernization as the action of adapting to contemporary pressures, replacing something obsolete by something modern, in
order to improve output, production quality, and capacity,295 whereas
others define it as what is actually made according to contemporary
habits and rules, which corresponds to the present taste and sensibility.296 More broadly, some view it as a concept describing a process
through which societies are believed to change from less to more developed
forms through the introduction of new technology and other social
change.297
Whatever meaning is assigned to modernization, what remains constant is the continuum of modernizations displayed
throughout human history as well as in material culture. Closer to
the time span of this study, the most significant changes occurring
during the first decades of the 20th century radically transformed
the interpretation of the word: the scale factor, attributed to the
purpose of modernization, was increased remarkably.
Due to the convergence and complexity of economic, technical
and social change during the modern period, restricting the understanding of modernization transformations to the influence of the
architectural modern movement would undoubtedly greatly narrow the comprehension of the phenomenon. The emergence of a
movement is indeed rarely an abrupt event but rather the meeting
of many elements, directly or indirectly. Furthermore, although in
the pre-war period there was an evident interest in seeking the
best combinations of technical modernity for buildings (or public
works) and new forms and ways to understand space,298 not everyone was convinced of its value.299 It took time before modernization bore the results that are apparent today.
Therefore, the aim here was not to rewrite the history of modern architecture or the birth of urban planning, for many have
already done so,300 but rather to propose an angle of analysis that
would reflect Guadeloupes modernization in relation to its status
as a former colony and later as a French department. Similarly, the
aim is not to consider modernization in a broad context (for it has
already previously evoked), but rather to deepen the understanding of the concept through the specific lens of urban and architectural features. For this reason, the research interest is focused on

documents directly concerning the colonies and which show the

link between what happened in France (as much on the technical as
on the social level ) and what was thought to be (or was) implemented in the colonies. In addition, due to the contradictions of the
French governance, which simultaneously relied on equality for
all301 and colonial practices until 1946 in the case of Guadeloupe, it
has been decided to limit the discourse analysis to the predepartmentalization period (1900-1946), this specific period being
judged to be particularly significant to explain (to some extent) the
current bonds between France and Guadeloupe on the topic of
modernization.302
A great variety of documents exist, ranging from the official
texts regulating the colonies, which originated in France, to the
official texts issued locally, from the military or political archives
to the private correspondence of colonizers, etc. However, reports,
articles and pictures from national and international congresses
and exhibitions were chosen as documents that could provide the
best insight into the type of colonial modernization employed by
France in the architectural and urban field. Indeed, both types of
documents aimed at presenting a synthetic view on different aspects concerning the colonies as well as alternatives to be considered for the colonies development. Because of their underlying
ideologies and political bias, the same documents can also be seen
as reflecting the thinking of their time.
Nevertheless, here again a distinction was drawn among these
congresses and exhibitions, for, if some of these events simply proposed panels related to the colonies, others fully centered their
themes on the colonies, as in the case of the colonial exhibitions.
Thus, it has been decided to narrow the analysis to the events
strictly focusing on colonial themes and preferably concerning
Guadeloupe.303
8.2 Colonial discourses
One must not cease repeating this: colonization is neither a
philosophical intervention, nor a sentimental action. For us
or for any country, it is a business. (Rondet- Saint, 1929)304
At the beginning of the 20th century, the French colonial empire
was on the brink of a clear revival. The recent conquests mainly
realized under the Third Republic (Tunisia in 1881, Indochina between 1883 and 1886, Madagascar in 1885, Morocco in 1911 and
those of Africa between 1881 and 1900)305 came to revitalize an
empire, which had been largely dismantled after 1763306, with the
Antilles, French Guyana, Sainte-Lucie, Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon,

One of the postulates of

the French Republic, the
others being liberty and
fraternity.
302
Admittedly, only the
surface of the topic will be
touched upon here as it
could be the subject of another entire dissertation.
303
Congresses specific to
other colonies (e.g. Congress of Northern Africa)
have not been taken into
consideration. In the
context of this work, the
analysis refers to the first
French Colonial Congress
(Paris, 1903); the Colonial
National Exhibition and
Congress of Marseille
(1906); the Congress of the
Old Colonies (Paris, 1909);
the Colonial National
Exhibition and Congress
of Marseille (1922); the
Great Colonial International Exhibition of Paris
(1931) and the Exhibition
of the Tercentenary of the
attachment of Guadeloupe
to France (Paris, 1935).
Source: All original texts
were found at BNF, except
for the event of 1935, for
which related documents
were found at CAOM.
304
Source: CAOM. La
Dpche coloniale, November 29th, 1929. Note: The
author was Head of the
Maritime and Colonial
League. Il ne faut pas se
lasser de le rpter : la
colonisation nest ni une
intervention philosophique,
ni un geste sentimental. Que
ce soit pour nous ou pour
nimporte quel pays, elle est
une affaire.
305
Without forgetting the
former conquest of Algeria
in 1830. Source: Carpentier, J. & Lebrun, F. (dir.)
Histoire de France, Seuil,
1987, p. 269 & pp. 314-317.
306
Year of the French
defeat against the English,
the direct consequence of
which was the loss of most
American colonies (Treaty
of Paris). Source: Idem.
301

141

Source: Bruant C. Le
logement et la ville dans les
premiers congrs coloniaux
franais, LADRHAUS,
1997, p. 2.
308
The First French
Colonial Congress took
place in Paris, between
March 29th and April 4th,
1903. Source: Idem, p. 3.
309
For more details see
Ageron, C-R. LExposition coloniale de 1931,
Mythe rpublicain ou
mythe imprial? in Les
lieux de mmoire, Vol. 1,
Gallimard, 1997, pp. 493495.
310
Carpentier, J. & Lebrun,
F. (dir.) Histoire de France,
op.cit., p. 316.
311
Excerpt from the speech
of Jules Ferry (politician)
on July 28, 1885. Source:
Idem, p. 320. Il faut dire
ouvertement quen effet les
races suprieures ont un
droit vis--vis des races
infrieures.
312
For more on this colonial ideological trait, see
Coquery-Vidrovitch, C.
La colonisation franaise in Histoire de la
France coloniale, vol. 3, pp.
13-14.
313
If not immediately or on
a large scale, the works
before the First World War
doubtlessly marked the
French building production. As examples we can
see the French Perret, Prost
and Garnier (who introduced respectively a new
material [reinforced
concrete] and a new
conceptualization of the
city), the German Gropius
(by, for example, erasing
the concept of load-bearing
walls in his Fagus factory),
and later, those leaders of
the Bauhaus movement
(articulating earlier principles of building rationalism and standardization),
and the CIAM (such as, Le
Corbusier).
314
Titles respectively
found in the congresses of
Paris (first French Colonial
Congress, 1903); Marseille
(Colonial National Exhibition and Congress,
1906); Paris (the Congress
of the Old Colonies, 1909);
307

142

Louisiana (sold in 1803 by Napoleon), Reunion, and trading posts

in India and Senegal, remaining the only traces of former glory.
In parallel, colonial expansion favored the emergence of a colonial viewpoint, symbolized by the successive creation of political
groups or consortiums devoted to the colonial cause. In 1893, for
example, the Colonial Party and the Minister of Colonies were
founded. During the same year, the French Colonial Union (UCF)
was created as an interest group which joined economic and financial forces.307
It is within this context that the first French colonial congresses
were held,308 benefiting from colonial imagery (and a colonial imagination) already previously initiated with the Universal Exhibitions of 1889 and 1900, among other events.309 Despite some
protests against the principle of colonization,310 a colonial ideology gradually peaked, reaching its apotheosis in the 1930s, spreading a type of colonial discourse based on the right of superior
races over inferior ones,311 and on the civilizing mission to be
undertaken by France. In light of this colonial ideology (to implement progress312 in the colonies), it was thus logical that colonial
congresses and exhibitions would mainly focus on assessing how
modernization was or should be quickly implemented in the colonies. This was especially evident in the architectural and urban
fields.
As international and national research on new technologies
and building material guided the transformation of the design and
building process in France,313 design processes were also at the core
of the colonial housing problem. As evidence, one can refer to the
content of the discussed topics (e.g. Housing in 1903, Regulations concerning the housing construction in the colonies of the
tropical zone in 1906, The colonial modern house and the bases
of its rational organization in 1909, Urban Works in 1922, The
colonial metallic house in 1931, etc.),314 as well as the regular mention of the introduction of novelties.
For example, as early as 1906, one report already referred to the
use of reinforced cement and terrace-roof for domestic architecture, which actually could be seen as very advanced when keeping
in mind that F. L. Wright or Le Corbusier, for example, were just
beginning to integrate those features in their architecture.
There are attempts today to replace trusses and attics by
reinforced cement terrace-roofs. Besides the fact that those
terraces are rarely perfectly waterproof, houses possessing
them are terribly hot. 315 (Fig. 122)

Marseille (Colonial National Exhibition and Congress, 1922); and Paris

(the Great Colonial International Exhibition of
1931). Source: BNF.
315
Source: BNF. Report of
Dr Hnaff Hygine de
lEuropen aux pays
chauds, in Charles-Roux
(dir.) Compte-rendu des
travaux du Congrs colonial
de Marseille, Paris, Challamel, 1908, tome 3, p. 322.
On essaye aujourdhui de
supprimer les fermes, les
mansardes pour construire
des toits en terrasse en
ciment arm. Outre que ces
terrasses sont rarement
dune tanchit parfaite,
les maisons qui en sont
munies sont horriblement
chaudes.

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

143

316
For a detailed account
of this event, see Hodeir, C.
& Pierre, M. LExposition
coloniale, Ed. Complexe,
1991.
317
The star attraction of
the 1931 Exhibition was
the reconstitution of the
Angkor Palace, covering
5,000 m2, which was supposed to show the French
colonizers as the occidental peace-makers and
guarantors of the past,
natural forerunner of the
future. Source: C. Farrre,
Lexposition coloniale,
album hors-srie,
LIllustration, May 1931.
318
At first strongly associated with the hygienist
movement, the discipline
gradually acquired its
unique status through
legislation and the early
contribution of Henri
Prost, Tony Garnier, for
example, as well as the
emergence abroad of a
similar process (for example, in England, the emergence of town planning
after the earlier Garden
Cities based on the theory
developed by E. Howard).
Source: Ragon, M. Histoire
mondiale de larchitecture
et de lurbanisme modernes,
op.cit., and Panerai, Castex
& Depaule Formes urbaines,
op.cit. More details on the
hygienist movement in the
colonies in Pinol, J.L. (dir.)
Histoire de lEurope
urbaine, Seuil 2003, pp.
433-437.
319
It is interesting to note
the gradual and substantial shift evident between
1903 and 1931: at first
mostly scientifically treated by medical professionals, urban planning and
urbanism debates were
gradually monopolized by
more urban-oriented
personalities (e.g. engineers, architect, and urban
planners). For example, of
the five lectures given on
this topic in 1906, only one
was not made by a medical doctor, whereas in
1931, out of 29 lectures,
only 5 were by medical
doctors and 22 by architects, urban planners or

144

Furthermore, the Guadeloupe pavilion presented during the Colonial International Exhibition of 1931316 without a doubt emphasized the islands modernization as orchestrated by France. The
choice of architect to design this pavilion (Ali Tur was the same
architect commissioned to design the administrative buildings after the hurricane of 1928), the pavilions aspect (modern concrete
building, with smooth white coating and clear lines, see Fig. 123),
and even the pavilions location (in the neighborhood of the
Angkor palace317, see Fig. 124) which offered the opportunity of a
strong contrast between traditional and modern architecture, were
surely parts of a meticulously selected scenery to highlight what
had been accomplished in Guadeloupe.
Furthermore, as an increasing amount of concepts developed
of what was not yet called urban planning emerged in France318 (as
well as in Europe in general), the planning of the colonial city
became a subject to be treated seriously.319 Lists of realizations;
pictures of bridges, public buildings, gardens; statements of the
number of kilometers of new roads or electric cables; calculations
of water networks, implementations of French laws in the colonies
and future urban programs, directives on building methods or
how to combine local architecture and aesthetics320 were disseminated to prove how
() urban planning is one of the noblest forms of
civilization since it satisfies two equally high
preoccupations: the love of fellow man, shown through
enhanced access to health, well-being, housing comfort; and
aesthetic satisfactions obtained through the great
architectural realizations, the embellishment of the home,
the city and its surroundings.321
Yet, even if they magnify the colonial pact, all of this data and
information also allowed colonial realities to become known. This
is especially evident in the case of Guadeloupe. Indeed, in their
attempt to give a precise assessment, many texts actually denounce
the weaknesses of colonial implementations or even totally ignore
modernization, perhaps suggesting its minimal impact. The best
example of a very critical text on modernizations implementation
could be seen in the work of Engineer Robert,322 presented for the
commemoration of 1935 and already commented on at length earlier (see Part II). However, other small-scale texts are worth noting
as well. One example is the article of G. Joutel (a journalist),323
which also made clear the limits of colonial modernization. Praising the urban planning of Guadeloupe in 1935, Joutel actually
stated how essentially progress was misunderstood.

engineers. This confirms

the emergence of the discipline parallel to its development in France.
320
This enumeration
randomly summarizes the
different kinds of documents found on the subject.
321
Source: BNF. Introduction of M.E. du Vivier de
Streel in Royer, J. (dir.)
Congrs international de
lurbanisme aux colonies et
dans les pays de latitude
intertropicale (1931; Paris),
Paris: Ed. dUrbanisme,
Vol. 2, 1932-1935, p. 4.
Cest quen effet lurbanisme est lune des formes les
plus nobles de la civilisation
puisquil satisfait deux
proccupations galement
leves : lamour du prochain, se manifestant par la
mise sa porte de la sant,
de la salubrit, du confort de
lhabitation; les satisfactions
esthtiques obtenues par les
grandes ralisations architecturales, lembellissement
du foyer, de la cit et de ses
alentours.
322
Les travaux publics de la
Guadeloupe, op.cit.
323
La renaissance de la
Guadeloupe, un remarquable
effort durbanisme, by
Georges Joutel, 1935.
Source: CAOM, fm,
agefom111.40.

Figure 124: The International Colonial Exhibition of Paris, 1931: The map of the
exhibition and an aerial view of the site. Source: CAOM and Archives de lAgence
Universitaire de la Francophonie au Cambodge.

145

324
Source: Idem. Au lieu
de laisser au hasard des
constructions, qui, souvent
ont pu paratre somptuaires
parce quelles constituaient
un progrs, comme les
dispensaires des TroisRivires, de Sainte-Rose et
de Sainte-Anne, qui demeurent inutiliss par des
collectivits qui nen ont pas
encore compris la ncessit ;
un plan damnagement a
t dress chaque fois que
cela a t possible.
325
Source: CAOM, bib,som,
d5196. Brochure de
lExposition du Tricentenaire du rattachement des
Antilles et de la Guyane la
France, 1635-1935, Trois
cents ans dhistoire
commune et lart contemporain et les Antilles.
326
The exhibition of 1937
was not a colonial exhibition; officially entitled the
Exposition Internationale
des Arts et des Techniques
dans la vie Moderne, it was
dedicated to the display of
modern decorative arts
and techniques. One of its
pavilions was totally
devoted to French colonies,
including Guadeloupe,
and it is for this reason (as
well as due to its worldwide impact) that it is
mentioned here.
327
Source: CAOM, fm,
agefom 100/1, 13. La
Presse, October 13th,
1937. Leffort se portera
aussi du ct des paysans
pour lesquels il est indispensable de remplacer par
des demeures non pas
luxueuses, mais confortables
les masures et les paillotes
que lon rencontre encore
trop souvent.
328
Evident in the numerous
reports written by Muller,
Head of the Inspection
Mission (1928-1933) sent
after the 1928 hurricane.
The destroyed buildings
must be replaced by others,
bigger, more comfortable
and built according to more
modern methods. But, accordingly, one danger should
be avoided. One should not,
in the name of progress,
expect too much and thus
generate a too striking

146

Instead of leaving to chance constructions which may have

often been considered luxurious because they constituted a
certain progress, like the health centres of Trois-Rivires,
Sainte-Rose and Sainte-Anne, which are still ignored by
groups which have not yet understood their necessity; a
development plan has been designed each time it was
possible.324
In the same way, the brochure325 especially designated to present
the commemoration of 1935 exhibition in the new Museum of
Colonies, largely by depicting paintings and sculptures, evidently
ignored architecture and urban works, thus perhaps implying their
minimal contribution in the shaping of Guadeloupe.
Hence one could wonder whether, in the particular case of exhibitions, the redundancy of the same reference could carry further
meaning. The choice of Ali Tur to design the pavilions of 1931 and
1937,326 and the exhibition of his works for the commemoration of
1935 clearly reflect the decision to show the most modern expression of what had been realized in Guadeloupe. Nevertheless, even
if it seems understandable that Ali Turs works were considered a
sure success, was there really nothing new to exhibit between 1931
and 1937? This hypothesis would seem to be valid when one recalls
the assessment of the reconstruction program in 1935 (barely half
of the goals were reached on average, with clear-cut deficiencies in
detail) as well as the results of a report published in 1937 in the
media which evidenced a dichotomization of architecture.
Efforts should be made for the peasants, for whom it is
indispensable to replace the hovels and grass huts that are
too often seen with housing that is not luxurious but
comfortable.327
Indeed, the progress in domestic architecture could have provided another aspect (after the construction of administrative
buildings) of the impact of colonization to be displayed during the
1931-37 period. Yet, although earlier governmental reports already warned against the pitfall of widening the gap between domestic architecture and administrative architecture,328 colonial
efforts continued to favor administrative architecture,329 which
thus became one of the only beneficial effects to be exhibited.
Moreover, in a broader context, the fact that the 1931-1937 period was marked by economic and political crisis in France, as well
as the impending war, contributed to the abandonment of programs geared towards the development of the colonies.330 Just after
the Second World War, a text conclusively confirms the hypothesis

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 scenery
of daily life () does not match: outside of some
administrative modern buildings, a comfortable hotel (in
Basse-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 came
to interrupt a movement of renovation and reconstruction
that had been taking shape since 1935 (). One may hope
that this movement will continue with the return of Peace.331
Furthermore, another characteristic of the colonial exhibition and
congresses worth noting for the insight it offers into colonial realities is their staging and advertising type packaging.
Henry Brenger, the French ambassador and former governor
of Guadeloupe, for example, gave little information on the islands
modernization in an extensive preface to the album La Guadeloupe,332 published for the commemoration of 1935. Only at the end
of his description, which mainly focuses on the islands natural
resources, does Brenger mention modernization in terms of
school buildings, electricity and the development of the traffic system.333 In addition, of the 100 pictures depicting the island, only 7
show new realizations (of which 6 were Ali Turs buildings), while
the front page quite symbolically set the tone: it was the young
girl with madras that was selected to illustrate Guadeloupes best
(Fig. 125).
Colonial exhibitions systematically included folklore and
shows ranging from perfect illusions to maladroit representations/reconstructions and even the grotesque,334 evoking another
reality, 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 could
wonder how many visitors believed that locals were living in the
kind of houses designed by Ali Tur, when they were offered at the
same time traditional songs performed by natives in wooden
huts.
Another example of this flagrant dichotomy can be seen in the
exhibition of 1937. On the one hand, the visitor could admire the
modern 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 and
housing a bar conceived as an artistic realization, a popular en-

contrast between the luxury

of public edifices, that need
to be reconstructed, and the
incredible misery of the
private buildings.
Source: CAOM, fm, sg,
gua252.1519. Mission
dinspection de Muller,
1928/1929. De lInspecteur
Gnral des Colonies,
Muller, chef de la Mission
dInspection de la Guadeloupe Monsieur le Ministre des Colonies. August
3, 1929. Il faut donc
remplacer les immeubles
dtruits par dautres plus
vastes, plus confortables et
construits selon des
mthodes plus modernes.
Mais en cette matire un
cueil est viter. Il ne
faudrait pas, sous prtexte
de progrs, voir trop grand
et quil put stablir un jour
un contraste par trop
frappant entre le luxe des
difices publics quil est
ncessaire de reconstruire
et la misre incroyable des
habitations prives.
329
What is visible, for
example, in the budget
distribution of the reconstruction program in 1931
is that the role attributed
to administrative
buildings is three times
larger than that of
hygiene and assistance
programs (which provided, among other things,
some funds for private
building reconstruction in
1935). Source: Robert, G.
Les travaux publics de la
Guadeloupe, op.cit. Note:
Another report from
Muller clearly reveals how
domestic architecture is
tied to the economic
resources of individuals
(not those of the central
government), thus explaining the impossibility of
using modern building
methods: The question of
the reconstruction of private
buildings is more delicate
() To the suggestions ()
regarding the measures that
could be taken to encourage
the victims to have their
damaged houses rebuilt in
reinforced concrete, Mr.
Lefebvre, the temporary
Governor of Guadeloupe,

147

answered: () the loans to

be accepted by the future
loan office or whatever other
loan group are necessarily
limited by the value of the
guaranty deposits, it would
not seem possible in this
case to require a reinforced
cement reconstruction,
however modest it should
be. Source: CAOM, fm, sg,
gua252.1518. Analyse de
la reconstruction en ciment
arm des immeubles
dtruits par le cyclone du
12 septembre 1928, de
lInspecteur Gnral des
Colonies, Muller, chef de la
Mission dInspection de la
Guadeloupe Monsieur le
Ministre des Colonies.
January 12th, 1929. Beaucoup plus dlicate est la
question de la rdification
des immeubles privs ()
Aux suggestions ()
concernant les mesures qui
pourraient tre prises pour
inciter les sinistrs faire
reconstruire en ciment arm
leurs maisons dtruites, M.
Lefebvre, Gouverneur intrimaire de la Guadeloupe a
fait la rponse suivante: ()
Les avances consentir par
le futur Office des prts ou
par tout autre organisme de
crdit devant ncessairement tre limites par la
valeur des gages offerts en
garantie, il ne sera, semblet-il, pas possi-ble, dans ce
cas dexiger le reconstruction en ciment arm, si
modeste soit-elle.
330
Source: Carpentier, J. &
Lebrun, F. (dir.) Histoire de
France, op.cit., pp. 325-334.
331
Source: CAOM, fm,
agefom 100/1, 8. Conditions actuelles de la vie
aux Antilles (no date, no
author). Les paysages
nont pas chang: ils sont
splendides, la Guadeloupe
Ile dEmeraude et ses
dpendances (...) laissent
dinoubliables souvenirs de
beaut. Mais le dcor de la
vie de tous les jours (...)
nest pas la hauteur: pour
quelques btiments administratifs modernes, pour un
htel ( Basse-Terre) confortable il y a trop encore de
constructions en bois,
souvenirs du cyclone

148

Figure 125: The cover of the book La Guadeloupe, edited for the commemoration of the
year 1935. Source: Private collection.

Figure 126: The Paris Exhibition of 1937: The Pavilion of Guadeloupe by architect Ali Tur.
Source: CAOM. Le Courrier colonial illustr, November 25th, 1937.
Figure 127: The Paris Exhibition of 1937: Le Bar des Isles. Source: CAOM, agefom 605.

chantment and an advertising success. It was precisely here that

local choreographic reconstructions and traditionally costumed
employees were providing the exotic dream while Ali Turs
building was confirming the input of French civilization.
However, one has to admit that realities, in these caricatured
forms, were only disguised, not completely falsified: until 1940
more than 85% of the Guadeloupean population lived in wooden
houses 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 is
what the colonial ideology claimed, an assumption that has, of
course, been questioned since then.
Finally, what comes out of the analysis of documents from colonial
exhibitions and congresses is the fact that these documents are both
showcases of colonial ideology and interests, and through what is
left unsaid, barely whispered or sincerely admitted, an insight into
colonial reality. A double interpretation is thus possible, which is
significant because it clarifies existing relationships between
France and Guadeloupe on the topic of modernization.
Therefore, if modernization appears to have been truly wanted
and if it certainly existed, it very often remained limited to the
islands general development (specifically its infrastructure: ports,
roads, administrative buildings) and, to some extent, restricted to a
certain segment of the population, introducing (or maintaining?) a
strong disparity in architectural practices, and even further developing contrasts within the population.337
In addition, colonial discourse analysis substantiates another
contradiction, which also played its part in the shaping of French
and Guadeloupean bonds in terms of modernization. This was the
established consensus that united democratic and colonist principles under the same umbrella. The articulation of the equality principle338 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 assimilation of colonial and democratic principles helps explain why urban
and architectural modernizations are perceived to require little
thought.
Indeed, if the concepts of building standardization, mechanization, and rationalization of the urban space, or the use of new
building materials, technologies and architectural styles truly indicated a modernization of architectural and urban practices, it is
nonetheless striking to realize how precise references to an architectural movement or intellectual trends are absent. Modern colo-

destructeur de 1928, grises,

petites, sans esthtique et
sans beaucoup de confort. La
guerre est venue interrompre un mouvement de rnovation et de reconstruction
qui se dessinait depuis 1935
(...). Il est permis desperer
que ce mouvement va
reprendre avec le retour de
la Paix.
332
Bouge, M.L.J. (dir.) La
Guadeloupe, Ile dEmeraude
et ses dpendances, Librairie des Arts Dcoratifs,
Paris, 1935.
333
Its two main towns,
Basse-Terre and Pointe-Pitre are lit up by electricity. Cars, the number of
which exceeds 1200 and is
constantly increasing, run
on an admirable road network () Primary schools
including more than 400
classrooms, offer instruction
in 36 communes. Source:
Idem, p. 15. Ses deux
villes principales, BasseTerre et Pointe--Pitre sont
claires llectricit. Des
automobiles dont le nombre
dpasse douze cents et va
croissant constamment
sillonnent un admirable
rseau routier (...) Des
coles primaires comportant
plus de 400 classes distribuent linstruction dans
trente-six communes.
334
The classic anecdote is
related to the real origin of
cannibals and other
natives performing their
ancestral dances, rituals or
songs for the public: at
best, they were rarely
natives but rather former
sailors, mailmen, waitresses transformed into cannibals for the event, and at
worse, Parisians hired as
performers. Source: Hodeir
& Pierre, Lexposition
coloniale, op.cit., pp.98-100.
335
Source: Annuaire Statistique de la Guadeloupe.
336
Intentionally, the question of the psychological
representation of colonial
ideology through exhibition has been ignored here
because, as previously
mentioned, the ways in
which urban and architectural modernization have
been understood is the

149

primary focus. Yet, the

negative image of the
colonized (inferior, primitive, uneducated, etc.) displayed during these events
is worth noting because it
obviously weighed on the
collective ideal to be reached, which was evidently
symbolized by the colonizers. For an early critique
of this men-tal process, see
Csaire Aim, Discours sur
le colonialisme, Prsence
Africaine, 1989.
337
One has to remember
that in those times, housing
was often combined with
official buildings, thereby
emphasizing the difference
in ways of living between
civil servants and the rest
of the population, as substantiated by Ali Turs
plans for post offices and
health centres, for example.
Yet, one could wonder to
what extent an analysis of
the rural terri-tories of
France during the same
time span would display
different features.
338
The French Republic is
based on liberty, equality,
fraternity. Equality was
perceived as justifying
colonial enterprises: in all
of the studied congresses,
without exception, it was
mentioned at least twice.
339
Officially entitled the
Exposition Internationale
des Arts Dcoratifs et
Industriels Modernes, it
promoted the unification
of the decorative arts with
that of industry. The exhibition brought together
thousands of designs from
all over Europe and beyond. With over 16 million
visitors, it marked the high
point of the first phase of
Art Deco. For more on this
event, see, for example,
Ragon, M. Histoire mondiale de larchitecture et de
lurbanisme modernes,
op.cit., pp. 79-85.
340
Which appears as the
preface of the first volume
of Lurbanisme aux colonies
et dans les pays..., op.cit.
341
Source: Idem, Preface of
General Lyautey, pp. 7-8
Dans ma longue carrire
coloniale, deux questions

150

nial architecture, modern urban policy, modern material

were talked about, yet not a single allusion to a well-known architect or even to the Art Deco, (largely promoted by the Paris Exhibition of 1925),339 or later to the Modernist Movement was made.
One wonders if this general approach could not be seen as an intellectual way of equalizing all of the colonies inhabitants, even if in
reality a building hierarchy existed; no reference is made to the
differences between native dwellings and those of the whites. It is
only in the Congress of 1931, particularly with Lyauteys lecture,340
that the first notions of aesthetic interests, acknowledgement of an
indigenous art, suggestions of possible cooperation in urban and
architectural practices between France and its colonies, and even
criticism of bureaucracy and a certain type of architecture were
formulated. Yet, in the colonies, and especially in Guadeloupe,
further research is needed to assess their realities.
In my long colonial career, two questions have particularly
interested me above others: native policy and urban
planning.
Native policy, the original conditions of our colonial
life, our progress, the pacification, the coming together of
peoples, our increasingly close union with them, all that
makes the greatness and the nobility of this colonial
enterprise, constructive and not destructive, as I have so
often proclaimed.
Urban planning, understood in its wider meaning,
belongs to the same family as native policy. It brings ease
of life, comfort, charm and beauty.
The protection of native art, scrupulous conservation of
ancient monuments, their adaptation to the necessities of
modern life with the constant concern for respecting
traditions, research into new constructions of an art
appropriate to the diversity of countries, the daily struggle
against administrative formality, against arrogant routines,
against the ugliness of the model type; this inventory is
by itself enough to help understand all the reward there is
for a leader to devote himself to this creative action.341
In conclusion, through colonial exhibitions and congresses it appeared that the implementation of modernization certainly offered a means of fulfilling the equality paradigm while the true
dichotomy, bound to the colonial system, persisted: a contradiction that remained in the post-colonial period and contributed to
shaping Guadeloupes contemporary urban landscape.

8.3 Realities after 1946

Since it has been established that, on the one hand, colonial discourses revealed colonial ambitions and reflections (even if sometimes indirectly) of colonial realities; and, on the other hand, that
the modernization of colonies paradoxically served colonial interests and those of French democracy, one could then wonder what
became of colonial realities once the island changed status, from
colony to department.
Departmentalization was significant in the sense that changing
the 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 rural
activities in favor of tertiary activities tourism and services) and a
remodeling of size of the biggest agglomerations (out of shape by
high population growth and rural exodus). Regulating and planning the city became a major necessity. Thus, after a brief presentation of the legal framework concerning architecture and urban
planning in Guadeloupe, the present analysis will shift to examine
statistics in order to try to answer the following question: was the
equalizing process a total myth?
Under colonial rule, Guadeloupe was already subject to a legal
system, defined in its general lines by the central government and
in detail by local officials. Because of the natural qualities of its
surroundings, ravaged more than once by natural disasters, and
the underlying concepts of French colonization (more interested in
profit than in developing new human settlements), conclusions343
were drawn that colonial urban development was more influenced
by local town regulations strongly aimed at resisting the next hurricane or earthquake, than by national policy, even though some
documents prove that the local application of national regulations
existed. For example, the significant metropolitan law of 1902 on
public health came into force in June of 1909 in Guadeloupe,344
whereas, after the 1928 hurricane, the various plans of embellishment and extension345 made for several of the islands towns
closely followed the indications given earlier by the Cornudet law
of 1919.346
However, what marked the legal system in the post-colonial
period was the central governments complete intervention in
Guadeloupean urban development. This actually occurred during
the period when urban planning acquired its full dimensions on
the metropolitan territory via the post-war reconstruction due to
the necessity of economic revitalization and housing development.347 The entire metropolitan legislative and bureaucratic sys-

mont passionn entre

toutes: la politique indigne,
lUrbanisme. La politique
Indigne, condition premire de notre vie coloniale, de notre progression,
de la pacification, de ladhsion des populations, de
notre union de plus en plus
troite avec elles, de tout ce
qui fait la grandeur et la
noblesse de cette action
coloniale, constructrice et
non destructrice, ainsi que
je lai si souvent proclam.
LUrbanisme, entendu dans
son sens le plus large, est de
la mme famille que la
politique indigne. Il
apporte laisance de la vie,
le confort, le charme et la
beaut. Sauvegarde de lArt
Indigne, conservation scrupuleuse des monuments du
pass, leur appropriation
aux ncessits de la vie
moderne avec un souci constant du respect des traditions, recherche pour les
constructions nouvelles
dun art appropri la
diversit des pays, lutte
quotidienne contre les formalismes administratifs,
contre les routines arrogantes, contre les laideurs
des Modles-type, cette
numration seule suffit
faire comprendre tout le
prix quil y a pour un chef
se donner cette action
cratrice.
342
For a more political and
economic approach, see,
for example, Miles, W.
(Fifty years of Assimilation) and Daniel, J. (The
construction of dependency): both articles in
Islands at the Crossroads,
Politics in the non-independent Caribbean, Rienner,
2001, pp. 45-79.
343
More developed in
Dupr, K. Urban planning
and globalisation in Guadeloupe in The European
City in Transition, F.
Eckardt & D. Hassenpflug
(eds.), P. Lang, vol. II, 2004.
344
Source: BNF. Durant, G.
Rglement concernant la
construction des habitations dans les colonies de
la zone tropicalein
Congrs des Anciennes
Colonies, Paris, 1909, op.

151

cit., p. 1048. This law was

particularly significant
because it introduced the
requirement to submit a
building permit that
needed to be approved by
communal authorities and
in conformity with sanitary regulations.
345
The most famous being
those of Ali Tur for the
communes of Sainte-Anne,
Le Lamentin and of course
those of Basse-Terre and
Pointe--Pitre (in cooperation with Urban Planner
Danger R.)
346
The law of March 14th,
1919 precisely set the
conditions for developing,
embellishing and extending cities.
347
Although the first
attempts to create a general codified set of rules for
urban planning in France
could be traced back to the
19th century, actual
features of the contemporary legislation come from
the post-war period. By
1955, the land-use patterns, modalities of the
land appropriation and its
constructability are defined by a code (Code de
lUrbanisme), as well as the
principles of hygiene and
modernization in the building process. Source:
Journal Officiel. Decrees on
August 25, 1955 creating
the national urban planning regulation and on
October 27, 1955 issuing
the national construction
regulation.
348
The main changes
appearing with the SRU
law of 2000. SRU stands
for Solidarit et Renouvellement Urbains, which came
into force on December 13,
2000 and aimed at restructuring procedures and
regulatory tools to reinforce the coherency of
territorial and urban policies as well as to support the town policy.
Source: Journal Officiel.
349
Kropf, K An alternative approach to zoning in
France: typology, historical character and development control in European
Planning Studies, Vol. 4,

152

tem was put in place in Guadeloupe. Whether in France or

Guadeloupe, the same procedures and regulatory tools governed
housing and urban developments.
Yet, the principal regulatory tools, that would dominate the
planning and the development of the entire country until just recently were not produced before 1967.348 Based on a zoning system,
the three main regulatory tools were:
-the Schma Directeur dAmnagement et dUrbanisme (SDAU),
an optional strategic plan for the general direction of
development within an area encompassing several
communes, with the commune as the basic administrative
unit of local government;349
-the Plan damnagement de zone (PAZ), an optional document
establishing the specific conditions of land-use within a
given area to be developed;
-the Plan dOccupation des Sols (POS), a municipal land-use
plan aiming at defining the rules and constraints that govern
land use and construction, and which is applied at the level
of the individual commune and enforceable towards third
parties.
However, the decentralization law of March 2nd, 1982 brought significant change because it signaled the end of the central governments omnipotent control over urban development. Communes,
departments and regions were offered the possibility of preparing
and administering their own urban documents. Concretely, instead of being set up by the services of the central government, the
POS, for example, was devolved to the communes although central
services remained accessible. Furthermore, in the specific case of
Guadeloupe and of the other French overseas departments, the decentralization law (or regionalization) generated a particular status that set them apart from other departments, for it is unusual
that a department and a region exactly cover the same territory.
Finally, when examining the implementations of national
regulations controlling spatial transformations in Guadeloupe,
one can only be amazed at the quality of the process. While it is true
that in the early 1970s Guadeloupe was still characterized by a lack
of legislative framework (the 1967 Act coming into force in
Guadeloupe only in 1971), as well as the lack of an official department devoted to urban planning or urban development (the first
real operating organization [ADUAG] was founded in 1972,
whereas the field services [Direction Dpartementale de lEquipement]
of the central government were still in embryonic form), as much
on the island level as on the communal. Moreover, in addition to

the lack of the effective production of urban documents (the first

SDAU documents being approved only in 1976), the slowness of
the process cannot have been attributed to all local applications of
national regulations; nor can it contradict the existence today of a
well established legal framework in Guadeloupe.
Nevertheless, in its details and its practices, one should emphasize that the implementation of the national system of bureaucracy
and regulations has more than once been riddled with contradictions. If it is not the purpose here to list them, at least two points are
worth 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 the
application of the legal framework. It was indeed a double-edged
sword, since it often generated a delay in the implementations of
laws, for the texts in France were not automatically passed in
Guadeloupe. Yet it also sometimes produced a surprising rapidity
of application (see, for example, the case of the 1955, 1986 and 1996
Acts, all put into force in Guadeloupe within the year of their approval in France)350 or exceptions to the general framework. For
example, Guadeloupe is the only French region where inhabitants
(even the lots non-owners) are compensated for the destruction of
their houses within the context of a renovation program. On the
other hand, the establishment of an administrative system, often
criticized for its rigidity and its complexity, can be thought to have
partly contributed to an urban development that did not necessarily suit local needs,351 and in the worst case, to violations and illegal behaviors.352 However, only a comparative study with other
regions of France could prove whether this is specific to
Guadeloupe.
Finally, despite the slowness of process and local specificities,
perhaps what should be kept in mind is that equality and modernization had been definitively achieved through legal framework
and enhanced by a reorganized international context (for example,
the loss of Algeria in 1962 directly introduced a transfer of the
monetary support towards French Overseas Departments).

#6, 1996, p. 718.

350
Those laws shared the
common goal of encouraging economic development through different
incentives regarding the
housing and construction
sectors.
351
Here the allusion concerns the first renovation
program of Pointe--Pitre
in the 1950-60s: by its scale
(107 hectares, 7,000 housing), the introduction of
new urban morphology
and architectural vocabulary (e.g. tower or bar-like
shape, concrete and prefabricated buildings, emphasis on hygienic building,
etc.) and most of all, its
similarity to Parisian
suburbs, the urban renovation of Pointe--Pitre was
to indelibly mark the
Guadeloupean landscape.
Today, the demolition of a
large part is planned.
Source: Service dUrbanisme de la mairie de
Pointe--Pitre.
352
Constructions without
building permits are part
of the Guadeloupean urban
landscape. If we look at a
higher level in 1995, for
example, despite the decentralization law and 11
years of work, the State
had to supersede the
Guadeloupean Regional
Council in elaborating the
regional plan document
(Schma dAmnagement
Rgional) because the
Regional Council was
convinced of fraudulent
activity. Source: Sept Mag.
n 871, 29 fvrier 1996 and
Jounal Officiel, June 30,
1995.

What about more materialistic considerations? As previously

evoked in Part III, after 1946, Guadeloupes modernization came
about through the implementation of numerous programs concerning various aspects of daily life in order to match the
Guadeloupean standard of living with that of metropolitan citizens. Modernization, perceived from the architectural and urban
angle, was equally characterized by a desire to level housing conditions as by the central governments implication in the process.
For the assimilation process, France was the absolute referent;
153

French norms were the absolute standards to reproduce. Comparative statements, statistics and reports support this theory, while
today the French National Statistic Agency (INSEE) still bases its
assessments of overseas department development on a comparison with metropolitan standards.
NOTE: IN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING TABLES, THE NUMBER IN BRACKETS (..)
CONCERNS FRANCE.
Building Material

Before 1940

1940-1954

1955

1974

1982

1990

1997

wood

85

79

66

39

33

19

16

hard (stone, concrete)

18

23

29

64

75

mixed

10

11

31

19

12

Table 16: House-building materials. Source: Annuaire Statistique de la Guadeloupe &

INSEE.

Persons/family

1961

1967

1974

1982

1990

1999 (1997)

4.1

4.2

4.2 (2.9)

3.7 (2.7)

3.4 (2.5)

2.9 (2.5)

3.4 (3.6)

3.5 (3.8)

3.7 (4)

3 (2.5)

Rooms/housing 2.5

Table 17: Housing comfort. Source: Annuaire Statistique de la Guadeloupe & INSEE.

Water in the house

1961

1974 (1973)

1982 (1984)

1990 (1992)

1999 (2002)

32

68

(93)

83

(95)

97

(99)

55

(91)

78

(93)

94

(97)

52

(88)

74

(92)

(77)

WC

47

(88)

Shower, bathtub

38

(84)

92

(96)

Sewer

24

36

33

(88)

55

77

89

96

Electricity

25

Table 18: The level of housing facilities. Source: Annuaire Statistique de la

Guadeloupe & INSEE.
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 la

Guadeloupe & INSEE.
1974

1982

1990

Individual housing

97 (50)

85 (54)

82 (56)

1999 (2002)
72 (57)

Collective housing

3 (50)

15 (46)

18 (44)

23 (43)

Table 20: The distribution of main residences. Source: Annuaire Statistique de la

Guadeloupe & INSEE.
154

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 la

Guadeloupe & INSEE.
1954

1961

1974

1982

1990

1999 (2002)
81 (83)

Main residence

87

92

84 (84)

84 (83)

83 (82)

Second home

6 (7)

7 (9)

4 (9)

Empty houses

9 (8)

9 (8)

10 (7)

13 (7)

(9)

Table 22: Housing classification depending on the use. Source: Annuaire Statistique de
la 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 in
France that it represents compared to the Guadeloupean population. Source: Rapport
dactivits 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: Annuaire
Statistique de la Guadeloupe & INSEE.
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.
155

The latest statistical assessments from both 1999 and 2002

clearly reveal that in the case of housing, Guadeloupe has today
reached the same level as France in most cases, such as in the formal
aspects 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 both
Guadeloupe and France, one-family housing stock is superior to
collective housing stock (Table 20), and ownership is more frequent than renting (Table 21). A statistical review can deepens the
understanding of this process and its results.

And here, the historical

social context once again
proves to be significant
because two specific elements of land regulation in
Guadeloupe can partly
explain this high level of
ownership. The first concerns the fact that the same
lot can have several
owners (indivisibility
law), hence a building on
this lot can also be coowned. Whereas the
second element refers to
the existing practice of
building and owning a
house, with the underlying
promise not to built in
hard materials, on a lot
that may be for rent or free
use. In both cases, it
appears that those practices favor the ownership
tradition. For more precision on those practices, see
Luce, M. C. La route
dargent, op.cit., pp.60-69.

353

156

First, concerning housing standards, what is striking is the slowness of the process. In every case, it took more than 40 years to
reach the standards of the late 20th century, with a boom in the
1990s. For example, if we look at housing facilities, we can see that
in 1961, 77% of the metropolitan French had running water in their
houses, while only 7% of Guadeloupeans could say the same (Table
18). More surprisingly, barely half of Guadeloupeans had toilet
and sanitary installations (shower or bathtub) in 1982, whereas in
metropolitan France more than 88% of the population had both. It
is only in the 1990-2000 decade that the numbers were equal. At the
level of housing appliances (TV, refrigerator, phone, and car), the
same tendency is observed: a progressive evolution that finally
attains equality with French standards in the last 10 years, except
for the case of television. By 1984, 77% of Guadeloupeans already
had a TV set, whereas on average, less than half the population
possessed other facilities (Table 19).
On the other hand, the analysis also demonstrates that housing
evolution is strongly characterized by local conditions. Indeed,
once more, the statistical review comparing France and
Guadeloupe clearly reveals that both places were far from evolving from the same existing conditions. For example, if in absolute
value, owners in both places represent a larger group than tenants,
and followed the same increasing curve during 20 years, historically, owners in Guadeloupe were always a very dominant group
(at least from the first statistics in our possession, 1984) whereas in
France, in the same year, they had only started to be distinct from
the tenant group (Table 21). Similarly, the dominance of one-family housing stock is now a common characteristic in both France
and Guadeloupe, yet a major difference lies in the fact that, at least
since 1974, this has always been the case in Guadeloupe (despite an
accentuated decrease in numbers over the years), 353 whereas in
France the opposite phenomenon was observed (Table 20). By 1974,
one-family and multifamily housing stocks were equally repre-

sented but thereafter, one-family housing stock became predominant, while the amount of multifamily housing dropped.
Furthermore, the dependency of housing evolution on the
societal context is even more apparent when one compares housing numbers and the distribution of housing in France and
Guadeloupe. If main residences form the dominant type of housing
in both places, differences can be made among the evolution of
second homes and empty houses (Table 22). While in France, the
percentage of second homes consistently increased since 1974, a
reflection of an incentive policy towards private ownership,354 in
Guadeloupe there is a slight irregularity in the evolution of second
homes and empty houses. This irregular process could be seen as a
corollary of the housing policies developed in France by successive
governments, as well as one of the consequences of the boom in
tourist activity during the same period in Guadeloupe. Yet, another factor could also be invoked to connect the understanding of
the main residences evolution to its local context: the creation of
the BUMIDOM program.355
In October 1961, the central government finalized the general
directives of a new program that aimed at the transfer of the overseas population to France. Officially elaborated to oppose the
negative effects of a steadily increasing population in the French
Overseas Departments356 as well as a poor economic situation (the
significant increase in the number of the unemployed and consequent decrease in purchasing power), this new program, entitled
BUMIDOM, was in effect for 19 years (from 1962 to 1981) during
which 42,689 Guadeloupeans moved to France.357 The idea here is
not to ponder the legitimacy of such a program or its hidden
goals,358 but rather to explain its significance for the evolution of
second homes.
Indeed, since the sudden increase in second homes occurred
right at the launching period of the BUMIDOM program, it seems
plausible that this increase actually reflected a process in which a
number of main residences were turned into second homes, in direct proportion to the number of people who went to live in France
(Table 23). The simultaneous drop in numbers of main residences
and growth of empty houses seem to corroborate this hypothesis.
In the same way, the decline in numbers of second homes during
the years 1982-1990 could be seen as corresponding to the return of
a portion of this emigrant population, (nicknamed the
negropolitain)359 which is also acknowledged by statistics (Table
24). However, other factors also need to be considered after the
BUMIDOM period, for the new increase in second homes (after
1999) and the persistent growth of empty houses, cannot only be
considered to be simply a consequence of BUMIDOM.

Bourdieu, P. Les structures sociales de lconomie,

Ed. Seuil, 2000.
355
BUMIDOM stands for
BUreau pour le dveloppement des Migrations
intressant les Dpartements dOutre-Mer.
356
This is corroborated by
the population perspectives
established by INSEE. It
seems legitimate that the
central government was
worried. In March 1965,
INSEE predicted that the
Guadeloupean population
would double by 1985,
reaching the 555,924
inhabitants. Source: Annuaire Statistique de la Guadeloupe. Today, with approximately 440,000 inhabitants in 2003, the prediction becomes an anecdote.
357
Anselin, A. Lmigration
antillaise en France, la troisime Ile, Karthala, 1990.
358
Some critically compared it to a genocide by
substitution.
359
A contraction of two
words: negro (black) and
mtropolitain (metropolitan) that designated the
Guadeloupean citizen
from mainland France.
354

157

360
For example, one recalls
the program developed in
the aftermath of the 1928
hurricane, the same priorities were articulated
respectively in 1941 and
1946. Roads and paths, the
port of Pointe--Pitre and
secondary ports, hygiene
and assistance, governmental buildings, electrification of Guadeloupe,
education, new plans of
urban development and
embellishment in the
communes, were still the
works to be undertaken.
Source: CAOM, fm,1tp/
623 and fm,1/affpol/2640.
Note: The recent Loi
dorientation pour lOutremer law on December 13th,
2000 aimed at the economic, territorial and
employment development
in overseas departments,
still puts, for example, the
chapter on traffic organization before the chapter
on housing rights. Source:
Journal Officiel. Loi
n2000-1207, Titre Ier and
Titre V.
361
Looking at both the
results of the work accomplished by 1940 and the
1946 budget distribution,
it is easy to note that what
concerns the islands general development is favored
to the detriment of what
concerns personal development. Source: idem.

158

Finally, the evolution of the number of housing further demonstrates the importance of local features while studying the housing
sector. Once more, the statistical review shows an irregular evolution, very different from that of France in its details. Perhaps the
indirect effects of the BUMIDOM program can partly explain the
small increase in housing numbers from 1961 to 1974 (the launching period of the program), and the continuous expansion between
1982 and 1990 (end of BUMIDOM program). Yet, they do not explain the revival of housing construction between 1974 and 1982, at
a time when migration towards France reached its peak (Table 24).
It is actually by looking at the quality of the housing stock (Table
20), that we arrive at an interpretation. Indeed, the 1974-1982 period was characterized in Guadeloupe by the significant rise of
multifamily housings (five times what existed in 1974), reflecting
how the departure of a portion of the population was compensated
by the central governments policy of promoting housing complexes. Another possibility for explaining the augmentation of
multifamily housing is the land-speculation process, which by restraining the individual access to land ownership and private
homes, reinforced the need of multifamily housings built by the
state or the municipalities.
Furthermore, comparison with metropolitan figures supports
the specificity of local practices. Indeed, if by the early 1980s statistics for Guadeloupe and France reveal a similar variation in their
housing numbers, the two following decades show a profoundly
different evolution. While Guadeloupes housing sector is marked
at first by growth and the persistence of a relatively high variation,
in France the same sector is at first characterized by a slump and
then by a very small revitalization (Table 25).
On the other hand, in Guadeloupe multifamily housing has
continuously increased since 1974, whereas in France, it has continuously decreased. Thus, it becomes evident that housing policies implemented in France and Guadeloupe could be of a different
nature, adapting to (or perhaps compensating for?) the local
specificities.
In conclusion, it is obvious that the realization of equality and
modernization was a slow process, influenced by local situations
and the strong position of the central government. Moreover, in
their general context, the form taken by implementation programs
reveals that, at first, the transition from colonial to departmental
governance was not a rupture, but rather a continuity of colonial
practices. The general level of modernization was still considered
to be the dominating priority, rather than the modernization level
of 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

Percentage of realized works by 1940 (%)

Budgets repartition for 1946 (%)

The port of Pointe--Pitre

100

9.5

Electricity

99

Hygiene and assistance

80

Roads and paths

62

28.5

Administrative buildings

42

16

Secondary ports

35

Drainage and water systems

19

18

Other

13

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 understandable that a small part of the budget was dedicated to the port of Pointe--Pitre, electricity and hygiene and assistance programs because they averaged 90% success. More
surprising 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 programs
ranked first for their results. Furthermore, if the budgets emphasis on the roads and
paths, administrative buildings and drainage and water system programs was understandable, for none of these programs were fully successful, their themes, mainly related
to the development of the islands equipment and governmental assets, makes us wonder
about the scale of improvement at which level the development was desired. Thus, could it
be suggested that what made the island work from the trade, economic and institutional
perspectives was firstly developed (and mostly around the main cities Pointe--Pitre and
Basse-Terre), whereas what concerned the development of smaller towns (concerned by
both secondary ports and urban planning programs) and the access for all to education was definitely relegated to the last priorities.
However, the high results carried by the hygiene and assistance programs, as well
as by its honorable rank (fifth) in the budget distribution of 1946 also prove that any
clear-cut statement needs to be nuanced. Many minutes of municipal meetings are related
to 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 another
interpretation could be given. Indeed, the numbers from 1940 are issued from the government of Guadeloupe, from the public works departments, whereas the numbers from 1946
are a law. Could it be that some results were overestimated?

turn because parallel to the clear loss of French colonies, the implantation of supportive governance362 led to a specific form of
development, whose forms are still visible and in use today.
Yet, if the previous analysis proposed a general survey of the phenomenon, a more detailed approach is now needed, for 2 elements
come to reinforce the idea that further contradictions might exist.
The first lies in the fact that the study of general figures does not
provide 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--Pitre/Abymes/Gosier/
Baie-Mahault/Lamentin/Petit-Bourg is without doubt the one that
has developed the most in continental Guadeloupe. Nonetheless, a
case-by-case study discloses how the communes of Pointe--Pitre
and Lamentin are far from following the agglomerations global
evolution: Pointe--Pitre is actually the city growing the least in

Not only present

through administrative
structures but also by the
amount of money that is
piped in yearly, compensating for Guadeloupes
deficient trade balance.

362

159

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 of
further consideration. Indeed, if the town of Gosier, for example,
figures at the top of the list of towns for its increasing number of
main residences (1st rank) and that of its population (2nd rank)
from 1961 to 1999 (Table 27), there is a reality that is not represented by the numbers. Indeed, the numbers do not reflect the following facts such as roads that are not necessarily tarred or
concreted; waste waters that do not necessarily go to the appropriate sewer, as well as the fact that the electricity does not necessarily
come from the right transformer, or that small wooden houses can
be adjacent to brand new multistoried concrete buildings, etc. For
this reason, it is now time to return to the case studies for a better
appreciation the of modernizations 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

3.2

Les Abymes

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

1.5

Sainte-Rose

1.7

Communes with slower evolution

Vieux-Fort

1.9

1.3

1.8

1.5

Deshaies
Lamentin

1.2

Le Moule

1.3

Bouillante, Morne--lEau

1.1

Capesterre

1.7

1.2

Saint-Claude, Gourbeyre

1.6

1.1

Pointe-Noire, Baillif

1.5

Trois-Rivires, Port-Louis

1.3

0.9

Vieux-Habitants

1.2

Basse-Terre

0.8

Anse-Bertrand

1.2

Pointe--Pitre

0.7

Table 27: The evolution of the number of main residences compared to the population
evolution, 1961-1999 (dependencies not included). Source: INSEE.
160

9. TYPOMORPHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS
This chapter focuses on a typological analysis to obtain a more
accurate picture of the bourgs built space as shaped by modernization.
At the same time, the analysis of modernization processes
should not hide the fact that, actually, even if plans, maps, archives
provide information on the built space of the bourg, the bourg, like
every place, possesses a special alchemy based on social relations
that gives life to its typomorphological realities. Thus, it is not
only an understanding of one towns design and production that is
proposed, but also a glimpse into its uses, into the meaning attributed to its space by its inhabitants.
However, due to the lack of available documents on the earliest
years of the time span under scrutiny, more than once the following analysis is restricted to the last 30 years (1970-2000) and relies
on conjectural plans, thus considerably limiting shrewdness and
precision.
After the results of the morphological analysis, temporal crosssections, that are extracts of the Cadastre on a 1/2000 scale, are
combined with governmental archives as well as construction and
urban planning texts to conduct the typological analysis. Most of
the typological considerations have been made possible by personal site survey, as well as by interviews with the owners of the
buildings. The typological analysis starts with an examination of
the 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 the
analysis results to a restricted area of the bourg in each case, with
the chosen area being representative enough of the bourgs morphological patterns and typological characteristics. In the first
stage, it was thought best to select a similar area size in each bourg
to facilitate the comparison between the two bourgs, yet very
quickly it became clear that it was not a necessary condition. Indeed, the main reason lies in the fact that the aim of this part is to
explore the spatial transformations that have occurred over time
according to specific local dynamics. Thus, the selected areas
should not necessarily depend on criteria that would be common
to the two bourgs (such as a strict similar size of analyzed area or a
strictly similar dissection of the time span) but rather, would depend on criteria that would reflect the spatial configurations of
each bourg. Thus, the comparison makes it possible to answer the
initial questions about transformations and dynamics by examining the simple intention of documentation.
In each selected area, every single existing building has been
161

Indeed, in the case of a

repetitive house plan, such
as row housing or block of
apartments, one sample
was sufficient.
364
For example, in 1968,
one strategic plan for the
general direction of
development (SDAU)
within the area encompassing the communes of
Pointe--Pitre/ Les
Abymes/ Gosier is
approved by the Prefect
and the General Council.
Source: Arch.Dp.Gua.
Fonds ADUAG, 1246W49.
365
For example, the
construction of a new
health center, new schools
and the renovation of the
oldest buildings, as well
as the building of a
stadium, a House for
Youth and Culture, etc., in
early 1970s. Source:
CAOM, bib, som, d3905.
366
Source: INSEE.
367
Source: idem.
363

systematically visited or documented,363 except in the case of refusal or absence by the owner. Finally, in both case studies, Gosier
and Trois-Rivires, it can be estimated that less than 10% of the
buildings in each restricted area have not been visited. Yet, the
inaccessibility of some buildings cannot be considered as having
an impact on the generalization of the results, for it concerns only
a small amount of them, and most importantly, it remains possible
to recognize which type those unvisited buildings fall into.
Finally, for materialistic considerations it was not possible to
display all the plans obtained from the site survey (over 700). The
main condition used for selecting the buildings that would be presented in this work once more refers to their representative quality. As such, it is not only the material of a building, its height, size,
aesthetic or function that matters, but rather its spatial configuration and transformations through time. This is the reason why this
study avoids categorization into functions, because each selected
area is considered to be undivided and indivisible whole.
For a better reading of house plans, the distinction among
building 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 and
urban services in Gosier became a priority in the late 1960s, enhanced by a governmental policy centered on tourist development
and by the first attempts to execute the new planning regulations.364
On average and over the years, statistics show how the commune improved its public facilities,365 its road network (from 38
km. in 1974 to 81 km. by 1983);366 access to electricity, running
water, and a sewer system (by 1999 reaching better results than
those of Guadeloupe as a whole).367 Similarly, with regard to the
housing sector, the characteristics and type of evolution observed
for the whole Guadeloupe are identical to those observed in
Gosier: a housing sector marked by continuous growth, getting
closer and closer to metropolitan standards, dominated by strong
ownership and one-family housing.
However, few numbers are available to depict the situation in
the bourg. Similarly, little information exists to explain modernization precisely at the typological level. This is what the next few
lines are all about.
As previously seen in Part III, the bourg of Gosier is characterized
today by settlement along a main axis, parallel to the seashore and

162

spreading south and north, specifically in the shape of a comb on

its northern part. Morphologically, the bourgs historical development led to three principal residential urban areas, different in
form and manner of development, namely the coastal, central and
inland areas (Fig. 128). The central area is the oldest settlement
area, followed by the development of the coastal area in the mid1950s. It is only in the 1960s that the inland area significantly developed, its eastern part (Mangot) being comprehensively
redeveloped in the 1990s into its present form.
Since the condition of selecting an area to conduct a precise site
survey was that this area should be representative of the bourg; in
the case of the bourg of Gosier, the selected area took the form of a
cross-section including each three distinct above-mentioned morphological areas. On the other hand, the location of this cross-section in the bourg was determined by the accessibility of historical
documents (e.g. cadastral plans or building permits prior to the
1990s) which were necessary to be able to draw conclusions on the
transformation of building types and of the whole area over the
years. This explains why the eastern side of the bourg has been
chosen: it is the most recently developed and best documented, as
well as displays each three distinct urban areas (Fig. 129). Furthermore, it is equally representative of the diversity of types met, for
example, in the center or the eastern side of the bourg.
Besides, since it appears that within the studys time span, morphological periods were revealed (1928-1954, 1955-1989 and 19902003), the typological analysis of Gosier relies on three temporal
cross-sections, which reflect these periods and simultaneously take
into account the main phases of modernization displayed by statistics: a non-return change in the building material after 1955 and a
constant 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 and
public buildings on both sides of the main street, although the
seeds of development towards the seashore had already been
planted. The A. Clara Boulevard was not yet finished, but a few
buildings stood in this southern part of the bourg, among them the
Pergola Hotel.
In the same way that cadastral maps were not available,368 very
few plans or drawings were found to describe the type of buildings
existing in Gosier between 1928 and the mid-1950s. However, the
accounts given by inhabitants and archival materials indicate that
a dwelling was most often a single-storey wooden house divided
into several communicating rooms, with external kitchen and wa-

Because of the time span

of this study, which is very
contemporary, such
documents, when they do
exist, are protected by a
law that guarantees the
privacy of third parties.

368

163

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 of
1991. (KD)
164

Source: Arch. Dp. Gua.

Sc 6265, Municipal
minutes of Gosier, March
27, 1929. Cest une maison
en bois dont le corps principal est de 4,10x8,20. Elle
est divise en trois pices
ayant 4,10 x 3,55, 4,10 x
2,30, 4,10 x 2,40 se communiquant entre elles. A lextrmit sud, se trouve une
petite pice en forme
dappentis de 4,10 x 2,35.
Sur les cts est, nord et
ouest de ce corps principal
tait construite une galerie
ouverte. Dmolie par le
cyclone, sauf la partie de
3,50m de longueur amnage en cuisine et case--eau,
lextrmit sud de la
galerie ouest.
370
Source: Arch. Dp. Gua.
Sc 2226, Municipal minutes of Gosier, February
4, 1955. Les travaux de
construction de rues nouvelles dans le bourg du
Gosier ont ncessit le
dplacement dune maison
().Cette construction
comprenait: A- Une maison
dhabitation en bois de 8,40
x 5,25 avec soubasse-ment
en maonnerie, toiture en
tle ondule, sous-plafond,
divise en 4 pices. Bon tat.
B- Un cabanon- cuisine en
bois de 4,50 x 2,40 avec
plancher, toiture tle
ondule. Bon tat. C- Un
appentis en bois de 3,60 x 2
sans plancher, couverture
tle. Mauvais tat.
369

Figure 130: The plan of the Billy House, Gosier (1929). Source: Based on Arch. Dp.
Gua. Sc 6265, Municipal minutes of Gosier, March 27th, 1929. (KD)

ter space (case--eau) located in the backyard. This is confirmed

in the two documents found, which are property selling deeds between third parties and Gosiers municipality. In the first case, the
deed concerns the construction of a new school after the 1928 hurricane, while the second is concerned with creating the new A. Clara
Boulevard in the early 1950s:
It is a wooden house with a main body of 4.10 metres by
3.55 metres. It is divided into 3 communicating rooms of
4.10x3.55m, 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. On
the eastern, northern and western sides of the main body, an
open gallery was built. It was destroyed by the hurricane,
except for the 3.5m long part that was built as a kitchen and
water space at the gallerys south end.369 (Fig. 130)
The construction of new streets in Gosiers bourg
necessitated the moving of one house (). This house
included:
A - The dwelling in wood of 8.40 x 5.25, with masonry
foundations, metal sheet roof, ceiling, divided in 4 rooms.
Good shape.
B - A wooden kitchen-cabin of 4.50 x 2.40 with floor, metal
sheet roof. Good shape.
C - A wooden shed of 3.60 x 2, without floor, metal sheet
roof. Bad shape.370

165

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) - See
colour plates.
166

Although no documents refer to systematic proportions or the organization of rooms in the bourg of Gosier, one witness alluded to
the existence of a preconceived type:
Every house was built on site, following the same model,
with a sloping roof. We were looking for qualified workers
to build and other people to help. We were buying the
materials in Pointe--Pitre and paying by the month. The
traders, whites from Martinique, were touring the
countryside, offering to work. They were looking for
clients.371
Furthermore, the 12 houses listed by the site survey as built before
1950 seem to confirm this existence of a preconceived housing type
(Fig. 131). Recent building transformations are present in each
house, yet the ease of spotting them and the overall permanency of
the initial buildings make it possible to compare the plans. In each
case, what stands out is the similarity found in the buildings general shape (rectangular two-sloped roof construction), in the choice
of material (wooden structure), in the building method (absence of
foundations, relying on a mortise-and-tenon technique, wooden
pegs) and in the shaping of the interior space (Fig. 132).
Based on a rectangular plan, the narrow side of the house was
parallel to the streets, rooms were usually connecting (with no
corridor between them) and possessed symmetrical openings in
their 4 walls (either doors or door-windows), thus providing communicating spaces and natural ventilation (Fig. 133 & 134). No
kitchen or bathroom was included in these plans, for, as already
stated, they belonged in the backyard. Moreover, neither electricity nor running water were installed in any of these buildings at
the time of their construction. The main front room usually served
as a semi-private space (visitors were allowed in), whereas back
rooms (and sometimes the smaller front room) were used as bedrooms.372 Even if one of these buildings is distinct from the others
by its unusual side gallery (Fig. 135),373 it nonetheless presents
similarities in plan configuration with the other buildings, as well
as building details such as shutters (Fig. 136) and corbelled vaults
to divide the space (Fig. 137). If these examples are too few in
number to establish a generalization, they nonetheless confirm the
idea of a building method and spatial design that followed some
common criteria, but also, as Charr & Flagie, for example, have
already stated,374 obeyed a socio-cultural hierarchy. The gallery
would serve as a public space, then comes the semi-private space
(the main room) where one could welcome guests, then the bedrooms, the core of familial privacy, and finally the kitchen and the

Interview with Mrs. C.

(born 1912), Gosier 20012003. Chaque maison tait
faite sur place, selon un
mme modle avec un toit en
pente. On cherchait des
gens de mtier pour construire et des personnes
pour aider. On achetait le
matriel Pointe--Pitre et
on payait au mois. Les commerants, les blancs martiniquais, allaient dans les
campagnes et proposaient
leur travail. Ils taient la
recherche du client.
372
Actually, because of the
familys size (30% of the
families had over 6 members in 1961, source:
INSEE), one room had
several functions, depending on the time of day: at
night, it served as a bedroom, and when daylight
appeared, the bed was
folded and the room had
other functions. Many
inhabitants mentioned this
habit, as well as novels
(see for example,
Schwarts-Bart S, Pluie et
vent sur Tlume Miracle,
Ed. Seuil, 1972, p.23).
373
This building apparently being the oldest of
this part of the street (built
around 1900 in the
owners opinion), this side
gallery could be explained
as a reminder of the fourside gallery, which had
disappeared when transformation occurred. Being
one of the oldest buildings,
the side gallery could also
be built because strong
contiguity did not exist.
374
In Living in the French
Tropics, in Europandom,
2000, pp. 26-27.
371

167

Figure 133: An example of a wooden house in Gosier (la case). (KD)

168

Figure 134: An example of a wooden house in Gosier (la case). (KD)

169

Note: Despite its good

condition, this building is
currently vacant,
illustrating very well the
problem of co-ownership
in Guadeloupe. Indeed,
this building belongs to a
man and his sister but
nothing can be done unless
both agree to the same
decision. This becomes
even more complicated
when one of them dies
because the house will then
belong equally to the
children of the deceased.
The indivisibility law loi
sur lindivision- is a
significant issue in
Guadeloupe, explaining
why there are many vacant
lots and buildings.

170

Figure 135: An example of a wooden house in Gosier (la case). (KD)

Figure 136 (above): Wooden shutters, Gosier. (KD) - See colour plate.
Figure 137 (below): Wooden inner corbelled vaults, Gosier. (KD) - See colour plate.

Figure 138: The conjectural plan of the bourg of Gosier, c.1955. Source: Based on a
site survey. (K.D)

171

In practice, due to the

danger that fire posed to
wooden houses, the separation of the kitchen from
the main body is easily
understood. At the same
time, Charre & Flagie give
a social dimension to this
separation: The kitchen
related to the intimacy and
whatever was prepared
there, directly concerned
the family and its health. It
had to be protected from the
malevolent interventions of
persons with bad intentions in Living in the
French Tropics, op.cit. p.
26.
376
Drawn after the encounter between the morphological evolution survey
with interviews and a site
survey, it was purposely
established just before the
start of the significant seashore communal planning.
It explains why this plan is
unfortunately lacking in
cadastral information.
377
Despite its larger size,
this building presents the
same building characteristics: wood as the main
material, pig and mortise
building method, organization en suite, symmetry
in the openings.
378
For example, Berthelot
& Gaume, Kaz antiy jan
moun ka rt, op.cit., or Giordani La Guadeloupe face
son patrimoine, op.cit.,
Bgot (dir), La Grande
Encyclopdie de la Carabe,
op. cit.
379
In Kaz antiy jan moun ka
rt, op.cit. (translation:
Bowie, K.)
380
Idem, p. 92.
381
This is also confirmed
by the numbers used by
Casimir: in 1967, 68% of
the main residences did
not have electricity in
Gosier, whereas the large
portion of the communal
budget attributed to electrification in 1974 (20%)
proved that there was a
need. Source: Casimir, G.
Lurbanisation de la
commune du Gosier: la
transformation dun bourg
rural en une ville touristique , op.cit., pp. 245, 258.
375

172

water space which were hidden and protected (both from view and
from bad intentions)375 in the backyard, which was also important
as a subsistence provider.
The conjectural plan of circa 1955376 appears to confirm this
spatial organization because it displays a dominance of small
floor-surface buildings (averaging 40m2), with the smaller side
parallel to the street, a gallery on the street side and smaller constructions (kitchen, water space) in the backyard (Fig. 138). On the
chosen site, only one building (the largest building in the southwest area) is separate from the others, but its use explains this
particularity (it was dedicated to educational activities),377 while
all the other buildings were used as housing (although the selling
of goods was a registered activity in some of them, most often in
the gallery). Finally, building type seemed relatively homogeneous in the pre-1955 period, reflecting what statistics showed (e.g.
dominance of one-family wooden houses) and what previous research conducted in Guadeloupe378 tended to state, namely, the
existence of a specific housing type. The major reference on this
subject remains the work of Berthelot & Gaume,379 who described
the traditional case (the name for this housing type) as a Basic
two room hut, () rectangular volume surmounted by a two-sloped roof,
[such as] the most common construction measures 6 by 3 metres, the
measurement of the hut being nonetheless variable.380
9.1.2 The 1955-1988 period
As shown by the morphological context, the next decades were to
radically transform the bourg, for the first impact of seashore developments policy could be felt. Even if morphologically the
three distinct urban structures were set up in the late 1950s, it was
only in the 1980s they achieved maturity through a considerable
densification. Thus, shifting between two temporal cross-sections
for the 1955-1988 period (1972 and 1986 cadastral maps) was
thought to provide a better understanding of the evolution of
building types.
During this period, modernization such as access to electricity
and water networks was undertaken. Although a plan of electrification for 1955 displayed the existence of a real network along the
main axis of the bourg (Fig 46), whether this network provided
electricity inside each house or only for the street remains uncertain at this time. When corroborating the statistics (Table 18)
through interviews, most informants insisted on the fact that it was
not before the mid-1960s that electricity came into their houses, 381
and, a decade later for running water. One inhabitant, living in the
central block, recalls:

Figure 139: The cadastre of Gosier for 1972. Source: Based on a site survey and
cadastre. (KD)
Figure 140: The cadastre of Gosier for 1988. Source: Based on a site survey and
cadastre. (KD)

Until 1960, there was no running water; we were fetching

water from the ravine. Before, instead of the prison there
was a water container. Otherwise, there were fountains in
the main street (near the cemetery, in iron) and water in the
city 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 what
characterized the seashore development was that water and electric access were included in the early stage of planning and realized in parallel to the building-up of the area. Thus, the question
immediately arises as to whether modern features are also visible
in the housing design. Actually, through typomorphological evolution during the 1955-1989 period of the three urban blocks, it
appears that housing typologies differed: the coastal area stood
apart from the other blocks for it remained unchanged (Figs. 139 &
140), whereas all the other areas went throughout significant transformations in the 1970s.

Interview with Mrs. C.

(Gosier, 2002). Jusquen
1960, il ny avait pas deau
courant[e], on allait chercher leau dans la ravine.
Avant, la place de la prison, il y avait une citerne. Il
y avait sinon des fontaines
dans la rue principale (prs
du cimetire, en fer) et de
leau dans la mairie. En
1976, il y avait juste un
robinet dans la cour. Mais
ensuite tout est arriv en
mme temps.

382

173

Figure 141: Examples of the main fronts of buildings in the coastal area of Gosier.
(KD) - See colour plates.

9.1.2.1 The coastal area

383
Actually, only architect
Corbin Michel graciously
sent me the plan of his
house. Unfortunately,
although his house is also
located on the shore, it
does not belong to the
chosen area. However, the
inaccessibility of those
houses cannot have an
impact on the generalization of the results because
the type to which they
belong is known through
neighborhood site survey.
384
Observations were
made from land, but also
from the sea from which
the back facades of these
houses are visible.
385
Source: Boutrin, former
head of ADUAG,
interview 2002.

174

More precisely, in the coastal area, homogeneity was noticeable in

the areas organization: almost all lots were divided according to a
same size (around 1800m2), of the same shape and perpendicular to
the street. All the buildings on a privately owned parcel also had a
similar 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 of
the areas buildings. The floor surface was generally more than
120m2, usually repeated on two or three floors (Fig. 141). Almost
all designed by the architects Corbin and/or Amarias, these buildings echoed, in many aspects, a modern architectural bias, not only
in the choice of material (mainly glass and concrete), but also in the
design proper.
Although not a single owner in this area allowed me the opportunity to look at their houses plan,383 a sketch was made in accordance with one owners own description (Fig. 142) and I visited one
abandoned house (Fig. 143). This information together with the
external observation384 of the inaccessible buildings suggest that
rupture with the wooden type observed for the pre-1955 period
had occurred. Indeed, the white box-shape type of house with a flat
roof, large balconies and large glass windows towards the sea, a
staircase-like back facade and big proportions surrounded by a
heavy 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 independence from the socio-spatial context. The change in the traditional
relationship to the yard, from a subsistence garden to a purely
ornamental one (in fact, those lots were sold as uncultivable
lots),385 is evident, also reflecting the change in the composition of
the population (to one that does not need farming).

Figure 142: Sketch plan of the first floor of a house in the coastal area of Gosier. (KD)
175

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, which
shut down the construction site.
176

Figure 144: Some back facades of the coastal houses in Gosier (KD) - See colour
plate.
Figure 145 (right): Examples of the architectural modern style. (KD) - See colour plate.

At the same time, even though alignment with the street was respected, the position of the building in the lot, the fence surrounding the lot and the diversity of the plans (from square to T-plan)
differ from a consensual building orientation. In fact, the relation
to the street did not seem as primordial as that to the panorama. In
the three available plans, the main room faces the sea. This phenomenon bears some influence on the way the coastal area is experienced and viewed from the street, for the transition space, before
represented by galleries, had disappeared. On the contrary, fences
and the position of the house (in the middle of its lot) isolated the
building in a 100% private space, making it inaccessible.
In some cases, this separation was even more emphasized when
some architectural principles dear to Le Corbusier were integrated, such as pillars which separate the built space between a
created open space and the above living unit (Fig. 145).
Since the function of the coastal areas buildings was mainly
residential, as in the other areas, the explanation for this phenomenon is to be found in other criteria such as the specific population
that these houses were intended for (mostly upper social class
individuals),386 the parallel with a growing interest in touristlinked activities and the early implementation of strict urban regulations.
9.1.2.2 The central block
On the central block, the heterogeneity of lots, their transformation over the years as well as visible building changes were the
main features and processes emerging from the general observation of 1972 and 1988 cadastral maps (Fig. 139 &140).
Although the form of the block remained unchanged during
the time span studied, lots were irregular in size (from 90 m2 to
1200m2), in shape (except in the eastern end of the block), but were
similar in their private ownership, except for one parcel that be-

386
Recall the unofficial
municipal incentive, Part
III, p. 113.

177

Figure 146: The reduction of block crossings in Gosier, 1972-2003. Based on a site
survey. (KD)

longed to the central government (that of the health care center). If

those features remained almost identical throughout the 1980s, the
densification of the built space and the intensification of the division of the lots modified the blocks inner organization. Unlike
1972 when small proportions of the lot were built (less than 1/3),
thus allowing north-south gateways from one boulevard to another and east-west passages within the block, by 1988 lots were
entirely or largely built, depriving the block of its transversal accesses (Fig. 146).
The major feature that emerged during the 1955-1988 period
was the increase in building size, horizontally (doubling of the
floor surface) and vertically (one or two extra stories). Nevertheless, in order to better understand the transformation of housing
types in the 1980s, it is necessary to explicitly describe them as they
were in 1972.
By 1972, built space on the central block was characterized by a
mixing of two main housing types aligned with the street: on the
one hand, there was the dominant group of small floor surface
single-story wooden buildings (around 40m2) and on the other, the
large floor surface multistoried concrete buildings.
178

Figure 147: An example of a wooden house built after 1950 in central Gosier. (KD)

179

Figure 148: Some examples of housing solidifications on their main faade in central
Gosier. (KD) - See colour plates.

387
According to Casimir,
in 1967, 50% of the main
residences had an external
kitchen working with oil,
coal or wood. It is unlikely
that 5 years later this
amount had drastically
decreased. The 1972 map
confirms this. Source:
Casimir, G. Lurbanisation de la commune du
Gosier: la transformation
dun bourg rural en une
ville touristique, op.cit., p.
258.
388
For ease of language, the
terms solidify or solidification of a house will
be used henceforth, despite
the false interpretation
they may introduce: a
wooden house is not necessarily less solid than a
concrete one (as evidenced
by the amount of wooden
houses that resisted hurricanes better). Rather, these
terms refer to the end of
housing mobility: with
concrete, houses could no
longer be lifted up and
carried to a new spot, a
habit frequently described
until the late 1970s in
Guadeloupe.

180

In the first group, buildings showed little space at their sides

and much more behind them, with the persistent feature of several
constructions on a given lot (kitchen and water space in the
backyard).387 This group included the remaining houses built before 1955 (whose type had been previously described), as well as
more recent buildings, which, surprisingly, returned to the same
building type (Fig. 147). However, a certain simplification in the
details (e.g. disappearance of the corbelled vault and gingerbread
decoration), in the building method (e.g. regarding the loading
structure and the paneling) and the quality of the wood employed
(standardized boards of smaller size) clearly draw the distinction
between pre and post-1955 buildings.
Yet, this distinction was erased when confronted with a new
building process: the introduction of concrete in the house through
extension by the addition of new rooms with concrete walls or
solidification by the replacement of the former wooden walls by
concrete ones.
Although such changes remained rare in 1972 (less than 10% of
the buildings were concerned), by 1988 they concerned all of the
buildings. Extended or solidified388 by concrete (Fig. 148), most
often in the interest of progress (shower room, new kitchen) or
to resist better hurricanes, the plans of these buildings clearly substantiate the transformations that occurred since 1972.
Nonetheless, the initial spatial organization was not questioned but rather supported by the successive filling-up of the lot.
All of the formerly separate elements were now gathered into one
building, which explains why in many cases the kitchen and bathroom remained in the back of the building (Fig. 149, or 134 & 135).
However, it is not possible to state whether the encirclement or the
extension in length of the initial building was preferred. There is a
lack of precise data concerning the history of lot and the logging of
changes is often lacking.

Figure 149: An example of housing transformation in central Gosier. Plan courtesy of

the owner / (KD)
181

Figure 150 (left): An example of housing transformation in

Guadeloupe. Source: Berthelot & Gaume, Kaz antiy jan moun ka
rt, op.cit., p. 160.
Figure 151 (below): Extensions of the initial wooden houses (upper
western corner of the central block) in the bourg of Gosier. (KD) See colour plate.
Figure 152 (bottom): Street facades of the 1972 concrete housing
type in the central block of Gosier. (KD) - See colour plates.

182

Nevertheless, these transformations were also very visible in the

overall appearance of the building (Fig. 150). Apart from the material (concrete bricks) that inevitably introduced a different building method, the general impoverishment of details and the
mastering of the material made even more striking the coexistence
of two building methods and designs. For example, the diminution
of the roofs slope, while maintaining the initial roof in the case of
housing extension, reveals the compromise resulting between
from the lack of material mastering, the hope for better days (when
eventually an upper floor could be built) and the desire to attain a
certain model (terrace-roof) (Fig. 151).
Knowing that in the central block, concrete became the dominant material at the end of the 1980s, one can appreciate its typological influence, for buildings did otherwise conserve the same
attributes in their use, land ownership, and overall inner organization.
On the other hand, there was the group of multistoried concrete
buildings. This other group displayed in the central block in 1972 is
strongly reminiscent of seashore housing: multistoried concrete
buildings, with a large floor surface, settled in the middle of the lot
(Fig. 152), although a true typological similarity cannot be confirmed due to the lack of plans. Perhaps these houses were actually
part of the development program initiated in 1955 on the coastal
area, for they are all located on the blocks southern side, but no
document could confirm this hypothesis and the owners were
untraceable. The only plan available is that of the health care
center, which cannot really be compared with the neighboring
housing type because of its public use (Fig. 153). Yet its resolutely
modern architectural vocabulary was in harmony with the coastal
housing type.
In 1988, new389 concrete buildings represented 20% of the housing stock. Most of them gave the impression of maintaining a certain typological continuity with the coastal housing type by their
external look (again multistoried box-shape concrete houses all
facing the sea, see Fig. 154). This idea has its limits, however, for
some houses were actually designed from the start as mixed structures 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 the
wooden type due to an inner space divided by corridors and their
association of comfort (e.g. sanitary or balcony) to individual use,
they nevertheless presented some similarities (e.g. in the position
of the kitchen, relegated to the back faade or in the position of the
main room as a transitional space, Fig. 155). Others were more
obviously organized after a succession of rectangular rooms com-

389
As already noted, every
single building of the
central block used concrete
by 1988; here the focus is
precisely on buildings,
which are not extensions
or transformations of an
initial wooden building.

183

Figure 153: The plan of the health centre of Gosier, its placement in the bourg, and a
view of the main facade. (KD)

Figure 154: New concrete houses built between 1972 and 1988 on the central block in
Gosier. (KD) - See colour plates
184

Figure 155: Concrete house based on a wooden type (Gosiers inland area). Plan
courtesy of the owner / (KD)
185

municating with each other and relegating kitchen and bathroom

in the back, or after the encircling process of an original core (Fig.
156). Thus, it becomes evident that a certain permanency in the
traditional spatial organization was realized, while the adjunction
of modern attributes (indoor bathroom and kitchen as the expression of access to water and electricity networks) were integrated
into the design.
Yet, another significant feature concerning these new concrete
buildings was the emergence of multifamily housing (Fig. 157).
The multifamily housing, built in 1981, at first seemed to respect
what was usually displayed: the smaller faade is parallel to the
street and the building in alignment with the other buildings.
Nonetheless, the multifamily buildings proportions (basement,
ground floor and two upper floors) clearly contrasted with the
neighborhoods one-floor houses (Fig. 158).
Furthermore, since the building filled up the entire lot, it was
distinct from the others, for it eliminated the traditional yards use
(as a means of subsistence or later as an enhancement), as well as
the potential in every smaller house to extend. At the same time,
since the building was conceived for mixed use as housing with a
business on the ground floor in the early design, the new function
brought significant change to the area, which was dominated by
residential housing.
On the other hand, the fact that several families were living in a
same building was also another major differentiation factor, not
only for the new kinds of relationships it created but, more importantly, in the manner of occupancy. If the bigger housing units
were designed so that the main room served as a transition space
between the private and semi-private space, and the location of the
bedroom referred to the traditional design (in the private corner of
the apartment, see Fig. 159), the location of the bathroom and the
kitchen in a middle block showed some contrast with the more
traditional organization. These plans reveal a different concept of
spatial organization, which becomes even clearer when looking at
the smaller unit. There, traditional order was totally reversed with
the bedroom and bathroom right at the entrance, while the main
room and kitchen side by side opened up onto the street via a
balcony (Fig. 159). Yet, the fact that one wall of the bedroom is
actually a movable partition brings to mind the possibility that the
architect, living in Guadeloupe, intentionally designed it that way
in 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 semiprivate space, and the room behind it as a private one, which is
reminiscent of an already existing socio-spatial hierarchy.
186

Figure 156: Concrete house in the central district of Gosier, 1988. Plan courtesy of the
town / (KD).

187

Figure 157: The first multi-family housing in Gosiers central area. Plan courtesy of
Doctor Duhamel / (KD)
188

Figure 158: Contrast between single-family housing and multi-family housing in

Gosier. (KD) - See colour plate.

Figure 159: The two types of living units in the multi-family housing, Gosier. Plan
courtesy of Doctor Duhamel. (KD)
189

9.1.2.3 The inland area

For more on the change

in planning before and
after World War II, see
Cherry, G. Cities and Plans,
Edward Arnold, London,
1988, for example.

390

190

Regarding the last area, some typological processes were identical

to those found in the central block, yet the lots specificities initially present in the inland area introduced also a morphological
differentiation that was not without consequence to the housing
type.
To begin with, what characterized the area, whether in 1972 or
1988, was the coexistence of very large-sized lots, over 4000m2,
marked by an absence of regularity in their division, with smaller
lots (less than 100m2), concentrated in areas having direct contact
with the street (Figs. 139 & 140). Lots continued to be divided over
the years, but without any regular patterns.
Another element persisting throughout the 1955-1988 period
was the relationship between the position of the buildings with
regard to their lots and the plot pattern. Indeed, whether along the
main street or at random positions, the choice of settlement reflected the fact that the street network (if one dares to call the sandy
paths such) and structure of land use were organized without any
reference to plot pattern. Historically, land organization into plantations rather than town districts explains this specificity. Two
other factors however keep it alive: the fact modernist planning
practice was concerned with the estate rather than with the plot,390
and, a locally-specific reason, the fact that the area lacked municipal management.
Furthermore, the status of the owner (private or public) and the
building did not seem to have great influence on the building and
lot layout. Indeed, the construction of a school in 1976, in an area
where lots were 100% privately owned, did not disturb either of
the building production or the lot layout. Rather, the position of
the 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 a
whole.
Regarding the building typology in 1988, what characterized
the area was a housing stock equally represented in wood and
concrete, as well as equally mixed in size. These are surprising
features, for the building statement of 1972 (dominance of small
wooden houses, reference to the same old wooden type) could
have suggested an evolution parallel to the one observed in the
central block. On the contrary, in this case, if a similar process of
housing solidification and extension was recognizable between
1972 and 1988, two factors actually withstood extensive generalization. The first refers to the persistence of a small floor surface
wooden type, and the second to the new building interpretations
provided by the use of concrete.

Figure 160: The permanency of wooden housing in Gosiers inland area. (KD)

191

391
Source: SEMAG,
Amnagement du Quartier
Mangot (Gosier), Etude
dimpact, p. 20.
392
For a precise reminder,
see Part II.
393
Actually, this characteristic is as relevant for
wooden as concrete construction.

192

Although by 1988, wooden houses no longer represented the

building majority, they still represented 37% of this areas housing
stock.391 Taking into account that 26% of the 1972 wooden houses
had gone through a partial solidification process, it appears that
wooden core and concrete extension, or sole wooden core, represented the majority of building types. In both cases, the wooden
core referred to the same type that was already observed in the
central block, namely, a simple two-sloped roof case set on stones
of two or more rooms leading into each other, with an external
kitchen and water space (Fig.160). However, as in the central block,
building simplification can be observed: gallery and decoration
were missing for the newest wooden constructions.
In comparison, the school, also built of wood (prefabricated
paneling) was typologically different because its proportions and
the disposition of rooms (one after the other, without communication between them) did not refer to any existing type. The question
remains as to whether this building type could be seen as the early
sign of an underlying municipal urban policy, or a lack of true
planning, especially if one recalls that it was built in emergency
conditions in 1976 (Soufrire school).392
The second element bringing typological specificity to the inland area concerns the concrete buildings. More than once, the observer was surprised by their architectural style, as well as their
diversity in size and plan, be it in 1972 or 1988. Actually, it was
impossible to find coherence among the different final plans, and it
was only by being aware of building methods that a reading of
these plans became possible.
Step by step building is the main feature observed in the
building process (for 90% of the new buildings).393 At first, a basic
dwelling is set up, that may have only one room and sanitary facilities, and then other rooms are added over the years, in length,
around the initial core, or even on top of it, depending on the
neighborhoods, the owners financial status as well as on the lots
particularities (Fig. 161).
Thus, the result appears to be a compromised version of several
housing typologies to different degrees. Indeed, in some cases, it is
possible to find spatial organization similar to that of the
multifamily housing, which is the division of the spaces according
to their function. In other cases, concrete houses were built according to a wooden type (Fig. 162). But most dominant are the compromised versions, where several elements of the coastal housing
type (for example, the building size; the introduction of a corridor
providing access to all the other rooms, or the kitchens position in
the front faade) meet with elements from a more traditional housing type. For example, in this two-floor house built in 1978 (Fig.

Figure 161: An example of a concrete house built between 1972 and 1988 in Gosiers
inland area. (KD)
193

Figure 162: A concrete building based on an old wooden type, in Gosiers inland area.
(KD)
194

Figure 163: Mixed type in Gosiers inland area. Plan and facade courtesy of the
owner
195

163), the material, size and the importance of the corridor that
clearly separates all of the different first-floor spaces, strongly suggest a coastal type. However, the position of the kitchen-bathroom
block (in the back) and of the main room (in the front) is quite
reminiscent of the traditional wooden type, as well as the front and
side gallery.
Taking into consideration that not a single owner that was interviewed had used the services of an architect to design their
house in the inland area, and very few (less than 10%) the services
of a building professional, to build, it becomes evident that selfmade design and building was prevalent. This is an important fact
because it confirms another point of similarity with the wooden
type initially observed and one of rupture with the mastering developed for the coastal concrete housing type.
Finally, the 1955-1988 period analysis is typologically significant
because it became possible to pinpoint several distinct housing
types: original and transformed wooden housing types, multifamily or one-family concrete housing types, wooden or concrete
public buildings. Yet, rather than emphasizing the materials, it
would seem more accurate to talk about these different types in
terms of appropriation and interpretation for, as previously seen, a
concrete housing type might actually be the exact replica of an
original wooden type, apart from the material.
Thus, it is then possible to say that in 1988, except for those in
the coastal area, most of the buildings in the other two areas are
mixed products, in which the influence of the traditional wooden
type as well as that of the concrete type are visible at various levels.
Indeed, the clear persistence of this traditional wooden type on the
one hand, and its transformations on the other hand (simplification, solidification and extension) reveal the impact of its influence, despite a recognized loss of skills (carpentry mastering) and
the change in material (from wood to concrete). At the same time,
the nature of its transformations also reflects the influence of another type, the one developed in the coastal area, for in many cases
the new concrete housings, whether single or multifamily, could
be seen as a reinterpretation of the coastal type, deprived of its
original social content.
Thus, there is no doubt that the weight of mental representations (e.g. the house facilitating identification with a higher social
class or with what existed in France, or, another possibility, with
what is visible on TV) and the appreciation of the owners social
status as well as his/her perception of architecture have played
their part in the building design process. Perhaps this explains the
complexity of some plans, combining modern standards (e.g. in196

door kitchen, bathroom, separate bedrooms) and reminders of

more traditional ways of building and living (e.g. communicating
rooms, galleries).
However, the location of these different types reinforces the
importance given to financial status and to the existence or nonexistence of municipal planning in the typological understanding.
Indeed, the fact that in the late 1980s inland area was dominated by
poverty (46% of the inland population had a monthly income less
than 660 in 1986), poor housing conditions (47% of the housing
stock was registered as in poor shape, of which 86% were wooden
building, see Table 28), and by a lack of running water and access to
electricity provides some insights into the typological diversity
met in this area, officially declared a self-built illegal settlement. 394
%

Wooden house

Mixed house

Concrete house

total

Good

25

67

30

Intermediate

11

36

28

23

Bad

86

39

47

Table 28: Housing condition in Gosiers inland area at the end of the 1980s. Source:
SEMAG, Amnagement du Quartier Mangot (Gosier), Etude dimpact, p. 20.

Furthermore, keeping in mind how those buildings were originally developed by inhabitants without any urban regulations, the
coastal blocks homogeneity, born out of a regulatory decisionmaking process, reflects the contrast between individual and public involvement in urban development.
On the other hand, the fact that the majority of concrete buildings (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 always
linked to social conditions, but rather to a common cultural context.395
Therefore, although public development in the coastal area was
dependant on some building imperatives (mainly the position of
the house in the lot and the restriction of building only one house
per lot), the observed typological difference, despite similarities in
use with the other areas, can also be understood culturally beyond
the financial distinctiveness. Indeed, their allocation to a certain
elite, (e.g. lawyers, medical doctors, architects), meant that the new
lots were actually assigned to a certain population that had spent
many years abroad (mostly in France) at least for their studies,
since Guadeloupe had no university before 1976. Confronted with
a different urban surrounding there, it seems plausible that upon
returning to Guadeloupe they wanted the best for their homes.

394
Numbers and
conclusion in SEMAG,
Amnagement du Quartier
Mangot (Gosier), Etude
dimpact, pp. 20 & 30.
395
This is confirmed, for
example, when visiting the
400m2 houses built in the
countryside of Gosier (e.g.
Grands Fonds). A systematic study would be of great
interest to confirm the
permanency of the traditional spatial organization, independently from
ones own resources.

197

9.13 The 1989-2003 period

The 1989-2003 period, after Hurricane Hugo, symbolized an era of
urban renewal for the bourg of Gosier which coincided with a poverty eradication program. It took the shape of a redevelopment
program (RHI) and housing improvement programs under municipal management that aimed to offer minimum standards of
living and a better quality of life to the population. At the same
time, the confirmation of the communes status as one of the larger
tourist towns of the island modified the towns urban landscape.
The combination of these different elements influenced the development of the three morphological areas.
9.1.3.1 The coastal block
By 2003, the permanency of the coastal block was not questioned in
general (Fig. 164), yet the slight change observed in building use
brought some innovation.
If the two buildings now combining private business and residential use had not been externally transformed, the construction
of a hotel brought a new type into this area because its design was
based on the renting of small studios (Fig. 165).
9.1.3.2 The central block
In the central block, the same process of use diversification
emerged on a block dominated by morphological permanency
(Fig. 164): private business and services represented 20% of the
block function by 2003. This feature reveals a change in the function usually attributed to the existing building stock (housing), for
the lack of building growth (only 2 new buildings during the 19892003 period) proves that it is within houses themselves that diversification occurred. Only in three cases were the buildings entirely
devoted to functions other than housing.
On the other hand, one could think that morphological permanency might have introduced an ageing of the housing stock, as
well as typological permanency. This seems evident when examining it in detail as it appears that an early process of plot clearance
started (eight buildings disappeared after Hurricane Hugo). Yet,
another process was a counterbalance: the supremacy of concrete as
building material for 96 % of the constructions by 2003, whereas in
1988 mixed material houses were dominant. This not only meant
that progressively almost all the wooden cores were transformed,
but also that new buildings or extensions were entirely built in
concrete, clearly reflecting what statistics revealed (the dominance
198

Figure 164: The cadastre of Gosier of 2003, based on earlier cadastres and a site
survey. (KD)

Figure 165: The introduction of new form and use in the coastal block, Gosier. (KD) See colour plate.
199

Figure 166: A new concrete building, built in 2003 in the central block of Gosier, based
on a traditional housing type. (KD)

200

Figure 167: Building in the central block of Gosier (2003) and a building permit faade
(1989): a gap between design and reality. Source: Municipal Archives of Gosier. (KD)

of concrete after 1990, Table 16). Typologically, it meant the solidification of the traditional housing type and in the case of extensions, 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 period and, by extension, shows that no new types were introduced.
Even the two new buildings confirm this impression: one bears
strong resemblance to the traditional housing type although it
functions as a private business (Fig. 166); whereas the other appears
more like a mixed housing type (Fig. 167). However, since the
building is obviously not what is stated on the building permit
documents,396 and since the author could not visit it, it was not
possible to determine which building type it most closely resembles with the help of plans.

On the building permit

documents, the building is
intended for one familys
use, with the ground level
serving as a garage and
the upper floors being
inhabited. In reality, the
garage has disappeared,
and the building houses at
least two different
families.

396

201

Finally, in comparison with the last period, the 1989-2003 period

does not show major changes. However, the perception of the
block as a whole was transformed, for the systematic fencing of
each lot considerably modified its external aspect. For example,
although new crossings were created by the clearance of some
plots, in practice these crossings were limited (Fig. 146). Thus, the
block reflects a new social climate, aiming at more privacy and
revealing a greater fear of insecurity. The residents are finding
solutions spatially.
9.1.3.3 The inland area

397
SEMAG, RHI Mangot,
op.cit.
398
To be understood in the
way Caniggia explains it
as aggregate codified by
specialized building
types (displaying not
only settlement basic
tissue- but also shops and
services, for example).
Caniggia, G. & Maffei, G.L.
Interpreting Basic
Building, op.cit., p.119.
399
As one can imagine, the
division of the family
property weighed a lot in
the present relationships
among all the members of
that family. Some wanted
to sell their share, others
did not. Today the conflict
is still palpable, for
example in the way those
people talk about the
renovation: it is very
good or it is all ruined,
it is her fault she sold her
lot.

202

By opposition, the inland area is characterized by a strong modification of plot layout and housing during the 1989-2003 period (Fig.
164). Furthermore, the efforts made to develop the areas infrastructure (construction of a public day care, Fig. 168, and House for
Youth, Fig. 169) due to the municipal desire to consider this area as
a residential district within the bourg,397 introduced a change in the
use of buildings that also had consequences on the areas
typomorphology: specialized tissue emerged.398
The modification of the land ownership due to the renovation
program (RHI) had great impact socially and on the plot pattern.
Indeed, it not only divided a territory belonging to mostly one
family (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 apartment
housing existed in the previous period in the central block.
Although the renovation program is marked by regularity in
plot division, as well as the creation of a real street system, the plot
layout remains quite confused as a whole because it lacks homogeneity. The new streets lack true functionality since they were made
according to a restricted vision of the inhabitant use (Fig. 171).
Furthermore, if new buildings represent almost 40% of the built
space, their position in the plot layout refers to the modern planning 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 faade perpendicular to
the road, but larger scale buildings do not present the same site
insertion. This can be understood by the scale of the program (fourstoried bar-like social housing) and because of the existing declivity. Yet, it becomes obvious that the planning process (in fits and
starts) as well as the financial means at stake have played a part in
the 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

Figure 168: The municipal public daycare centre of Gosiers bourg in Mangot. Plan
courtesy of SEMAG. (KD)
203

Figure 169: Mangot Youth House in Gosier. Plan coutesy of SEMAG.

Figure 170: New types of building introduced through the renovation of Gosier: rowhousing and apartment blocks. (KD) - See colour plates.
204

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.
205

Figure 173: Buildings in Mangot (inland area), Gosier,

with at least one upper floor. Based on site survey.
(KD)

This area could be a

case study by itself for all
the events linked to the
renovation program are
worthy of a novel.
Regarding the lot division,
having a family member in
the municipal council
helped some to keep their
lot untouched (which
explains, for example, the
persistence of a private
house in the midst of social
housing) and others to
receive a free building
permits.

400

206

(dis)agreement with private owners,400

their limits with neighbourhood housing
result in a lot layout that presents many
disadvantages (Fig. 172). Moreover, the
fact that all the parcels, which were not
touched by the renovation program,
maintained their initial features as observed in the previous period. This reinforced the impression of a lack of
cohesion in the general lot layout.
As far as typology is concerned, at first
glance the result is more homogeneous.
As in the central area, the dominance of
concrete as the building material becomes
one
characteristic,
although
some
wooden houses are still noticeable,
mostly along the Gnral de Gaulle Boulevard. These wooden houses were all built prior to 1989, except for
two cases located in the southern end of the area. This again confirms the general phenomenon observed in the whole of
Guadeloupe via statistics (Table 18).
The division of the renovation program into two types of housing program (small scale housing and larger scale housing) also
had positive aspects because it integrated the new housing into the
existing urban fabric (especially in the western and eastern sides of
the area). The central multistoried houses, however, appear less
appropriate for the site, for being located at the highest part of area
(in altitude); they reinforce the impression of over-scaling within
the neighborhoods. Nevertheless, the size evolution of private
buildings nuances this contrast for the doubling of floor surfaces
(up to 350m2) via the building of several stories became a significant element characterizing new buildings, whether privately or
publicly built (Fig. 173).
At the same time, the examination of house plans reveals that
similarity also existed in the inner space design of the housing,
whether born of the renovation program or private initiative, regardless of the reference (traditional or newer).
Indeed, if the design of the housing renovation program clearly
reflects a rationalization of the space brought about by the necessity of reducing building costs (for example, the same plans being
superimposed on top of each other, showing little variation even
for bigger families), it also draws a clear distinction from the de-

Figure 174: A new housing type in Mangot (inland area): social housing. Source:
SEMAG / (KD)
207

The law that defines the

maximum floor surface
that can be built without
an architect. Source:
Journal Officiel.
402
It returns to the same
question concerning the
boom of the American
kitchen(la cuisine amricaine) in France in the
1980s: should the insertion
of a kitchen corner in a
wide open space (usually
the living room) only be
considered as a cultural
way to emancipate the
woman from her closed
kitchen or can it also be a
financial way to gather
two functions in a smaller
surface and thus make the
residence more affordable
for future owners?
403
Only a comparison to
metropolitan French cases
could test it.
404
From 150FF/m2 to
400FF/m2. Source: Luce,
M. C. La route dargent,
op.cit., p. 85.
405
On the other hand, since
the area was exclusively
aimed at housing (the law
of 1955), one could wonder about the legitimacy of
such a procedure.
401

208

sign observed earlier. Based on the concept of a main room that

serves simultaneously as an entrance, living room and corridor, all
the other rooms are dispatched around that room and accessible
from it. The combination of kitchen and bathroom is found in
some housing (clearly for the convenience of water distribution),
yet it is not a general feature. In most cases, on the contrary, separation between the two water spaces is emphasized (Fig. 174).
Surprisingly, the same spatial concepts are visible in the private
houses built after 1989 (Fig. 175), although reminiscences of traditional design introduce variations in the more modern design.
This double reference can be explained by the fact that a multifloor house was often built in several stages, which means possibly
over several decades, thus reflecting the influence of the evolution
of building design on their owners (Fig. 176). Furthermore, one
should acknowledge the influence of building regulation on the
design (and particularly the law of 1977)401 for it generated the
building of specific floor-surfaces exactly fitting the requirements
to build without an architect.
Actually, it is in this type of building (built in phases) and in
smaller-scale social housing that stronger references to a traditional design are found. For example, the gallery still serves as a
transitory 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 actually
arises as to whether it refers more to economic law than to traditional design, for the open space plan featured in the smaller social
housing can be compared to another tradition of building type
without any reference to Guadeloupe.402 In this sense, perhaps the
assumption that this type would belong to a specific period (the
modern architectural period) could be suggested.403
Finally, the 1989-2003 period reveals significant typomorphological changes, because, in the aftermath of Hurricane Hugo, the
three sub-areas are still very distinct from each other.
The central area remains quite similar, despite the change of
material, and still presents typological variations and exact reproduction 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 the
boom of land prices. From 1970 to 1990, the price of the square
meter on the shore in Gosier doubled404 and it then becomes easy
to understand the benefits realized from selling one lot of this area
to a tourist consortium.405
On the other end, in the inland area, municipal involvement to
develop the district anew brought about new elements in the man-

Figure 175: The new housing type in Mangot (inland area): private housing. (KD)

209

Figure 176: Several decades of building works, Mangot (inland area). (KD)
210

Figure 177: An example of a post-1989 private housing type in Mangot (inland area)
with reference to traditional housing elements. (KD)
211

Figure 178: An example of an open-space plan; social housing in Mangot (inland

area). Source: SEMAG / (KD)
212

ner of designing and living in the space. For example, the emphasis
on vertical and large scale design provoked the disappearance of
the traditional relation to the garden, while influencing the way
private owners may extend their house later on (e.g. also vertically
instead of horizontally). Clearly, the introduced typologies mark
the turn of a design period. Because the same types can simultaneously be found on the privately owned lots, one could wonder
whether this phenomenon symbolizes a deep cultural change
rather than simply copying a modern model. The issue is significant for it questions the tendency to jump to the conclusion that
public social housing is a western housing type imposed locally.406
However, the forms taken by the inland areas development also
confirm what was emerging in 1988: an urban development close
to autonomous and local specificities.

This absolutely
contradicts my earlier
findings (Meaning of city
planning in Guadeloupe,
op.cit, p.415) which were
solely based on morphological analysis.
407
At the same time, this
phenomenon confirms the
typological processes
described by Caniggia,
namely, the specialization
of types and the permanency of basic types.
406

9.1.4 Typomorphological conclusions in Gosier

As stated in the introduction to this chapter, the results of the restricted site analysis have been presented as an indicator of what
happened in the bourg as a whole, although the speed of transformations may vary from one district to another and even within one
block from one plot to another. However, it is possible to draw
some typomorphological conclusions.
As far as Conzens concept of the burgage-cycle is concerned, it
appears applicable in many districts of the bourg. The case study
proves that the concept as a tool is useful but needs a specific application for some particular cases (inland area).
Indeed, the four main phases of the burgage-cycle (1. plot progressive infilling, 2. maximum building coverage, 3. plot clearance
and 4. redevelopment) are visible in the central area of the bourg.
Similar to the observations made regarding the restricted site, culminating and recessive phases are spotted respectively before and
after 1989, whereas punctual cases of plot redevelopment are also
visible here and there. The fact that they all concerned public-vocational activity (e.g. schools, municipal equipment) or tourist-oriented activity (in one case) actually shows the stable state of the
private market.407
With regard to the coastal area, it seems the cycle has not been
completed and remains today between phase 1 (plot progressive
infilling, on the eastern end) and phase 3 (plot clearance, around
the municipal beach, for example), the second phase (maximum
coverage, on the middle and western end) being currently the most
prevalent.
Nevertheless, the inland areas case arises to question the applicability of Conzens concept, for redevelopment occurred (case of
213

408
This result would have
certainly greatly benefited
from a series of maps on
the evolution of land
ownership covering the
studys time span, yet the
lack of documents for that
purpose makes it
impossible.

214

Mangot, eastern end) or will occur (case of Arrire-Bourg) before the

second phase of the burgage-cycle is even reached. Furthermore,
analysis showed that this area did not develop after the concept of
plot 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 significance of social context: the historical lack of regulative constraints, which has generated an absence of plot pattern and limits
to urban sprawl; the characteristics of planning at this time (modern planning has offered no possibilities for extensions in the
large-scale program) and the economic cycle of the area determined by the increase in land value while building value decreased. Symbolically, it is only when the municipality decided to
redevelop the area from a settlement area to a proto-urban core
that the area acquired boundaries and urban regulations as well as
infrastructures.
It is then possible to conclude that urban morphologies in the
bourg of Gosier are shaped by the status of decision-makers.408 Under municipal or governmental management, urban morphologies present regular patterns in most cases (in lot division or lot
shape), as well as a certain permanency over the years (for example, the allotment of the coastal shore and the inland areas renovation program). In contrast, when decision-makers are mainly
private owners, urban forms are more subject to the blocks
specificities (enclosed or not, flat or hilly, etc), as well as continuous development over the years. This process becomes obvious
once the permissive attitude towards the creation of not always
legal housing was replaced by legal controls over it (in the case of
Mangot), or when financial interests replaced the legal control of
an area (in the case of coastal shore). The same kind of duality exists
on the typological level.
Although the analysis focused on a rather contemporary period, it has been easy to immediately distinguish two basic types
from which, according to Caniggias typological concept, variations and extensions were recognized.
The first and oldest type (la case) is initially characterized by
a single-storey wooden core with gallery and based on the principle of communicating rooms, distinct from the kitchen and water
space. This model successively adapted itself to the introduction of
concrete and housing equipment (electricity and running water), as
well as, more recently to land speculation. In many cases, the twofloor concrete houses existing in the bourg of Gosier is derived
from this earlier spatial design.
The second, more recent type, is based on a central distribution
of rooms, taking little account of traditional spatial uses because,

on the contrary it proposed a new definition of housing use

centered on the individualization of space. The few available plans
of the first houses built in the 1950s on the coastal shore clearly
display this tendency (the loss of multi-use rooms and the prevalence of specialized distinct rooms), but it is through the plans of
social housing and of public buildings that this second type finds
its full expression. Furthermore, the same spatial logic is visible in
the tourist-vocational constructions based on financial benefit
gained by the repetition of the smallest unit possible.
Therefore, the influence of the decision-makers in the design
process becomes evident, motivated either by the regulation of
urban sprawl, the containment of population growth or by financial interests. Actually, economic interests should be considered to
be significant because at the individual level more than 80% of
housing dedicated to renting activities (in part or in entirety) and
built after 1989 followed the second type.409 Recognizing the fact
that the second type is nonetheless quite recent in the Gosier landscape now allows us to affirm how similar types of facades can hide
different types, thus again calling into question the preconceived
idea of a western domination in the housing field.410 Furthermore,
it confirms the importance of social changes and urban uses in the
production of space.
Although another chapter would be needed to describe in detail the use attributed to each individual building and to precisely
set the influence on space (lived and to be produced), it has been
decided that a short insight into the evolution of public space was
necessary to conclude the present chapter, for it provides a good
link between the way buildings are (typomorphology) and the
way they are used (function).411

Estimation made after

site survey on the bourg as
a whole (2001-2003).
410
So that there is no
confusion, I am talking
here exclusively about
Gosiers bourg.
411
The concept formfunction-space was largely
developed by Markus, T.
in Buildings and Power,
Routledge, 1993, for
example.
409

The analysis of a restricted area within the bourg presents some

disadvantages because it sometimes represents only a pale reflection of a more developed feature, specifically in the case of public
buildings. It nonetheless allows a good understanding of the evolution of public space within the bourg.
To start with, in the 1940s, the chosen site was dominated by
residential use, with the road being used as a transitory public
space between the different blocks. Shops along this main road
traditionally sustained social exchanges, and the house galleries
ensured semi-public/semi-private relationships. Lots were not
built and backyards were accessible to everyone allowing access to
water, fruits, and the sea.
After the construction of the second boulevard and the coastal
housing development in 1955, private areas emerged, redefining
the use of space. On the shore, access to the sea disappeared, while
215

Because of the housing

density in this district, the
term labyrinth is even
more accurate. At the early
stage of my research, when
looking for a house to rent,
it was impossible for me to
find the house corresponding to the newspapers
advertisement: only with
the help of a young guide
did I find the house after
having walked through
many gateways that my
European education had
initially considered to be
private, despite the absence
of fences.
413
LES stands for
Logement Evolutif Social
(Evolutive Social Housing)
and aimed at giving people access to ownership.
414
78% of the adult
population of Mangot has
never been inside the
municipal library!
Questionnaire 2001-2002.
412

216

in the central block the progressive infilling of the lots reduced the
north-south transversal accesses. The A. Clara Boulevard was restricted to a communicating role (car traffic), totally deprived of
social functions because the back facades of the central blocks
houses and the fenced front facades of the coastal block did not
include commerce or semi-private spaces. At the same time, because the inland area remained almost untouched by municipal
management until the early 1990s, the area was experienced as a
huge labyrinth in which every house was clearly a private space
whereas the space around then represented semi-private areas for
circulation, talks, meetings, and so forth. The same situation can
still be observed today in the Arrire-Bourg district of the bourg.412
Although the chosen site as a whole remained largely in residential use, after 1989 the redevelopment of the inland area confirmed what had started with the southern part: the architecture of
the new buildings favored the limited role of the road (as circulation space) whereas semi-private spaces disappeared (no more galleries, smaller amount of open backyards, few sidewalks). Yet, the
adaptation of the inhabitants to their new type of dwellings shows
that housing changes do not necessarily accompany cultural
changes. The most flagrant examples today are the daily passionate
domino games played by seniors in the late afternoon inside the
shadow of a fenced ground-level balcony, instead of being played
in the evening on the sidewalk; or the progressive physical transformation of an initial social housing. Less than 10 years after their
construction, the LES in Mangot413 have been greatly modified and
extended by their owners.
Yet, if this shrinkage of the traditional role devoted to roads is
clearly observable, the emergence of new public spaces such as
public buildings and playgrounds nonetheless reveals the municipal attempt to compensate for this phenomenon by locating and
designing contemporary places of social exchange, thus directly
participating in the reattachment of the site to the bourgs territory.
In this sense, the district is no longer a unit independent from a
social and territorial whole, but rather part of it, obeying the internal 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, road
network) have slowly disappeared in profit of public blocks or upto-date facilities that have structured the bourg, and over the years
nuanced its apparent dichotomy. For example, the construction of a
health care center, a public square, a municipal police station, and
multimedia library along A. Clara Boulevard in theory414 permits
the inhabitants to appropriate a larger part of the bourg instead of
their sole district. However, the permanency of the location of the

Figure 179: The evolution of public space in the

bourg of Gosier (1930s-2003). (KD)

commercial
activities
(mainly
around the old colonial road and the
present General de Gaulle Boulevard), the fame each district possesses, and each districts unique
population composition prove that
the bourg is today conceived of as the
gathering of unmixed entities and
thus of an unmixed group of inhabitants. Could the nature of the development of the bourg of Gosier, along a
main road, without a real bourg
center, and historically lacking full
municipal management explain this
phenomenon? To what degree is spatial production necessarily cohesive with town planning commitment? The analysis of Trois-Rivires might provide an answer by
comparison.
9.2 Trois-Rivires
The modernization of the bourg of Trois-Rivires is not just a recent
process: as already demonstrated, historically the town had already many times taken the opportunity posed by financial
wealth, reconstruction periods and governmental incentives to
modernize buildings, facilities and urban life. 415
Yet, if Trois-Rivires was perhaps in the avant-garde concerning some aspects of modernization at certain periods (for example,
the churchs full electrification in 1937, at a time when the electricity network had not reached all Guadeloupean towns), the longlasting dichotomy existing between the facilities of public and
private buildings416 and the bourgs slow adaptation to national
building norms (a centralized sewer system and water cleaning
system, for example) show that Trois-Rivires was not distinguished from the islands other towns and followed more or less
the same steps towards the late (present?) modernization.
On the other hand, because of its historical background as a
wealthy town, it would appear that in details the specificities of
Trois-Rivires (as much socially as in building terms) would divert
the course of modernization. The following typological analysis is
an attempt to prove this.
The morphological context revealed that although Guadeloupe

Part III.
For example, in 1961,
less than 2 % of TroisRivires houses had
running water inside the
building (source: INSEE).
In 1995, still 49% of the
bourgs buildings were
declared requiring
amenity improvements
such as sanitary,
electricity, etc. Source:
Municipal Archives of
Trois-Rivires, SEMAG
Requalification du
Bourg (report), 1995, p.
16.
415

416

217

Figure 180: The chosen site in the bourg of Trois-Rivires. Based on 2001 IGN map.
(KD)

218

went through significant changes since 1928 which considerably

modified the urban landscape, Trois-Rivires urban forms had
more or less been untouched. Only the immediate postdepartmentalization brought some innovation in the bourg. Thus,
it explains why the typological analysis relies on only two main
morphological periods: 1928-1950 and 1951-2003, although the second period is divided into two, from 1951 to 1976 and then 19772003, in order to take into consideration the impact of the volcano
eruption in 1976, and, more practically, to cover the period in a
more detailed approach.
On the other hand, because one major feature displayed by the
bourgs historical development is the importance of the municipal
management, the restricted site, chosen to be representative of the
bourg, is actually the bourgs center which was noticeably shaped by
municipal planning. Originally, the limits of the chosen site were
set in order to provide an appreciatively similar size area to
Gosiers case study, however, as already noted (see the preamble to
the typomorphological operations); it proves not to be necessary
for the potential restricted area would have had many empty lots.
Thus, the final restricted site in Trois-Rivires is in terms of size
smaller than the one for Gosier, yet it presents the main attribute
required. Limited in the north by the city hall and in the south by
the Convent of Notre-Dame, the east and west limits were arbitrarily set (Fig.180).
9.2.1 The pre-1950 period
During the 1928-1950 period, morphological stability marked Trois-Rivires bourg once the post-1928 reconstruction was completed. The street blocks faced little change and the same process
applied to the building lots that remained identical before the
change of the 1950s (construction of the new city hall and other
public facilities). Typologically, the same statement of permanency
can be made because the geographical position of the bourg, the
traditional use of stones as building material and the specific municipal management ensured the durability of many buildings
built before 1950 until the present day. Actually, it is not only an
insight into the 1928-1950 housing typology that follows here, but
also into the pre-1928 typology, because half of the observed buildings were constructed before 1928. Almost 100 years after a postcard immortalized the bourg of Trois-Rivires, a contemporary
picture 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 morphological
periods can possibly provide an answer, but let us first have a look
219

Figure 181: The main street of the Trois-Rivires bourg 100 years later: all the
buildings in the background still exist today. Source: See Figure 8 / (KD) - See colour
plate.

Figure 182: The interior of the parish church in Trois-Rivires. (KD) - See colour
plate.
220

Figure 183: The repartition of single-storey and multistoried buildings before 1950 in
Trois-Rivires bourg. Based on a site survey. (KD)

at the pre-1950 typologies of Trois-Rivires.

Except the church, designed by Ali Tur, and the parish house
realized the same year (1937) that have little connection with the
surrounding buildings (aesthetically, the functionally to gather
people- and in terms of inner space, Fig. 182), the main trait characterizing pre-1950 buildings is a relative homogeneity despite the
variety in size and shape of lots (from 300m2 to over 8,000m2; from
rectangular to hexagonal, to lots of sinuous sides, Fig.183).
Indeed, although the chosen site displays a diversity of building use, from public-vocational buildings (school, city hall, prison,
police station, presbytery, church, parish house) to housing and
private businesses, and a diversity of land-ownership (10% belong
to the municipality, the rest to private owners), typological categorization is quickly possible and reveals how, in most cases, it is not
only uses that determined house plan but also a specific building
method 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 criteria
at first glance, since they otherwise offer many similarities.
Equally numerous by 1950 (Fig. 184), at a time when electricity
and running water had not reached the inside of homes, both types
were actually based on a common lot organization and building
features.
By their position, parallel to the street (whether short or long
faade to the street) on the lots edge (independent of the lot size),
single-storey and multistoried buildings not only contributed to
221

417
For simplicity of
expression, I have reduced
the sequence here to
kitchen although other
small buildings were
usually combined with the
kitchen such as a storage
or a water space (case-eau).

Figure 184: The chosen site before 1950. Conjectural plan based on a IGN map and
site survey; plot layout with the collaboration of G.Siarras from the Municipality of
Trois-Rivires. (KD)

the creation of an elaborated street faade but also expressed a

common way of land-use within the bourg.
Although most of the time several houses coexisted on the
same lot side by side, a regular pattern for each lot is met: in the
street front of the lot stood the main building, while the backyard
was divided in inner yard-and-kitchen or inner yard-kitchen-andbackyard sequence.417 The reasons to explain this specific organization are not only found in terms of security (fear of fire) but also in
a social understanding of space, the inner yard hosting the most
precious attributes of the household: food. This is an important fact
for it shows the weight of cultural habits, independent of ones
financial status or activity.
Concerning the single-storey and multistoried buildings

Figure 185: Examples of attics in Trois-Rivires bourg. (KD) - See colour plates.
222

proper, four elements reveal how their construction seems to indicate a common cultural basis and building practice.
It is striking that whether single-storey or multi-storied buildings included an attic with dormer-windows (galetas, Fig.185);
up to 90% had them in both cases. One could see this as a proof of
carpentry mastering or a building practice to cool down the building. However, this fact immediately brings back the issue of financial wealth, for it cannot be assumed that all inhabitants were
skilled carpenters. In one way or another,418 inhabitants must have
used the services of a carpenter, whereas the influence of an existing local model needs to be suggested here: otherwise how else to
explain the systematic presence of an attic with dormer-windows
for single-storey buildings in Trois-Rivires and not in other
bourgs, like Gosier for example?
At the same time, the observation of the floor surface area for
each type tends to support the explanation of wealth. Indeed,
whether for single-storey or multistoried buildings, the surface
area is rarely less than 45m2, most of the buildings having a floor
surface of around 80m2. If this feature seems quite logical for
multistoried buildings, because their ground floor was usually
made of stone and could thus bear more weight and thus be bigger,
in the case of single-storey buildings this is more curious. One way
to understand this is to believe in the gradual extension of the
initial house, yet the plan configuration and accounts given by
inhabitants suggest that houses were designed to accommodate
large floor surface from the start. This is, for example, the case of
the building hosting a fruit and vegetable shop in the bourg (Fig.
186). It was built before 1906 and initially functioned as a private
school: although the gallery is not original, the size of 81m2 is.
Thus, when combining the two latter elements (attic with dormerwindows and large floor surface) the hypothesis of financial prosperity influencing building practice seems plausible.
The regularity of the facade openings, the regular division of
the inner space with decorated partitions (Fig. 187), and the principle of communicating rooms (Fig. 188) constitute another group of
features commonly shared by single-storey and multistoried
buildings,419 although it was not possible to set a precise logic in
the division of the rooms. Often buildings have been altered and in
the worst case abandoned. The inaccessibility of original owners or
occupants deprived the analysis of the explanation of the original
design. Yet, the fourth feature shared by both types provided more
insight in the observed typologies through another perspective,
that of building uses.
Unexpectedly, 40% of the buildings were mixing activities. If it
is true that within this percentage, the majority of combinations

This sentence refers to

the different ways to build
ones house: either the
owner paid for the services
of skilled workers, or,
another possibility, the
same services were
exchanged among
family members, neighbors, etc, and the owner.
As such, there is no money
circulating between people
but the skills of each
person.
419
The wrought iron
balconies, which today
make the charm of the
bourg, have not been listed
here because I did not
manage to ascertain with
precision their systematic
building from the start.
Indeed, postcards and
pictures from the start of
the 20th century until 1970
reveal they did not exist
earlier. One could then
imagine that those
balconies are actually a
late feature.
418

223

Figure 186: A wooden single-storey house in Trois-Rivires bourg. (KD)

224

Figure 187: Interior decoration in two different houses in Trois-Rivires bourg. (KD) See colour plates.

such as private business/inhabitation, social services/ inhabitation was met in multistoried buildings (up to 95% for this type),
10% were nonetheless single-storey buildings. This not only explains partially the large floor surface met in this building type,
but also demonstrates the vitality of the entrepreneurship in the
bourg. Once more, a relative financial wealth could explain the
large size of the remaining single-storey buildings.
Nevertheless, despite these common features, typological differences among single-storey and multistoried buildings existed.
The most visible one concerns building material use, while the
most significant is the difference within plan organization introduced by the necessity of a staircase.
Indeed, what clearly distinguishes single-storey from multistoried buildings is their external look, underlined by a different
treatment of facades.
Built directly on the ground or slightly elevated by isolated
stone foundations, single-storey buildings with their horizontal
wood planking, sometimes covered with metal sheets, were far
from the visual hierarchy depicted by multistoried building. In the
latter, large stone walls usually composed the ground level, while
a wooden upper floor (sometimes covered with metal sheets) and
an attic with dormer-windows would lie on top of it. In some rare
cases (for 3 buildings), the thick stone walls were extended to the
first floor, yet floor and ceiling were constructed in the traditional
wooden building method. One case however resists this description (Fig. 189). Constructed after the 1928 hurricane, this specific
building was fully built in reinforced concrete, discarding the traditional mixed material use employed for multistoried building.
Although the building offers similarities with the architectural
style developed by Ali Tur (terrace-roof, white sober facades, etc.),
the plan reveals little creativity because it is strongly reminiscent
225

Figure 188: Plan based on the principle of rooms communicating with each other;
Trois-Rivires. Plan courtesy of G. Siarras / (KD) [See also Figure 206]
226

Figure 189: A building from the 1930s in Trois-Rivires bourg made entirely from
concrete. (KD) - See colour plate.
227

Figure 190: Wooden multistoried building, built before 1906 and demolished in 1951
(Trois-Rivires). Source: Arch. Dp.Gua. sc 1026, municipal minutes on February
27th, 1951.

of a wooden single-storey building. Yet, this fact and the outside

position of the staircase are quite significant for the typological
understanding.
In fact, the essential typological feature that differentiates singlestorey buildings from multistoried ones is the space devoted to the
staircase and to its access. Although variants exist for the access to
the staircase (either through a central corridor or via the main
room), the position of the staircase within the building and usually
on the back facade or on one side remains intact (Fig. 190 & 191).
This specificity is significant for it gives a new insight in the spatial
organization as well as on the social control exercised through it:
the staircase, as access to the upper floors (the dwelling proper), is
symbolically hidden. The same hierarchy existing in the plan between building-yard-kitchen is here reproduced vertically: building-corridor-staircase-private area. In this sense, returning to the
228

Figure 191: Multistoried building (stone and wood), built before 1928 (Trois-Rivires).
(KD)
229

full reinforced concrete building, the external staircase proves definitively to be an innovation. However, since it has not been possible to determine whether the upper floor of this concrete
building was historically used for business activities (which could
then explain the external position), the question remains open concerning the reason for such a change.
Furthermore, it is not only the existence and position of the
staircase that drastically introduces typological differences between single-storey and multistoried buildings, but also the combination with a corridor or space, serving the same purpose of
transitional space. As such, if rooms are still communicating with
each other, the transitional space clearly reorganizes the inner
space, not without evocating some European designing practices in
vogue during the same construction period. This typological aspect did not appear in single-storey buildings apart from one case.
In this exception (Fig. 192), the house plan is organized after a
clear division of the floor surface into two equal parts. In the front,
there is a row of three small communicating rooms and in the back
one single room. The plan as a whole is quite characteristic of the
single-storey building type, but it is unusual in the fact that actually only one of the front rooms (the middle one) communicates
with the back room. As such, this small middle room, being the
only room through which access to the three other rooms is possible,420 could be considered as a transitional space, equivalent to
those met in the multistoried buildings. Once more, the question
remains about the reasons for such a plan (copy of bigger houses
plans?) but one assumption could be made that would be valid for
multistoried houses as well: the hypothesis that one floor might
host several families or be partially rented. In this case, the separation of space might be easier understood, as well as the small average room size (rarely over 15m2), although the building floor
surface oscillates between 60 and 80m2. Unfortunately, no real
proof was acquired to verify this assumption, apart from contradictory testimonies from the inhabitants

Of course, the analysis

is depicted from the inside
point of view because from
outside all the rooms are
independently accessible.

420

230

Finally, what emerges from the 1928-1950 analysis is the fact that
independent of the status of building ownership (private or public)
and building use (a school, a shop or a house were built with the
same type), building was based on the work of professional builders combined with a financial prosperity, as well as an established
concept of space. For these reasons, the two types discussed here
appear independent from each other and at a rather finite phase: no
elements suggests that the wooden single-storey would suddenly
turn into a multistoried building with stone ground floor. At the
same time, one should notice that because of the natural building

Figure 192: Wooden single-storey building, today abandoned, in Trois-Rivires

bourg. (KD) Note: The surroundings of the building are currently maintained by a
neighbor while the building itself slowly deteriorating. Indeed, as another consequence
of economic and social changes, as well as the indivisibility law, all of the owners
reside in France and do not agree on the fate of the building.
231

421
Of which 95% were
wood and stone buildings.

resources (stone) and of the towns past prosperity, buildings characteristics within the chosen area in Trois-Rivires were far from
the traditional habitat usually depicted in Guadeloupe (a basic
two room wooden hut) and shown in statistics: while in
Guadeloupe buildings with mixed materials (wood and stone or
concrete) represented still less than 12% by 1955, in the case study
they accounted for half of the building stock.421 The next interesting
point lies in knowing how the building typology of Trois-Rivires
bourg reacted to the gradual and irreversible introduction of concrete: this is what the analysis of the next time period will discuss.
9.2.2 The 1950-2003 period
After the remodeling of the bourgs center by municipal management in the 1950s (construction of the new city hall, market, the
official classification of a lane, etc), street blocks remained morphologically unchanged during the next 60 years. As the morphological context showed, Trois-Rivires bourg was characterized by
an overall stability. However, one could wonder whether typological permanency existed because the analyzed period represented for Guadeloupe as a whole at a time of drastic change in
building methods and access to housing facilities (mainly running
water, sewer and electricity). It would be curious that TroisRivires resisted a modernization that was largely demanded
and organized by central government.
Due to the length of this period, it has been decided to provide
two cadastral sections to cover this time span in a more detailed
approach.
9.2.2.1 From 1950 to 1976
Between 1950 and 1976, the southern area was restructured by the
implementation of city hall and public square program, yet the
bourg stayed morphologically unchanged despite the doubling of
its building density. The plot layout faced few changes compared
to the earliest period and irregularity of lot shape and size was still
dominant, although a process of regular lot division perpendicular
to the streets emerged subsequent to building multiplication (Fig.
193). New buildings continued to be located along the street, although a backyard-filling process slowly emerged. At the typological level, it however appears that some significant changes
occurred along with the persistence of former types.
The most flagrant new types emerging during the 1950s to
1970s were those introduced after municipal management focused
on public buildings. Although historically, the municipality had a

232

Figure 193: The chosen site in 1977. Source: Based on Municipal archives, Schema
dextension des voieries du bourg and a site survey. (KD)

long tradition of concentrating public buildings (schools and city

hall) in one block, typologically those buildings presented little
distinctiveness from multistoried buildings: their ground floor
hosted the activity while the upper floor served as a dwelling for
civil servants.422 With the construction of a new city hall and a
covered market in the early 1950s, the municipal buildings acquired typological specialization.
Born from the municipal engagement towards new building
material and design, the new city hall followed on a two-storey Tplan, remarkable by its size (Fig. 194). With almost 600m2 per floor
(1.5 times the churchs floor surface), emphasis was given to transitional spaces (halls, corridors and a staircase) that actually counted
for half of the floor surface and that were valorized by the visual
effects of transparency (glazed partitions, columns, the height of
the ceilings, the length of the corridors). The concrete use combined with specific architectural vocabulary (terrace-roof, white
facade, etc) also contrasted with the former typology, but a significant novelty lied in the fact that the building was entirely devoted
to municipal activities: no dwellings were included in the project.
As such, a new type was definitively introduced aiming at fulfilling municipal functions and gathering people.423
Yet, one element of the new city halls architectural bias makes
one wonder whether a feature of former multistoried building ty-

422
Read again the
testimony of Mr. SainteLuce, p.175.
423
Remember, for example,
that Trois-Rivires population used to go to the city
hall to watch the evening
program on television (see
anecdote p. 169). This
attribute would be worth
further research for it
seems unusual among city
hall projects (at least in
Guadeloupe). If all the city
halls have a large room to
celebrate weddings, very
few have extra rooms to
perform shows and gather
the whole population.

233

Figure 194: The new concrete city hall of Trois-Rivires (2nd floor, organization
principle). Architect Chrubin. (KD) - See colour plate.
234

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:
Architecture mditerranenne architectural magazine, 1995, p. 222.

pology had not been maintained. Indeed, considering that the underlying desire to ascertain municipal power existed through the
construction of the new city hall, the little accent that was placed on
the main interior staircase is very surprising. It suffices to look
around at past and present prestigious buildings to see how the
staircase has often played an active part in the desired prestige.
This was not only expressed by the staircase size but also by its
position within the building: for example, central (like the case of
the city hall of Basse-Terre or some modern schools, Fig. 195) or
divided into two side flights joining at the final landing. Here,
despite the considerable size of the U-turn staircase, this architectural element is not however fully emphasized for it is almost
hidden in a side corner. Thus, one could wonder whether cultural
habits have influenced this choice. Since all the main protagonists
of the city hall program are unreachable (of advanced age or dead,
respectively for architect Chrubin, mayor Simon and other municipal teams members), the question remains open. Nevertheless, what remains known is the will of the municipal team to
inscribe their urban management under the sign of modernity,
strongly emphasized at that time by the use of concrete, and the
success of their aspiration.
The covered market is another project that brought new elements
into building practice and typology, for it dedicated plenums and
vacuums to a function (selling) usually met in the multistoried
buildings ground floor or in the streets (Fig. 196). Built as an at235

Figure 196: The covered market of Trois-Rivires

bourg today, designed by architect Chrubin. (KD) See
colour plate.

tempt to satisfy elementary health norms

via the use of concrete and ceramic tiles, this
new type (an empty space with a roof) actually also represented a way to institutionalize the way of life (open air market), as the
municipal council had expressed.424 Thus, it
was not only a question of modernization
but also of social control, for sellers became legalized under the
municipal regulations (they had to pay a fee).
Finally, it becomes evident that the municipal involvement
played an important part in the introduction of new typologies.
However, in the general context, one should also acknowledge that
with regard to municipal buildings, the incentives of the central
government had their share in the building specialization too: already by 1884 the French law stipulated that every commune
should have a city hall and that the city hall should not be the
house of the mayor, municipal secretary or school teacher;425
whereas the departmentalization in 1946 promoted the modernization of facilities and buildings under the norms of hygiene, wellbeing and rationalization.

Source: Arch. Dp.Gua.

Sc 1027, municipal
minutes on June 9, 1956.
425
Law on April 5, 1884.
Source: Agulhon, M. La
mairie in Les lieux de la
mmoire, op.cit., p. 182.
426
Source: INSEE.
427
Underlined by several
witnesses.
428
Source: Trois-Rivires
municipal archives;Dettes
et crances long et moyen
terme, 1961-1975.
429
Source: INSEE, see table
18, p. 154.
424

236

Concerning domestic architecture, it seems that typologies did not

face such drastic transformations, although the time span represented a period of significant change in Guadeloupe as a whole.
The pace of modernization appears to have been slower in TroisRivires than in Guadeloupe on average. For example, when in
1974 almost half of Guadeloupean houses were equipped with running water, electricity and sanitary facilities,426 this kind of modernization (and most of all concerning the water/sewer system)
was just starting in the bourg of Trois-Rivires.427 The examination
of the municipal budget supports the assumption of late development, for it reveals how, from 1961 to 1975, 39% of the municipal
loan was attributed to the construction of electric and water networks, mostly used in 1970-1975.428 This considerable chunk of the
budget attributed to this specific works reveals the deficiency of
the existing networks. Furthermore, when in Guadeloupe 54% of
the buildings were fully or partly built with concrete or stone by
1974,429 in the chosen area only one-third of the buildings were, of
which half were built before 1950. Returning to single-storey and
multistoried buildings, let us examine the potential cultural influence on their typologies.

Single-storey buildings represented 45% of the 1977 housing, of

which half were constructed before 1950.
Surprisingly, despite the ageing of one part of the single-storey
building stock, only one case of concrete extension around an
original wooden core was detected. The other old single-storey
buildings remained untouched, only perforated here and there to
allow electric cables or water pipes. Some buildings were abandoned.
The newest single-storey buildings presented other features.
Some exactly reproduced the traditional typology (Fig. 197), although they were built in concrete (walls) and wood (roof structure); whereas others definitively introduced new design, that
could be related to the innovation of building material for concrete
was the main component. Instead of the traditional position of the
kitchen and other annexes in the backyard, kitchen and bathroom
appear in the plan composition, as integral parts of the building
(Fig. 198).
The position of the kitchen in the front faade of the building is
also a new feature, even underlined by the indentation of the
faade. Yet, the underlying function of the main room as a transitional space is clearly reminiscent of the former single-storey
building type. A third group of single-storey buildings shows even
more persistence of the old types features.
In this group of single-storey buildings, what immediately
stands out is the material employed (wood) and the small size.
Indeed, for 80% of the new wooden single-storey buildings, the
floor surface rarely reached over 50m2 (instead of the 80m2 average). Although the smaller size is expressed by the reduction of
room number, the basic principles of single-storey building were
reproduced. The separation of the main building from the kitchen,
rooms simply communicating with all the others (Fig. 199), or distributed around a transitional room,430 and the regularity of openings are easily discernable. But on the other hand, the lack of inner
decoration (such as wooden arches, gingerbread, etc.), the missing
attic with dormer-windows (in half of the cases), the quality of the
openings (one door instead of the usual two) are elements that
suggest a less fortunate financial situation. Another interpretation
of these new smaller buildings is to consider them as an intermediate step in the family life project, that is, a basic house in which the
family would live while awaiting the second house to be realized,
much bigger and in concrete. Although only two persons mentioned this practice, it is worth noting for this habit is still in use
today in Guadeloupe.431 Whatever the reason attributed to each
case, the result is a new type that could reasonably be considered as
a short version of the former type. This new type had great

430
Unfortunately, most of
these houses are today in
ruins, and if I manage to
visit them it was
impossible to get good
pictures or precise survey.
431
One recent form of this
practice is to live in social
housing while the home
proper is being built.

237

Figure 197: Single-floor building, built after 1959, Trois-Rivires. Divisions drawn
according to witnesses description. (KD) Note: The building today is in ruins, which
not only reveals the lack of urban renewal in the bourg but also shows the stagnation
generated by the indivisibility law.
238

Figure 198: A new type of single-storey house built in Trois-Rivires bourg during the
period 1950-1977. (KD) - See colour plate.
239

Figure 199: A wooden single-storey house in Trois-Rivires bourg. (KD)

240

potentials for the next decades.

Confronted with new technologies and modernizations, one
could wonder whether this type would extend back to the initial
single-storey building type or introduce new types (e.g. vertical
extension).
Finally, the initial single-storey building type remained quite
persistent even if modifications through building material (the minor cases amount) and social criteria occurred. This result regarding the building activity between 1950 and 1977 is in one way quite
surprising, though only a more detailed analysis could set an exact
chronology of each building and set with more precision the impact of social change and building material evolution.432

For example, with the

help of another cadastral
section in the 1960, one
could see more precisely
when the building
repletion had occurred. If
it was mostly during the
1967-1977 period (a time
of population loss in
Trois-Rivires and
economic recession) the
shrinking of the former
type for economic reasons
would be confirmed.
432

Multistoried buildings represented the other half of the 1950-1977

period building stock, with once more half of these buildings constructed before 1950. Concerning the oldest multistoried buildings, it was surprising to see that apart from electric connections
and such, few backyard extensions (whether in wood or concrete)
and the change of use they remained unchanged. The typological
analysis of the most recent group proved the influence of the initial
type but always nuanced by slight modifications. Among these
new multistoried buildings, a rapid division can be made between
those, which kept the vertical initial organization (ground floor for
activity and upper floor for dwelling) and those, which modified it.
Concerning the group that kept the vertical organization, it
seems that sticking to the initial type is common practice. This is,
for example, the case of the presbytery that extended by doubling
its floor surface (Fig. 200). Although the additional part is entirely
in concrete (whereas the oldest part is a mixture of stone and
wood), the ground floor is devoted to public activities while the
upper floor serves as a dwelling.
Furthermore, the same logic of room distribution has been replicated, whereas the staircase, primarily on the southern facade of
the building, has just been moved on the southern facade of the
new part. Yet, a change happened via the integration of kitchen and
bathroom within the building. The traditional main building-corridor-staircase-kitchen and backyard sequence was then transformed because of the external position of the staircase.
On the other hand, it would have been particularly interesting
to discover which typology some specific two-floor terrace-roof
buildings (Fig. 201) were referring to, but the present stage as a
ruin prevented any site survey. However, from the outside observation, it is possible to comment on two features. First, the fact that
the building is in concrete has not only modified the architectural
bias, but also introduced typological reinterpretation. Indeed, tra241

Figure 200: The presbytery of Trois-Rivires: a case of extension. (KD)

242

Figure 201: A ruined three-storied concrete building in TroisRivires bourg. (KD) - See colour plate. When private rights and
public interests face off against each other.

ditionally multistoried buildings were characterized

by an upper floor and attic, whereas in this case the
attic seems to have vanished in favor of a second
floor and a terrace-roof. The vertical hierarchy otherwise remained identical, the ground floor serving for
activities and the upper floor for dwellings. Besides,
the general spatial organization repeated old typology, for it was based on a distribution relying on a
back faade staircase combined with a central corridor. However,
more precision would be needed to ascertain a true typological
statement because the inside of the building was not visited
Regarding the new multistoried buildings that transformed the
traditional ground floor to housing use, they were usually built
with mixed materials (concrete and wood, Fig. 202), thus reproducing a feature found in the oldest buildings. But the main novelty
lies in the height of the building, which was only defined by a
ground floor and one upper floor. If the structure of an attic roof
existed, it was nonetheless transformed so as to be considered as a
proper floor.
As such, although these buildings are multistoried buildings, it
could be suggested that their type represents a developed form of
the single-storey building type (via the development of the attic).
Economic restriction and the reduction of the number of family
members could plausibly explain this phenomenon. Yet, it is simply amazing to notice how the main building-corridor-staircasekitchen and backyard sequence lingered (even if a grouping of the
different entities occurred), thus strongly referencing to the traditional multistoried building types. The hybrid character of these
buildings becomes then evident.
It would have been particularly interesting to discover which
types some cube-shape buildings (Fig. 203) were referring to, but
the owners lack of cooperation prevented any site survey and any
systematization in the statement is not possible.
Finally, it is possible to say that several typological tendencies
emerged during the 1950-1970 period. While municipal buildings
drastically acquired typological specialization enhanced by new
building material, domestic architecture faced several currents at
the same time. The lack of alteration of the old housing stock (indifferently single-storey or multistoried buildings) permitted the
persistence of the two original types, while on the other hand vari243

Figure 202: The hybrid building type in Trois-Rivires bourg: sketch based on oral
description. (KD)
244

Figure 203: A cube-shaped building in the bourg of TroisRivires. (KD) - See colour plate.

ants of both types appeared. Plausibly, those

variants were the direct consequences of the
social context: for economic reasons, because
of aesthetic or building material change, a
former type would shrink, extend, and transform the traditional attic. Only in one rare
case, a new type was introduced.
The following years showed the hegemony of concrete and the leveling of housing facilities to national standards in Guadeloupe: lets see how these phenomena
landed on the chosen site.
9.2.2.2 From 1977 to 2003
The 1977-2003 period was marked by a strong urban inertia: street
blocks, lots, and building amount remained almost the same (Fig.
204). Because of the lot regularization of backyard buildings, a
pattern of isolated estates without connection to the street was
introduced. At the same time, the building degradation process
significantly emerged: 25% of the housing stock was classified as
derelict by 1995.433 Yet, a typological examination reveals the true
activity during the same period. First, the transformation of an
initial building, often subsequent to inhabitants access to housing
facilities or the change of use, became a frequent process, whether
in single-storey buildings or multistoried ones. Second, comprehensive redevelopments existed, dissimulated by designs closely
following the initial morphological characteristics. In the light of
both processes, one could then wonder how it marked the existing
building types in detail.
With regard to municipal buildings, the existing specialized buildings did not change apart from the city halls multipurpose hall
that was divided into small offices. The construction of a communal water department however brought a return to pre-1950 typology because the building repeats some characteristic features of
the multistoried building type.
Voluntarily designed as a traditional urban house,434 the
separation of use between ground floor and upper floor was taken
into use again: the open plan ground floor hosts the communal
trucks, while the upper floor concentrates the administrative activities via a row of small offices. The rear position of the staircase
and the central organization of the upper floor via a long corridor

Source: Trois-Rivires
municipal archives,
SEMAG Requalification
du Bourg (report, 1995).
434
Source: Municipal
magazine, Notre TroisRivires, 1992, op.cit.
433

245

Figure 204: The chosen site in 2003, Trois-Rivires. Source: Based on a site survey
and cadastre. (KD)

435
The new library,
however, seems to support
this idea: the design is
again based on producing
a modern version of
traditional urban house.

246

is another repeated element.

But like the evolution of some multistoried buildings in the
1950-1977 period, the traditional ground floor- upper floor and
attic disappeared in favor of the sole ground floor and upper
floor, although the roof indentations play as the reminders of dormer-windows. Had the architectural experience of the city hall
been too ambitious? Is it possible to say that the contemporary
regionalism influences the design of municipal buildings? Only a
systematic study of all the Trois-Rivires municipal buildings
would confirm whether the abandonment of specialized typology
is really effective.435
On the other hand, the 1977-2003 period did not display considerable changes in the single-storey building typology. Extension
of the initial building (very rare) or its solidification were the only
processes, involving little typological transformations.
Indeed, in the case of extension, which usually meant the addition of a kitchen and/or bathroom, the original core remained
identical (Fig. 205). Sometimes, of course, inner reorganization
occurred and the extension was actually only the solidification of
an 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 access
to housing facilities succeeded in preserving initial building structures, some of them being over 100 years old today. However, the

Figure 205: An example of extension over the period 1977-2003 in Trois-Rivires.

(KD)
247

Figure 206: An example of inner reorganization and extension in Trois-Rivires

bourg. Plan courtesy of G. Siarras / (KD).
248

extension cases were rare compared to the buildings under solidification.

The complete solidification of the main building offered, in
contrary, a complete renewal of the building because, in general,
there was no intermediate phase: the initial building went directly
from full demolition to full rebuilding with new materials.
If, in most of the cases, the process involved floor surface extension and the integration of the kitchen, sanitary and bathroom in
the new design, surprisingly the initial typology would remain.
As one inhabitant mentioned

436
Source: Interview with
Trois-Rivires inhabitants, 2001-2002. Ma case
moi elle tait bien, il ny
avait rien besoin de changer.
Cest juste que jen avais
assez des fils lectriques qui
pendaient partout, des termites qui mangeaient mes
murs et mon plafond, daller
aux toilettes dehors. Jai
donc dcid de la reconstruire de faon moderne, en
bton.

The house was fine, there was nothing to change. It is just

that I was fed up with electric wires hanging everywhere,
termites eating my walls and ceiling and having my toilets
outside: I decided to reconstruct it the modern way, in
concrete.436
Sister Elisabeth articulates the same reason in explaining the
demolition and reconstruction of a wooden building in the Convent of Notre-Dame: it was too old, it needed to be modernized. Once
more the building however kept its traditional architectural features, as well as its exact position on the lot (Fig. 207).
Finally, it appears that during this period of morphological
inertia, single-storey building types remained unchanged, despite
the new dominance of concrete as building material.
Building reorganizations or comprehensive developments characterized the typological evolution of multistoried buildings.
The building reorganization usually followed two options: either an inner reorganization that would modify little the external
building appearance or the adding of new rooms or full wings that
transformed the facades but also the impact of the building on the
lot. Whatever the chosen option, the permanency of previously
existing typology dominated.
Perhaps the most convincing example of the inner reorganization option is the tourist office (Fig. 208). Built before 1906 and later
used as a police station and then fire station, among other functions, this building was redesigned in 1984 to serve the purpose of
a tourist office on the first floor and municipal bed and breakfast
for tourists on the upper floors. The most important changes were
the introduction of centralized electric and water networks, but
also the splitting of the original roof to provide better light on the
top floor. Nevertheless, the traditional roof proportions were
kept, as well as most of the original building features such as the
original facades with their wrought iron balconies, the structural
249

Figure 207: The modernization of one building in the Notre-Dame Convent in TroisRivires. Plan courtesy of the Town.
250

Figure 208: An example of inner reorganization: the tourist office of Trois-Rivires.

Plan courtesy of the Town / (KD) - See colour plate.
251

Figure 209: An example of multistoried building built during the period 1977-2003 in
Trois-Rivires bourg. (KD)
252

elements and the back faade staircase. The fact that the first floor
was designed for activities, whereas the upper floors functioned as
occasional dwellings, and that on each floor, the organization was
based around a central corridor providing access to each room,
conclusively proves the continuity of the multistoried building
type.
In the case of privately owned buildings, the same process is
observed, even if sometimes the mixture of materials, the quality
of the work and the poor maintenance hide the spatial logic. One
example is a building from the early 20th century in which the
stone walled ground floor traditionally served entrepreneurial
activities -and still does, while the upper floor divided into two
main rooms, hosted the inhabitants and led to the backyard where
the kitchen was located (Fig. 209). Following the familys extension and the housing equipment improvement, the owners successively divided one of the main rooms into smaller bedrooms
while the kitchen naturally integrated the inside of the house, occupying the former transitional space. Although the lack of partition between the present living room and the kitchen prevents it
from exactly reproducing older typologies, the basic principle is
the same.
Yet, because in other buildings serving as multifamily housing
the same plan configuration is met again, it could be assumed that
a new type variant has emerged. Despite the irregular contours of
the new facades that proposed a reinterpretation of the traditional
architectural elements found in the bourg of Trois-Rivires (overhanging balconies, multi-sloped roof, dormer-windows, etc.) and
contrasted with the traditional rectangular aspect of the buildings
in the bourg, the renovation of the present pizzeria in 1986 and its
large extension perfectly confirms the existence of a new type variant (Fig. 210). The position of the staircase in the back faade and
the way to access the different apartments, as well as the use distribution depending on the floor (ground floor for activity and upper
floor for dwelling), show that reference to the older multistoried
building type persisted. Moreover, the apartment plans reveal a
design based on a direct entrance into the main room, which provides access to the kitchen on one side and to another wing of
bedrooms and a bathroom.
However, close reproduction of the original type also occurred
even when the building went through major changes. This is, for
example, the case of a privately owned house built before 1928
(Fig. 211). Since its construction, the building faced several transformations with each new generation and for this reason, it is not
possible to state the type of the original building. Yet, the latest
renovation by adding a back faade staircase and two new wings in
253

Figure 210: An example of a new type variant in Trois-Rivires bourg. Plan courtesy
of the Town / (KD)
254

Figure 211: An example of building transformations in Trois Rivires bourg. Plan and
facades courtesy of the Town and the owner.
255

437
Source: Lamin, S
(architect) in Architecture
mditerranenne (architectural magazine), June
2000, p.78.

which kitchen, garage and bathroom are gathered, is singularly

reminiscent of multistoried building types met in the previous
period. Although in this specific case the ground floor does not
serve business purpose, its open plan is reminiscent of the traditional ground floor.
Alternatively, the most important comprehensive redevelopment program broke the traditional typology. Built on the site of
the old schools, the SIG multistoried social housing, inaugurated
in 2001, is morphologically notable by keeping the same proportions and situation of the former buildings, though typologically it
shows some novelty (Fig. 212).
First, the program composed of three buildings did not systematically provide the traditional dichotomy met in multistoried
buildings such as ground floor for business and upper floors for
housing. Only one building refers to it, but not the two other.
Second, the design is based on a duplex, favoring large rooms on
top of each other, instead of the more classical room division
within one floor. The idea was to provide a logical progression
between loggia, living room and bedrooms.437 Third, each apartment has its own entrance, although it is a multifamily house, and
the front position of the staircase revolutionizes the traditional
order. This architectural bias can be understood as a way to provide more freedom for the inhabitants, but at the same time the
importance given to the entity staircase-balcony, which represents
one-third of the total floor surface, combined with vertical organization, perhaps shows the change in the cultural value attributed to
space. Should it be considered as an attempt to counterbalance a
too intensive individualization of ways of life under economic
restrictions and, at the same time, be seen as an answer to the
individualization? Further research is needed to evaluate this assumption.
Finally, what emerges from the 1977-2003 period analysis is that
the modernization of Trois-Rivires, along with that of
Guadeloupe, did not bring significant typological changes even if
variants and new types were introduced: the overall permanency
of the oldest types remains the most significant phenomenon. Indeed, although concrete as a building material was and is most
often preferred in case of reconstruction or new construction, single-storey building types and multistoried building types still
constitute references in spatial organization and, most original,
stood the test of time.

256

Figure 212: A new type of multi-family housing in Trois-Rivires bourg. Plan

courtesy of the Town / (KD) - See colour plate.
257

438
1. lot progressive
infilling, 2. maximum
building coverage, 3. plot
clearance and 4. redevelopment. Source: Larkham &
Jones, A Glossary of Urban
Form, op.cit., p.4.

9.2.3 Typomorphological conclusions on Trois-Rivires

In conclusion, the typological analysis demonstrates that in the
same way there was a morphological permanency there was also
an overall typological permanency. It remains now to be discussed
how the theoretical approaches have served their purpose.
Conzens concept of the burgage-cycle appears to be fully applicable, even if the four phases of the cycle438 are not always expressed
in great detail.
In the case study, the plot progressive infilling might never
reach the next phase (maximum building coverage) because the
morphological permanency not only revealed the stagnation and
slowness of plot development but also the small amount of building multiplication. In the same way, although some plots currently
show 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 pattern has usually been respected (except in the case of the city hall)
thus showing the applicability of the Conzenian approach. Although historically the plot pattern of Trois-Rivires bourg was
defined by estates of various size and shape, their successive division in smaller lots organized after the street system and the specific implementation of the building along the street show that the
historical plot layout , as well as the modernist open plan, had little
influence on the bourg. Nonetheless, remembering that this specific
layout has not always been built in the order street and then
buildings but also buildings and then street with the same resulting pattern (houses along the street), it seems plausible to suggest that town planning played an important role in promoting the
idea of an urban whole, organized after specific patterns, and
maintaining it over the years.
On the other hand, through Caniggias typological concept, two
basic types were pinpointed that have the originality to appear
synchronic. Although they presented common features (floor-surface size, the principle of communicating rooms, kitchen in the
backyard, existence of an attic), some major differences existed allowing to be rendered distinct from one another. The internal distribution of rooms, combined with a back facade staircase, as well
as the separation of function between ground and first floor are the
main elements differentiating the multistoried building type from
single-storey building type.

258

For both types, modernization in terms of housing equipment

and building material was the main reason to improve everyday
life and comfort but it did not automatically mean questioning
historical building practice and the traditional culture of space. The
fact that in the chosen site, concrete buildings were barely a majority (55%) in 1995, whereas they represented the majority in
Guadeloupe (75%), proves the cultural tradition of mixed material
buildings over concrete hegemony: the mixed material buildings
represented 37% in the study area compared to 7% in
Guadeloupe.439
At the same time, over the periods, typological variants were
introduced that reflected the social context and underlined how
historical settings would influence typological evolution: for example, when an economic slump dominated the towns life, the
shrinkage of the single-storey and multistoried buildings
emerged. In the same way, how to expect the buildings of TroisRivires to follow the general solidification of Guadeloupe, when
already half of the building stock was partly solid before 1950 in
the bourg of Trois-Rivires? Furthermore, how to follow the general increase of the floor surface per house, when already before
1950, 80% of the buildings in the bourg of Trois-Rivires had
reached the 1980 Guadeloupean average? The analysis of typological processes clearly helped to point out the coincidences between
the urban structures and the towns history.
Moreover, in the same way that municipal management was at
the origin of morphological modifications, municipal management introduced new types: specialized type (public buildings)
and new basic type (social housing). As such, it becomes evident
that the influence of a certain category of decision-makers has
greatly controlled the typomorphological evolution of the bourg.
Even the recent comeback of a traditional housing type for public
buildings (that include no dwelling function) might not actually
contradict the underlying control exercised by the municipality. In
fact, the personality of the present mayor (Albert Dorville) in office
since 1995, famous for his ambition to improve inhabitants lives
and who defines his duty as to develop the collective ambition,
the general interest,440 makes more understandable the recent architectural actions in light of the slump dominating Trois-Rivires
economy. Rather than a great project that would symbolically be
strong (as much in the memories as in the urban landscape, e.g. the
city hall), the mayor favors a policy of smaller size projects that
directly benefit the inhabitants. However, only the comparison of
the economic aspects (cost) among the different projects could confirm this assumption.

439
Numbers concerning
Trois-Rivires from
SEMAG, Requalification
du bourg, op.cit., p. 19;
and those concerning
Guadeloupe from INSEE.
440
Except of an interview
with Albert Dorville in the
Notre Trois-Rivires
municipal magazine,
January 2000, p.5. Un
maire doit avoir une
ambition collective, le sens
de lintrt gnral ()

259

Figure 213: The evolution of public space in the

bourg of Trois-Rivires (1930s-2003). (KD)

Finally it can be stated that the weight

of history and the cultural values
within one society have a strong influence on the town typomorphology, when from the start a certain
idea of urbanity is developed. The
evolution of public space within the
bourg of Trois-Rivires clearly emphasizes this idea.
Historically, the public space of
Trois-Rivires bourg could be delimited to encompass the main street, the
traditional public block (city hall
and schools), the church surroundings and the sides of the ravine (Fig.
213). Although in the analysis the ravine received little comment, its social
importance
among
the
population should not be dismissed
because it was the place to fetch water
and to empty fecal buckets. As a daily meeting point, inhabitants
recalled it as a place to exchange news and ideas.
After 1956, the construction of the new city hall considerably
extended the bourgs public space, for the program included the
creation of a public garden. Because of the development of more
public buildings over the years in the northern area of the bourg,
public space was not only restricted to a strip following the street
contours but also became a distinct entity.
The typomorphological permanency allowed the maintenance
of older features of social relationships (to meet under a balcony, to
talk in the shops, to sit at the churchs front square, etc), and, alternatively the rare typomorphological ruptures broke some of them,
although (it must be underlined) they were always compensated
for by the creation of new ones. For example, the reorganization of
the street network in the late 1970s and the comprehensive redevelopment of the traditional public block considerably damaged the
traditional social activity around the ravine because both actions
practically covered parts of the ravine. Today, the ravine has totally
lost its function as a get-together space but the municipal garden
and the fountain in front of the SIG social housing have taken its
place. As such, once more, the influence of municipal management
needs to be underlined in this process.
260

10. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS

Although, in their general lines, the bourgs of Gosier and TroisRivires followed the same features of modernization as
Guadeloupe (e.g. late access to electric and water networks, the
slow transformations of the dwelling) in detail the analysis demonstrated how local specificities considerably influenced the different phases of modernization.
The natural resources of one site, the vulnerability to natural
disasters, the urban culture of one town and its economy, for example, are elements that have been significant to the typological
changes in the case studies. Yet, despite those dissimilarities, the
typological analysis demonstrated not only common traditional
elements existed (e.g. the building-yard-kitchen sequence or the
wooden single-storey building type) but also common modern
characteristics such as the gathering of all the housing functions in
concrete buildings, and the emergence of multifamily buildings.
More broadly, the typological analysis also revealed similarities
with regard to the response of the two sites to the social, cultural
and economic changes.441 One example is the contemporary presence in both bourgs, independent of their background, of empty
lots (dents creuses) and abandoned buildings. This phenomenon
not only reflects the present difficulty of Guadeloupean communes
to plan their town as an urban whole in the face of legislation that
directly favors this state, but also makes visible the consequences
of changes. Indeed, empty lots and abandoned buildings certainly
existed in the past (see Table 21), yet they were less visible. Today,
changes in activity, population growth, and the systematic fencing
of ones house render such irregularities in the urban fabric more
visible.
Nonetheless, perhaps what needs most to be emphasized here
is not the results by themselves but their chronological constructions; that is, the ways to modernize. At various degrees in each
case, solidification and adaptation could be spotted as the main
processes, whereas the transformation of the traditional building
type tended to create a functional individualization of each space.
The later component being as much valid for housing as for specialized buildings (e.g. administrative buildings, etc.) not only reflects changes in individual mental representations on ways to
dwell, but also those of one society on its ways of life. This is what
the final conclusion of this work will try to develop.

441
This result would have
certainly greatly benefited
from a series of maps on
the evolution of land
ownership covering the
studys time span, yet the
lack of documents for that
purpose makes it
impossible.
442
Definition from Charre,
L & Flagie, A. in Tendances
de lurbanisation en
Martinique, unpublished,
2000, p. 3.

261

PART V

11. CONCLUSION
The primary goal of this work was to find out how the town centers
in Guadeloupe historically developed and to discuss whether a
duality in their modernization existed. Although a systematic
analysis of each bourg of Guadeloupe would be needed to enlarge
the methodological approach of this study, based on solely on the
comparison of two case studies, some results emerged that not
only 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 human
demography greatly influenced the urban transformations of the
bourgs. Whether the bourg was that of Gosier or Trois-Rivires, the
previous statement was more than once tested: to population
growth, the bourgs answered with urban extension; to hurricanes
they answered by renewal (small or large programs); to economic
change of they answered by revival or decline. Yet, one feature
slightly nuances the final judgment: the gap between the former
colony and the contemporary French department with its built
impact, in other words the gap between social components and
space.
To continue, the bourgs of Gosier and Trois-Rivires initially
developed along a single axis, with houses on both sides. Although
the pre-1928 period shows that both bourgs were at different levels
of urbanization when the 1928 hurricane hit them (Gosier being
just an embryo, whereas Trois-Rivires offered true developed
typomorphological urban patterns), both places have in common
the most extensive phase of their development during the 19501960s, as well as a phase of comprehensive redevelopment since
the 1990s. In short, their urban development is recent, highly influenced first by population growth and then by the change (or stagnation) of the economy. Of course, during the different intervals,
each bourg presented specific changes, not always similar and dependent on local features, which led to the contemporary urban
forms. But it remains striking is to see in a detailed approach how
morphologies and typologies did not necessarily follow the social
context.
262

Indeed, to be under colonial rule did not necessarily mean that

the urban realities of the bourgs would stick to the colonial conception of space. To be assimilated did not necessarily mean that the
urban realities of the bourgs would closely reflect metropolitan
urban language. On the contrary, far from the grid plan that would
control, regulate and represent the colonial power, the bourgs of
Gosier and Trois-Rivires were before 1946 morphologically exempt from the traditional colonial urban symbolism. Instead of a
town-planning that would reflect the application of the major concepts of colonial urban planning such as segregation, hygiene, circulation and aesthetic, the forms observed in the bourgs most often
reflected the gradual urbanization of an early settlement based on
agriculture. This is well illustrated by the evolution of the plot
layout of both bourgs, which were originally set on a combination
of large estates and smaller ones along the main street, the size
reduction being proportional to the closeness to the street: it did
not appear to have been constrained to follow some wider colonial
town development scheme. Furthermore, although typologically,
in both places buildings with a strong representative meaning
were built in the post-1928 period (e.g. the church for TroisRivires and the city hall for Gosier) and were ensuring colonial
representations of power, their individualistic character in the
bourg among another dominant typology (housing) that was never
recognized as colonial (but considered as local) allows for the
reevaluation of the impact of colonial rule. Thus, even if the relations of colonial domination had many other ways to permeate the
colonized population (such as through the social inequalities of
daily life, etc.), from the spatial perspective two questions immediately arise: what is it then that precisely defined a colonial small
town and a colonial house in Guadeloupe? This study suggests that
there was actually little distinction with non-colonized small
towns during the same period (1928-1946): only other comparative
studies could confirm this.
On the other hand, the immediate post-colonial period, a time
of great cultural assimilation, did not prove that the bourgs reflected this considerable change in their urban fabric and in their
buildings. In fact, some urban patterns (e.g. housing development
program on the seashore of Gosier) reflected the significant role
played by central government and municipalities to define urban
policies and their involvement in their realizations. Yet what was
a period marked by the myth of equality, growth, economic development, improvement in the way of life and more comfort for all
in France was little echoed at first in the development of the bourgs.
Although in France and in the bigger cities of Guadeloupe (mostly
Pointe--Pitre) the state developed numerous programs to manage
263

housing, directly or through municipalities, in the bourgs there

was no such action until the late 1990s. In the bourgs, housing remained a private initiative with all the consequences it implied in
terms of town development. Although modernization was the key
word concerning the French urban management of the post-World
War II and of the next decades, the analysis showed that its implementation was rather slow in Guadeloupe and in the bourgs. Only
in the late 1990s would Guadeloupe once again reach the same
level as mainland France. Thus, the delayed impact of modernization on urban forms and typologies can be explained by the fact
that modernization was a slow process. Nonetheless, because of
the very visible aspect of the changes, due to their spatial physical
nature, nuances should be made. Specifically in the case of Gosier,
it became evident that the introduction of a new housing type in
the 1950s (the concrete multistoried building) influenced the production of the next generation of buildings. Yet, the variations of
this building type over the years, its hybridizing with the more
traditional types and most of all the fact that in the bourg of TroisRivires variants were found without the existence of the original
model proved that it was more the techniques (concrete), the element of comfort (kitchen and bathroom within one building) that
were developed rather than a model proper. But isnt it after all
what characterized the process of creolization, this historical
movement of continuous creation after endogenous and exogenous elements?442
Finally, the analysis of the development of the bourgs demonstrated that the visibility of spatial characteristics does not automatically generate the readability of social relationships: in terms
of space, local features have more influence in the shaping of space
than global ones. Thus, the initial hypothesis of duality in the modernization process is not entirely valid, for the assumed dichotomy
between institutional-provoked urban development and individual ones rarely occurred until the late 1990s. This fact is even
more obvious at the light of the morphological and typological
analysis: the form does not always reflect the content (type). This
brings us to the methodological conclusions.
As typomorphological objects, the bourgs appeared to follow the
major concepts developed on urban morphology by M.R.G.
Conzen and on typology by G. Caniggia. However, under closer
scrutiny it seems that some of these tools need local applications.
This is specifically the case of the Conzenian concept of the
burgage-cycle, which was not fully applicabile. In each bourg it was
possible to observe how the four main phases of the Conzenian
cycle were not always expressed, disturbing not only the validity
264

of a cycle but also that of the plot/building/street block analysis.

What the analysis of the bourgs development actually illuminated
is that the temporal transition between the historical land-estates
and the more recent open plan lots was too short to ascertain a true
plot conceptualization. This is specifically valid for Gosier where,
in its most recent operation (RHI Mangot), the forms of the buildings, and the amount of the resident population shaped the area: it
was not the traditional plot layout that defined the future emplacement of the buildings. More broadly, the late land regularizations
in both bourgs (after the 1950s in general) once more show the
adaptation of the lot to an existing building rather to a plot pattern.
As such, it could perhaps be suggested here that a focus on forms
would be more specified to Caribbean spatiality.
On the other hand, the concepts of Caniggia on building
typologies were perfectly relevant for the case studies: basic types,
specialized types and variants were of great interest to step by step
reveal on which principles not only buildings but also the bourgs
were transformed.
Furthermore, the confrontation between the morphological
and the typological permitted the understanding of how the spaces
of representation and the representations of space were created
locally. The difference on that matter between Gosier and TroisRivires proves once more how much the historical context is necessary. It is in the historically most urbanized and wealthy bourg
(Trois-Rivires) that the spaces of representation are the most important, despite a contemporary decline. It is in the bourg of Gosier
that post-colonial representations of space were the closest to segregation (inaccessibility to the seashore housing), hygiene (at the
origin of Mangots tabula rasa), communication and aesthetic (the
modern concrete cube-shape building) as if mental representations
stuck to a colonial idealism that otherwise never affected the bourg.
Thus, it becomes obvious that to consider the bourgs as historical objects highly relevant to understanding Guadeloupean society. Indeed, in addition to a reconstruction of past events, key dates
and cultural habits, this work tried to reveal some of the mechanisms through which all these features came to us, allowing now to
reinsert the whole analysis in its general context.
Born from the mixing of people from various origins on a common
land, Guadeloupe, like other Creole societies, was initially characterized by a population that shared a geographical distance from its
cultural roots. Yet, very quickly, due to the strong social inequalities installed in the early days of colonization (the slavery system),
the reference to the dominant group became the only one to be
referent. However, after many significant social changes during
265

the studied time span (1928-2003), it seems that the early meaning
of the Creole society might not be updated today, not only because
of the generations and centuries that followed it, but also because
of the dichotomy observed between discourses (whether colonial
or post-colonial), numbers and realities.
Certainly, there is no doubt that the government power existed, yet the analysis showed how it would be wrong to believe
that it permeated every corner of the island: from municipal to
individual decision-making, whether they concerned a new building or a group of buildings, the absolute reference to a French
model was rare. Decisions were on the contrary much more influenced by local specificities that would actually very rapidly appropriate and adapt any new architectural and urban feature (see, for
example, the architecture of Ali Tur in Trois-Rivires in regard to
public buildings or the evolution of the earliest concrete cubeshape houses in Gosier concerning domestic architecture). Whatever the reasons explaining this phenomenon (7,200 km. between
France and Guadeloupe, the difficulty of the site, the lack of professionals, etc., but, be aware, never the lack of finances from the
government), it however remains clear that the successive programs of modernization implemented by the different kinds of
government did not raise questions about their legitimacy, neither
did it occur with the transition to new values through the image of
more developed countries (e.g. the modern concrete house, the
joys of consumption, the increase of individualism, etc.).
As such, more than a reduction to a style or to an intellectual
movement, this capacity to build an environment oscillating between imitation, adaptation and pure creation could be seen as one
aspect of a more contemporary Creole identity.
An identity is not only visible in its very physical traces, but
also readable in its history. As this work has tried to show, there is
not only one history of the Guadeloupean bourg, there are many
bourg stories.

266

GOSIER

Figure 51: Extension to

the Gosier City Hall. (KD)
Figure 56: The new
church of Gosier. (KD)
GOSIER 267

Figure 58: The new Gosier

health centre, 2002. (KD)
Figure 61: Gosier after Hurricane Hugo (1989). Photo A.
Collineau de Montagure.
Figure 63: Gosier Policestation. (KD)
268 GOSIER

Figure 64: Gosier multimedia library. Photo:

Brochure de la Mdiathque du Gosier.

Figure 65: Day-care

centre in Mangot (Gosier).
(KD)

Figure 66: Apartment

blocks in Mangot, 2003
(Gosier). (KD)

GOSIER 269

Figure 132: Similarities in

building structures and
techniques for the pre1950 buildings in Gosier.
1: detail of foundation, 2,
3 & 4: roof and wall
structure, 5 & 6: wooden
nails. (KD)

1.

2.

270 GOSIER

3.

4.

5.

6.

GOSIER 271

Figure 137 (top, middle

left): Wooden shutters
(Gosier). (KD)

Figure 138 (bottom,

middle right): Wooden
inner corbelled vaults,
Gosier. (KD)

272 GOSIER

Figure 141: Examples of

building main faades in
the coastal area of Gosier.
(KD)

GOSIER 273

Figure 144: Some back

facades of the coastal
housing in Gosier. (KD)

Figure 145 (below):

Architectural modern style
in Gosier. (KD)

274
GOSIER

Figure 148: Some

examples of housing
solidifiications on their
main faade in the central
area of Gosier. (KD)

Figure 151: The extensions of the initial wooden

houses (upper western
corner of the central
block) in the bourg of
Gosier. (KD)

GOSIER 275

Figure 152: Street facades

of the 1972 concrete
housing type in the central
block of Gosier. (KD)

276 GOSIER

Figure 154: New concrete

houses built between
1972 and 1988 on the
central block of Gosier.
(KD)

GOSIER 277

Figure 158: The contrast

between a single-family
house and an apartment
block in Gosier. (KD)
Figure 165: The introduction of new form and use
in the coastal block,
Gosier. (KD)

278 GOSIER

Figure 170: New types of

building introduced through
renovation in Gosier: row
housing and apartment
blocks. (KD)

GOSIER 279

TROIS-RIVIRES

Figure 71: An example of

a stone house in TroisRivire. (KD)

Figure 75: Salin House in

front of the post office in the
bourg of Trois-Rivire.(KD)

280 TROIS-RIVIRES

Figure 76: The present

post-office, designed by
Ali Tur in 1932 (TroisRivire). (KD)

Figure 83: The Tout

Affaires shop, built
around 1929 in the bourg
of Trois-Rivire. (KD)

TROIS-RIVIRES 281

Figure 88: The parish

house of Trois-Rivires,
front and side facades.
(KD)

282TROIS-RIVIRES

Figure 89: The impact of

the parish house, the
presbytery and the
church on the landscape
of Trois-Rivires. (KD)
Figure 91: Trois-Rivires
church and city hall: the
confrontation of two
symbols? (KD)

TROIS-RIVIRES 283

Figure 92: The new city

hall of Trois-Rivires.(KD)

Figure 98: The main

facade of the new school
complex in the bourg of
Trois-Rivires. (KD)

284 TROIS-RIVIRES

Figure 101: Examples of

buildings built between
1955 and 1969 in the
bourg of Trois-Rivires.
(KD)

TROIS-RIVIRES 285

Figure 102: The main

building of the convent in
Trois-Rivires.(KD)
Figure 105: The preschool of Trois-Rivires.
(KD)

286 TROIS-RIVIRES

Figure 106: The House of

Youth in Trois-Rivires.
(KD)

Figure 107: The new

health centre in TroisRivires. (KD)

Figure 110: The scout

house in Trois-Rivires.
(KD)

TROIS-RIVIRES 287

Figure 111: A new building housing the municipal water department in

Trois-Rivires. (KD)

Figure 112: From school

buildings to Elder Association, Trois-Rivires. (KD)
Note: The small concrete
pillars in front of the buildings are remains of other
previous school buildings.

Figure 113: From school

to library, Trois-Rivires.
(KD)

288 TROIS-RIVIRES

Figure 114: Initiative

Centre of Trois-Rivires.
(KD)
Figure 115: From fire
station to housing and
public services, TroisRivires. (KD)

TROIS-RIVIRES 289

Figure 116: From health

centre to childrens
recreational centre, TroisRivires. (KD) Note: The
modifications were made
without building permision,
nor with an awareness of
the patrimonial value of
the building: civil servants
didnt know the building
had been designed by Ali
Tur.

290 TROIS-RIVIRES

Figure 118: New housing

in Trois-Rivires. (KD)

TROIS-RIVIRES 291

Figure 181: A presentday view of the main

street of the bourg of
Trois-Rivires. (KD)
Figure 182: Interior of the
parish church in TroisRivires. (KD)

292 TROIS-RIVIRES

Figure 185: Examples of

attics in Trois-Rivires
bourg. (KD)
TROIS-RIVIERES 293

Figure 187: Interior decoration in two different

houses in Trois-Rivires
bourg. (KD)

Figure 196: The presentday covered market of

Trois-Rivires bourg,
designed by architect
Chrubin. (KD)

294 TROIS-RIVIERES

Figure 201: A ruined

three-storey building in
bourg of Trois-Rivires.
(KD) When private rights
and public interests faceoff against each other.
Figure 204: A cubicshaped building in the
bourg of Trois-Rivires.

TROIS-RIVIERES 295

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

[(KD) stands for author contributions]
- Photographs taken before 2000
Figure 8. La Guadeloupe. Trois-Rivires, postcard stamped 4C, 1906. Source: Muse
Saint-John-Perse, copyright forbidden.
Figure 9. Le Moule, Jacob Street, 1916. Source: Private collection, Pointe--Pitre.
Figure 10. Vieux-Bourg, no date. Source: Chopin A. & H. Guadeloupe dAntan, ed. HC,
1998, p. 39.
Figure 11. Saint-Claude, 1920s. Source: Muse Saint-John Perse, copyright forbidden.
Figure 12. The bourg of Trois-Rivires, postcard stamped Collection Caill, Pointe-Pitre, c.1907-1908. Source: Muse Saint-John-Perse, copyright forbidden.
Figure 13. The bourg of Deshaies around 1920. Source: Desmoulin, M-E. La Cte-sous-levent Guadeloupe/Inventaire gnral des monuments et des richesses artisitiques de la
France. Rgion Guadeloupe, Pointe--Pitre: Jasor, 2002, p. 32.
Figure 14. Port-Louis, the main street, 1905-1925. Source: Private collection, Pointe-Pitre.
Figure 15. Capesterre, the open market, La Guadeloupe illustre, 1907-1908. Source:
Private collection, Pointe--Pitre.
Figure 16. Baillif, 1905-1925. Source: Private collection, Pointe--Pitre.
Figure 17. Bouillante, dition 4C, c1920. Source: La Cte-sous-le-vent, op.cit. p. 32.
Figure 18. Le Moule, Le Boulevard Roug. Collection Caill, 1907-1908. Source: Private
collection, Pointe--Pitre.
Figure 19. Le Moule, La rue Jacob, 1914. Source: Private collection, Pointe--Pitre.
Figure 20. Les Abymes, La Guadeloupe Illustre, collection Caill, 1907-1908. Source:
Private collection, Pointe--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-Rivires, 1906, collection Phos. Source: Muse Saint-JohnPerse, copyright forbidden.
Figure 23. Pointe--Pitre, Rue de Nozires, 1905-1925. Source: Private collection,
Pointe--Pitre.
Figure 24. Basse-Terre, GrandRue du Cours, 1925. Source: Private collection, Pointe-Pitre.
Figure 25. Pointe--Pitre, Le Faubourg Vatable, La Guadeloupe illustre, 1907-1908.
Source: Private collection, Pointe--Pitre.
Figure 26. Le Hameau du Bananier, dition Phos, 1908. Source: Private collection,
Pointe--Pitre.
Figure 27. Case de Cultivateurs, 1912. Source: Muse Saint-John-Perse, copyright forbidden.
Figure 28. The ravages of the 1928 hurricane in Pointe--Pitre, general view. Source:
CAOM, 2fi2374.
Figure 29. The ravages of the 1928 hurricane in Pointe--Pitre. Source: CAOM, 2fi2374.
Figure 30. Some buildings designed by Ali Tur: the hospital of Pointe--Pitre, the square
of Morne--lEau and the church of Sainte-Anne. Source: La Guadeloupe, Librairie des
Arts Dcoratifs, Paris, 1935.
Figure 35. Gosier after the hurricane of 1928. Source: Album of Gosier-1935. Arch. Dp.
Gua. n1856.
Figure 37. Gosier city hall c.1935. Source: Album of Gosier-1935.Arch. Dp. Gua. n1856.
Figure 38. View on Gosier presbytery c.1935. Source: Album of Gosier-1935.Arch. Dp.
Gua. n1856.
Figure 39. Gosier police station c1935. Source: Album of Gosier-1935.Arch. Dp.
Gua.n1856.
Figure 41. The Main Street of Gosier c1935. Source: Album of Gosier-1935.Arch. Dp.
Gua. n1856.
Figure 43. View on the new club-restaurant in the bourg of Gosier. Source: LArchitecture
dAujourdhui, March 1936. CAOM, bib, som, d/br/7233.
Figure 44. Gosier seaside resort hotel, c1936. Source: Muse Saint-John-Perse, copyright
forbidden.
296

Figure 60. La Datcha municipal beach in Gosier, before 1989. Photo P. Giraud.
Figure 61. Gosier after Hurricane Hugo (1989). Photo A. Collineau de Montagure.
Figure 70. The bourg of Trois-Rivires, c1910. Source: Martin, R. La Guadeloupe en zigzag,
journal du gendarme cheval Georges Bonnemaison (1900-1903), Ed. Caret, 2001.
Figure 73. The health centre and the church of Trois-Rivires by Architect Ali Tur. Source:
CAOM, bib,som,d/br/8728, Un ensemble de constructions la Guadeloupe
(1931-34), architecte: Ali Tur., in LArchitecte, architectural review.
Figure 77. Trois-Rivires church before 1928. Source: Municipal Archives of TroisRivires.
Figure 78. Demolition of the old church in Trois-Rivires, and cornerstone laying ceremony of the new church, April 1931. Source: Municipal Archives of Trois-Rivires.
Figure 80. One picture of the inauguration of the new church of Trois-Rivires, July 1933.
Source: Muse Saint-John-Perse, copyright forbidden.
Figure 82. Doctor Simons house in the bourg of Trois-Rivires. 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 redevelopment
project in the bourg of Trois-Rivires. Source: Municipal magazine Trois-Rivires en
marche, n7, 1992, p.10.
Figure 122. Some examples of concrete buildings in the French colonies: the CommentryOissel house (Tunisia) and the Fillod colonial house (Abidjan). Source: Royer, J.
(dir.) Congrs international de lurbanisme aux colonies et dans les pays de latitude
intertropicale (1931; Paris), op.cit.,Vol. II, pp. 69 & 71.
Figure 123. The International Colonial Exhibition 1931, Paris, the Pavilion of Guadeloupe by architect Ali Tur. Source: Muse Saint-John-Perse, copyright forbidden.
Figure 124. The International Colonial Exhibition of 1931 in Paris, the map of the exhibition and picture of the site. Source: CAOM and Archives de lAgence Universitaire
de 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 Ali
Tur. Source: CAOM. Le Courrier colonial illustr, November 25, 1937.
Figure 127. The Exhibition of 1937, Paris, Le Bar des Isles. Source: CAOM, agefom 605.
- Photographs taken after 2000
All 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 Mdia-thque 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-Rivires.
Figure 75. Salin house in front of the post office in the bourg of Trois-Rivires.
Figure 76. The post office today, designed by Ali Tur in 1932 (Trois-Rivires).
Figure 83. The Tout Affaires shop, built around 1929 in the bourg of Trois-Rivires.
Figure 88. The parish house of Trois-Rivires, front and side facades.
Figure 89. The impact of the parish house, the presbytery and the church on the landscape of Trois-Rivires.
Figure 91. Trois-Rivires church and city hall: the confrontation of two symbols?
Figure 92. The new city hall of Trois-Rivires.
Figure 95. The market of Trois-Rivires. 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-Rivires.
Figure 101. Some examples of building built between 1955 and 1969 in the bourg of
Trois-Rivires.
Figure 102. Main building of the convent in Trois-Rivires.
297

Figure 105. Pre-school of Trois-Rivires.

Figure 106. House of Youth in Trois-Rivires.
Figure 107. New health centre in Trois-Rivires.
Figure 110. Scout house in Trois-Rivires.
Figure 111. New building holding the municipal water department in Trois-Rivires.
Figure 112. From school buildings to Elder Association, Trois-Rivires.
Figure 113. From school to library, Trois-Rivires.
Figure 114. Initiative center of Trois-Rivires.
Figure 115. From fire station to housing and public service, Trois-Rivires.
Figure 116. From health centre to childrens recreational centre in Trois-Rivires.
Figure 118. New housing in Trois-Rivires.
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 faades 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 faade 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-Rivires bourg 100 years later.
Figure 182. Interior of the parish church in Trois-Rivires.
Figure 185. Examples of attics in Trois-Rivires bourg.
Figure 187. Inner decoration in two different houses in Trois-Rivires bourg.
Figure 196. The covered market of Trois-Rivires bourg today, by Architect Chrubin.
Figure 201. A two-floor concrete ruined building in Trois-Rivires bourg.
Figure 203. A cube-shape building in the bourg of Trois-Rivires.
- Maps
Figure 1. Guadeloupe in the Caribbean region. Source: Giordani, J-P. La Guadeloupe face
son patrimoine, Karthala, 1996.
Figure 2. Relief of Guadeloupe. Source: GEO Magazine, n 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. Dp. Gua.
Figure 34. Gosier in 1902. Source: CAOM, 1pl297.
Figure 36. The map of Gosier in 1935. Source: Album of Gosier-1935. Arch. Dp. Gua.
n1856.
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. Dp. 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-Rivires. Source: IGN.
298

Figure 81. Map of the population density by Engineer Robert in 1935 (detail on TroisRivires). Source: Robert, G. Les Travaux publics de la Guadeloupe, op.cit.
Figure 84. Map of population density by Engineer Robert in 1935 (detail on TroisRivires). Source: Robert, G. Les Travaux publics de la Guadeloupe, op.cit.
Figure 85. Map of Guadeloupe in 1938 (detail on Trois-Rivires). Source: Arch, Dp.
Gua. Service Gographique du Ministre des colonies, 1938.
Figure 120. The land-use plan (POS) of Trois-Rivires, (last corrected 1996). Source:
Municipal archives of Trois-Rivires.
Figure 121. Land-ownership in the bourg of Trois-Rivires. 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-Rivires. 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 (larrire-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 (arrire-bourg in Gosier).
Source: SEMAG.
Figure 86. Evolution of classified and non-classified streets in Trois-Rivires, 1955-2001.
Based on site survey and the IGN maps of 1955, 1969, 1985 and 2001.
Figure 87. Trois-Rivires built space c1955. Source: Based on site survey and IGN maps.
Figure 90. Constructing a new street in Trois-Rivires bourg. Source: Based on cadastre.
Figure 93. Municipal and religious buildings in Trois-Rivires circa 1956. Based on site
survey and Cadastre.
Figure 94. The evolution of building density in Trois-Rivires, 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-Rivires.
Based on site survey and Cadastre.
Figure 99. Successive locations of the gendarmerie in Trois-Rivires. Based on site survey
and IGN maps
Figure 100. Some pattern of early densification between 1955 and 1968 in the bourg of
Trois-Rivires. Source: Based on site survey and IGN maps.
Figure 103. Evolution of built space in the bourg of Trois-Rivires, 1969-1985. Source:
Based on site survey and IGN maps.
Figure 108. One-way streets in Trois-Rivires.
Figure 109. Evolution of built space in the bourg of Trois-Rivires, 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 &
299

Gaume, Kaz antiy jan moun ka rt, 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 faade (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-Rivires bourg. Based on 2001 IGN map.
Figure 183. Repartition of single-floor and multi-storied buildings before 1950 in TroisRivires bourg. Based on site survey
Figure 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 TroisRivires.
Figure 193. The chosen site in 1977, Trois-Rivires. Source: Based on Municipal archives,
Schema dextension des voieries du bourg and site survey.
Figure 204. The chosen site in 2003, Trois-Rivires. Source: Based on site survey and
cadastre.
Figure 213. The evolution of public space in the bourg of Trois-Rivires (1930s-2003).
- Plans
Figure 48. Plan of the new square in the bourg of Gosier on December 27th, 1956. Source:
Arch. Dp. Gua, sc 2226.
Figure 57. Facades of the only 2 buildings permits concerning private house in the bourg
of Gosier demanded in 1980. Source: Municipal archives of Gosier.
Figure 59. Transformations of the Pergola Hotel and its surroundings, building permit
requested on May 23rd, 1980 and accepted in 1981. Source: Municipal Archives of
Gosier.
Figure 72. The public block in 1931 (Trois-Rivires). Source: Municipal Archives of
Trois-Rivires.
Figure 74. The plot of the health center and post office in Trois-Rivires. Source: CAOM,
1tp447.
Figure 79. Plan and section of Trois-Rivires new church. Source: Conseil Gnral de la
Guadeloupe, Basse-Terre.
Figure 97. Unrealized projects for the new school complex in Trois-Rivires. Source:
Municipal Archives of Trois-Rivires.
Figure 104. Plan showing the new emplacement of the war memorial in Trois-Rivires the
public square behind the city hall in Trois-Rivires (1977). Source: Municipal Archives of Trois-Rivires.
Figure 119. Before and after on the old public block of Trois-Rivires. Source: Municipal
Archives of Trois-Rivires.
Figure 130. The plan of the Billy house in Gosier (1929). Source: After Arch. Dp. 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 (Gosiers inland area). Plan courtesy
of the owner, picture (KD).
Figure 156. Concrete house in Gosiers central block in 1988. Plan courtesy of the town,
picture (KD).
300

Figure 157. The first multi-family housing in Gosiers central area. Plan courtesy of
Doctor Duhamel, picture (KD).
Figure 159. Two types of living units in the multi-family building (Gosier).Plan: Courtesy of Doctor Duhamel, picture (KD).
Figure 160. The permanency of wooden housing in Gosiers inland area. (KD)
Figure 161. One example of a concrete house built between 1972 and 1988 in Gosiers
inland area. (KD)
Figure 162. Concrete building based on a wooden old type (Gosiers inland area). (KD)
Figure 163. Mixed type in Gosiers inland area. Plan and faade 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 Gosiers 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-Rivires bourg. (KD)
Figure 188. Plan based on the principle of rooms communicating with each other, TroisRivires. Plan courtesy of G. Siarras, picture (KD).
Figure 189. Full concrete building built in the 1930s, in Trois-Rivires bourg. (KD)
Figure 190. Wooden multi-storied building, built before 1906 and demolished in 1951
(Trois-Rivires). Source: Arch. Dp.Gua. sc 1026, municipal minutes on February
27, 1951.
Figure 191. Multi-storied building (stone & wood) built before 1928, Trois-Rivires (KD)
Figure 192. Abandoned wooden single-storey building in Trois-Rivires bourg. (KD)
Figure 194. The new concrete city hall of Trois-Rivires (2nd floor, organization principle). Architect Chrubin. (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: Architecture
mditerranenne architectural magazine, 1995, p. 222.
Figure 197. Single-storey building, built after 1959, Trois-Rivires. Divisions drawn
according to witnesses description, picture (KD)
Figure 198. A new type of single-storey building during the 1950-1977 period in TroisRivires bourg. (KD)
Figure 199. A wooden single-storey house in Trois-Rivires bourg. (KD)
Figure 200. The presbytery of Trois-Rivires: a case of extension. (KD)
Figure 202. The hybrid building type in Trois-Rivires bourg, sketch based on oral description. (KD)
Figure 205. An example of an extension during the period of 1977-2003 in Trois-Rivires.
(KD)
Figure 206. An example of inner reorganization and extension in Trois-Rivires bourg.
Plan courtesy of G. Siarras, picture (KD).
Figure 207. Modernization of one building in the Notre-Dame Convent in Trois-Rivires.
Plan courtesy of the Town.
Figure 208. An example of inner reorganization, the tourist office of Trois-Rivires. Plan
courtesy of the Town, picture (KD).
Figure 209. An example of multi-storied building during the 1977-2003 period in TroisRivires bourg. (KD)
Figure 210. An example of a new type variant in Trois-Riviresbourg. Plan courtesy of
the town, picture (KD).
Figure 211. An example of building transformations in Trois-Rivires bourg. Plan and
facades courtesy of the town and the owner.
Figure 212. A new type of multi-family housing in Trois-Rivires bourg. Plan courtesy of
the town, picture (KD).
301

- 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, January
19th, 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 to
2001. Source: CAOM bib, som,c/br/9319 & INSEE 2003.
Table 6. The evolution of the cities and towns of Guadeloupe depending on their population 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--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 in
Gosier, 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 Gosiers bourg, 1926-1999. Source: Annuaire
Statistique de la Guadeloupe & INSEE.
Table 12. The distribution of employment in Gosier (%), 1961-1999. Source: INSEE.
Table 13. Land surface per crop in Trois-Rivires 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-Rivires, 1926-1999. Source: Annuaire
Statistique de la Guadeloupe & INSEE.
Table 15. The distribution of employment in Trois-Rivires, 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 dactivits du BUMIDOM on December 31, 1981 and INSEE.
Table 24. Migration balance between 1954 and 1984 in Guadeloupe. Source: Annuaire
Statistique 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 population
evolution, 1961-1999 (dependencies not included). Source: INSEE.
Table 28. Housing conditions in Gosiers inland area at the end of the 1980s. Source:
SEMAG, Amnagement du Quartier Mangot (Gosier), Etude dimpact, p. 20.

302

SOURCES
1-CAOM: THE ARCHIVES CENTRE OF OVERSEAS TERRITORIES (AIX-EN-PROVENCE, FRANCE)
1.1-Bulletins dinformation
(bulletin rgulier publi par lagence FOM et portant sur les colonies)
-Bulletin dinformation #110, 22.9.1947
Un Salon dArt dit Salon dHivernage en octobre 1947 Basse-Terre, permet aux
Architectes dexposer leur maquette et au visiteur de comparer ce que fut, ce quest et ce
que sera lhabitat en Guadeloupe.
1.2-Fonds des cartes et plans (cp)
-cp, 1pl297: Guadeloupe en 1902, chelle de 20 km.
-cp, 2pl185: carte de la Guadeloupe et dpendances, daprs divers documents et
dessine Basse-Terre par M. Clairon, Adjoint Technique principal des Travaux Publics. Girard et Barrere Editeurs, Paris. Au 1/100.000, 1901-1950.
-cp, 2pl300: Carte de la partie Sud de la Guadeloupe par Lon Le Boucher, 1900.
1.3-Fonds bibliothque (bib)
a-aom
-bib, aom,//7592
La Guadeloupe du tricentenaire, 1635-1935, prsente par le Gouverneur L.J.Bouge,
Basse-Terre.
-bib,aom, //12091
Lurbanisme aux colonies et dans les pays tropicaux, communications et rapports du congres
international de lurbanisme aux colonies et dans les pays de latitude intertropical (congres tenu
a lexposition coloniale de 1931), runis et prsents par Jean ROYER, architecte et
urbaniste, directeur administratif de lEcole Spciale dArchitecture, prface de
Lyautey, tome 1, 1932, Ed.Delayance
-bib, aom, 20341
La quinzaine en Guadeloupe, service dinformation, prfecture de la Guadeloupe,#1, 15
mai 1963
-bib, aom 21042
Bulletin dinformation du CENADDOM (centre national de documentation des
dpartements doutre-mer), numro spcial La conjoncture dans les Dom, #16, 1973
b-som
-bib, som, c/br/6327
Brochure: Guadeloupe, 1946-1971, 25 annes de dpartementalisation
-bib, som, c/br/9319
Notes et Etudes Documentaires, 22 novembre 1974, Les dpartements doutre-mer, la
Guadeloupe, par La documentation franaise.
-bib, som, d/br/6915
Lquipement de la Guadeloupe dans le cadre du Vieme plan, pas dat.
-bib, som,d/br/7233
Larchitecture daujourdhui, numro 3, mars 1936, France et colonies, France doutremer, numro spcial de larchitecture daujourdhui, dit loccasion de lexposition de
la cit moderne dAlger, sous la direction de Pierre Vago, p 87-104
-bib,som,d/br/8728
LArchitecte recueil mensuel de lart architectural publi avec le concours de la socit
des architectes diplmes par le gouvernement. Tirage part: Un ensemble de constructions la Guadeloupe (1931-34), architecte: Ali Tur, Paris, les ditions Albert Lvy, 2
rue de lchelle.
-bib, som,d/br/8728
Amnagements paysagers dans le cadre de lquipement touristique des Antilles
franaises, rapport de Daniel Collin paysagiste DPLG, ingnieur divisionnaire de la
ville de Paris,pas de date.
-bib, som, d/br/11552: Le sud basse-terrien, approche gographique, de J.C. Baptistide et M.
Etna.
-bib, som,e/br/7218
303

Supplment du Journal Neptune dAnvers consacr lExposition Coloniale de Paris

Supplment illustr du courrier colonial par Andr Thomarel, La France doutre-mer
lexposition de 1937, 25 nov. 1937.
-bib,som,br/11527: projets de maisons dhabitations, ralis par le bureau dtudes
techniques du bois(M.Manne, ptp), 4 fvrier 1935, adress au prfet de la Guadeloupe.
-bib, som, d3905
6 ans de ralisation 1967-1973
-bib, som, d5196
Brochure de lexposition du tricentenaire du rattachement des Antilles et de la Guyane
la France, 1635-1935, 3 cents ans dhistoire commune et lart contemporain et les
Antilles.
1.4-Fonds ministriel (fm)
a-affpol: Affaires Politiques
-fm, 1/affpol/2640 : projets dquipement 1946
-fm, 1/affpol/2984, dossier5
-fm, 1/affpol/2984, dossier 3
b-agefom: Agence France Outre-mer
-fm, agefom 100/1: Publicit faite par lagence conomique des colonies autonomes,
1936.
-fm, agefom100/1: Marchs coloniaux, n 42 du 31.8.1946, Cration dun centre de
propagande franaise
-fm, agefom 100:
Dossier 4 (Organisation municipale 1887-1947)
La Guadeloupe par lAgence gnrale des Colonies, Melun, imprimerie
Dossier 8: Document non dat, ni sign : Conditions actuelles de la vie aux Antilles
Dossier 9 : Extrait de tableau de recensement, actes du gouvernement local
Dossier 13: La Presse, 13.10.1937
-fm, agefom110.26: carton gua 1927-1950
rapport non dat
-fm, agefom/110/40
Les travaux publics de la Guadeloupe de G. Robert, ingnieur principal des TP des
Colonies, 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 linstruction publique pour lanne scolaire 1933/
34, de BOUGE, au Ministre des colonies, fait le 12 mars 1935
Rapport sur le fonctionnement du service de sant de Guadeloupe, 31 mars 1939, par
mdecin Lt-colonel VERNON>
-fm, agefom 112/51
Bulletin mensuel dinformations, 1937-1938
Service de lInformation, article du 15-10-1946
Lettre du gouverneur M.Prvaudeau sous directeur de lAgence des Colonie,Paris,
date du 9 dcembre 1946 Basse-Terre
-fm, agefom515.181
Brochure 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 lexposition de 1937
et la caravelle achete.
-fm, agefom605/782
Commission dorganisation de la France doutre-mer, sance du 18 fvrier 1936
(prparation pour lexpo internationale de 1937, sur lle des cygnes)
-fm, agefom605/782
Recueil de photographies et darticle de presse concernant le train-exposition, oct. 1941,
semaine de la France outre-mer
-fm, agefom612: plan de lexposition de 1937
-fm, agefom612/904
c-sg: Srie Gographique
-fm, sg, gua240/1464
304

Rapport de lambassadeur de France aux USA Claudel, 18 octobre 1928

-fm, sg, gua 244/1487
Nombre de maisons reconstruites depuis le cyclone: 3815 au 30 juin 1930, cble de Pitri
dput Candace
-fm,sg, gua249/1506
Extrait de la dlibration du conseil municipal du gosier, sance ordinaire du 6.8.1932
Lettre du Crdit Foncier de France M. le Ministre des finances, Paris le 21 avril 1934,
sujet: contentieux recouvrement des prts, sign du gouverneur du crdit foncier de
France
Lettre du gouverneur Tellier M. lInspecteur gnral, chef de Mission Muller, St Claude
le 11 avril 1929.
PV analytique de la sance du 12 juillet 1929 du Comit charg de repartir les subventions et secours aux sinistrs de la Guadeloupe.
-fm, sg, gua252.1518
Rapport de M.Muller et rponses faites par M.COSTAZ, chef du service des TP, 15
dec1928
Analyse de la reconstruction en ciment arme des immeubles dtruits par le cyclone du
12 sept 1928.de linspecteur Gnral des Colonies, Muller, chef de la Mission
dInspection de la gua Monsieur le Ministre des Colonies.12 janvier 1929
-fm, sg, gua252.1519, mission dinspection Muller,1928/1929
de Muller, 3 aot 1929 au ministre des colonies
d-tp: Travaux Publics
-fm, 1tp/440
Rapport de Muller Monsieur le Ministre des Colonies Paris, fait le 18 fvrier 1933
Basse-Terre, portant sur la crise de lapprentissage
-fm, 1tp/441
Doc. Du 1er aot 1931, La Guadeloupe, projet de rfection du rseau routier, tude
gnral, dress et prsent par lentrepreneur Le bitume liquide.
-fm, 1tp/447, 1931-32
-fm, 1tp448
Service des TP, Guadeloupe, assainissement et adduction deau, achat du projet
dalimentation en eau de la grande terre, dress par la socit eau et assainissement
fait le 1er dcembre 1931.
-fm, 1tp/449
Mmoire: Alimentation en eau de la Grande-Terre, Grands travaux, service des TP, 17
fvrier 1933
-fm,1tp/623
Gouvernement de la Guadeloupe, TP, plan gnral dquipement (loi du 6 avril 1941)
premire tranche dcennale, programme et rapport gnral de prsentation(doc. du 25
octobre 1941)
-fm, 1tp1158
Rapport annuel sur les grands travaux sur fonds demprunt au 31 dcembre 1932, par
le gouverneur de la Guadeloupe
-fm, 1tp1158
Rapport annuel du 31 dcembre 1937
2-DEPARTMENTAL ARCHIVES OF GUADELOUPE (GOURBEYRE)
2.1-Fond Srie Continue
-n 79, 80: documents portant sur ladministration gnrale de la Guadeloupe.
-n 1026, 1027, 1031 : dlibrations du conseil municipal de Trois-Rivires, 1928-1955.
-n 2226, 6265: dlibrations du conseil municipal de Gosier, 1928-1955.
2.2-Fonds de lAtelier
(ADUAG)
1246W 48&49

dUrbanisme

et

dAmnagement

de

la

Guadeloupe

2.3- Fonds de lincendie de 1955, sous-srie 20: Travaux communaux, 1928-1934.

2.4-Postcards
2.5-Microfilm
305

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 Caill, Phos, Catan, Petit/CCCC, ditions diverses, fonds non class
5-MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES
5.1-Gosier
-Permis de construire 1970-2003
-POS de Gosier, rapport de prsentation 1990.
-Le Grand Gosier, coffret de la ville.
-Quartier de lArrire bourg, SEMAG proposition damnagement, 6. 2001.
-Plan de situation, ZAC du quartier Mangot, 1/5000, 1998.
-Rnover Mangot, Journal de la rnovation du quartier de Mangot (Gosier), ralis par la
SEMAG, 1997 (n 3).
-Enqute socio-conomique socio-dmographique de larrire bourg Gosier, SEMAG,
nov. 1998.
-OPAH de Gosier, Diagnostic Architectural et Urbain, ralis par lAgence
dArchitecture Tropisme, dc 1998.
-Le Phare de lIlet, organe de communication et de lutte anti-violence, trimestriel, dit
par lEcole Mixte I Saturnin Jasor, n1, 2002.
-Gosier Flash info, Bulletin Municipal dinformation Gratuit, 1995 2002.
5.2-Trois-Rivires
-Permis de construire: 1960-2003
-POS de la Commune de Trois-Rivires, documents graphiques, tableau dassemblage
1/20000, Le bourg 1/2000; rapport de prsentation, 5. 1996.
-Requalification du bourg, tude ralise par la SEMAG, novembre 1995.
-Trois-Rivires, ville fleurie, coffret de la ville.
-Notre Trois-Rivires, magazine gratuit dinformation de la Municipalit de TroisRivires, de 1995 2002.
6. OTHERS
-cartes IGN
-INSEE
-Cadastre
-Carte de 1938 du Service Gographique des Ministres des Colonies
-Journal Officiel de la Rpublique Franaise.

306

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[* indicates books found in archives, but most likely no longer in print. See Source
Documentation for further information]
1- URBAN MORPHOLOGY AND TYPOLOGY
-Bruce Hull, R. Image Congruity, place attachment and community design, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research (JAPR) n3 vol. 9, 1992.
-Caniggia, G. & Maffei, G. L Composition architecturale et typologie du bti, 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 usages multiples, Versailles: LDRHAUS, 2001.
-Clment-Charpentier, S. Tissus et tracs urbains Bangkok et Chiengmai in Les
Cahiers de la Recherche Architecturale 35/36 Cits dAsie, Ed. Parenthses, 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 of
British Geographers Publication, No. 27. London: G. Philip and Son, 1960.
-Dupr, K. Meaning of city planning in Guadeloupe in The Planned City? ISUF International Conference, Bari: Union Corcelli Editrice, 2003, pp. 411-416.
-*Durand, J.N.L. Recueil et parallle des difices de tout genre anciens et modernes, Paris: imp.
de Gill fils, 1799-1801.
-Glgnen, A & Laisney, F. Morphologie urbaine et typologie architecturale, IERAU/
CORDA, 1977, Tome I.
-Kervanto Nevanlinna, A. Interpreting Nairobi, The Cultural Study of Built Forms, Suomen
Historiallinen 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, Leicester
University Press, England, 1990, pp. 109-141.
-Kropf, K An Alternative Approach to Zoning in France: Typology, Historical Character 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 Urban
Morphology Research Group, June 1991.
-Panerai, Castex, Depaule Formes urbaines, de llot la barre, Ed. Parenthses, 1997.
-Pakarinen, T. & Hurme, T. (1988) Space and Urban. A Typological Approach to the Industrial Town, TUT, Finland.
-Pevsner, N. A History of Building Types, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976.
-*Quatremre de Quincy, Encyclopdie Mthodique, 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
-Basti. J. & Dzert. B. La Ville, Ed. Masson, 1991.
-Cherry, G.E. (ed.) Shaping an Urban World, London: Mansell, 1980.
307

-Choay, F. LUrbanisme, utopies et ralits, Editions du seuil, Paris, 1965.

-Cohen, J. L. La Marche de larchitecture moderne and Larchitecture de laprsguerre in Chtelet & Groslier (dir.) Histoire de lArt, lpanouissement de lart moderne,
Larousse, 1998, pp. 210-233.
-Ged, F. Gestion du dsordre et pathologie de croissance in Les Cahiers de la Recherche
Architecturale 35/36 Cits dAsie, Ed. Parenthses, 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.) Managing urban change, Helsinki: UIAH, 1996, pp. 119-132.
-Lawrence, R. The Meaning and Use of Home, JAPR n2, 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 dbut du XVIIIme sicle in La ville europenne outre mers: un modle
conqurant ? (15-20me sicle), Ed. LHarmattan, 1996, pp. 27-29.
-Ragon, M. Histoire mondiale de larchitecture et de lurbanisme modernes, Casterman, ParisTournai, 1986, Vol. I & II.
-*Royer, J. (dir.) Congrs international de lurbanisme aux colonies et dans les pays de latitude
intertropicale (1931 ; Paris), Paris: Ed. dUrbanisme, Vol. I & II, 1932-1935.
-Tribillon, J.F. Lurbanisme, Ed. La Dcouverte, 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. LExposition coloniale de 1931, Mythe rpublicain ou mythe imprial?
in Les lieux de mmoire, Vol. 1, Gallimard, 1997, pp. 493-511.
-Agulhon, M. La mairie in Les lieux de mmoire, Vol. 1, Gallimard, 1997, pp. 179-198.
-Beaujeu-Garnier, J. & Chabot, G. Trait de Gographie urbaine, Paris: Armand Colin, 1995
(4 ed.).
-Bruant, C. & Blain C. Le logement et la ville dans les premiers congrs coloniaux franais,
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 dclin, tome
3, Armand Colin Editeur, Paris, 1991.
-*Congrs des Anciennes Colonies, Compte-rendu des travaux, Milhe-Poutingon (publ.),
Paris, 1910.
-Hodeir, C. & Pierre, M. LExposition coloniale, Ed. Complexe, 1991.
-Lasserre, G. Libreville : la ville et sa rgion, tude de gographie humaine, Paris: Armand
Colin, 1958.
-Nora, P. (dir.) Les lieux de mmoire, Vol. 1, Gallimard, 1997.
-Pinol, J.L. (dir.) Histoire de lEurope urbaine, Seuil 2003, tome II.
-Saunier, P-Y. Changing the city: urban international information and the Lyon municipality, 1900-1940 in Planning Perspectives, 14, 1999.
-Smith, B. Modernisms history, Yale University Press, 1998.
-Topolski, J. Methodology of History, Reidel Publishing Company, 1976.
4- NOTIONS OF SOCIOLOGY
-Bourdieu, P. Les structures sociales de lconomie, Ed. Seuil, 2000.
-Daryush Shayegan, Les lendemains de la socit, in Libration, 2001.
-Eriksen, T. H. Ethnicity and Nationalism, Ed. Pluto Press, 1998.
-Essed, P, Everyday Racism. An Interdisciplinary Theory, London: Sage, 1990.
-Lefebvre, H. La rvolution urbaine, Anthropos, 1991.
-Lefebvre, H. La production de lespace, Anthropos, 2000 (4th ed.).
-McGrane, Beyond Anthropology, Society and the Other, New York: Columbia University
Press, 1989.
-Raymond, H., Haumont, N. & A., Dezs M-G. Lhabitat pavillonnaire, LHarmattan,
2001.
-Simmons, Interpreting Nature: Cultural Construction of the Environment, London:
308

Routledge, 1993.
-Frmy D. & M. Quid 1999, Laffont, 1998.
5- GENERALITIES ABOUT THE WEST INDIES
-Abraham, M. & Maragns, D. (dir.), Guadeloupe, temps incertains, Ed. Autrement, 2001.
-Anselin, A. Lmigration antillaise en France, la troisime Ile, Karthala, 1990.
-Bouchet, H & Richet, G. Rapport dvaluation de lUniversit des Antilles et de la Guyane,
CNE, 1991.
-Boutroy, J-M Le dveloppement des les du Nord, Mmoire de DESS, Verdol P. (dir),
UAG, unpublished, 1995.
-Csaire, A. Discours sur le colonialisme, Ed. Prsence Africaine, 1955.
-Csaire, A. Cahier dun retour au pays natal, Ed. Prsence Africaine, 1983 (1st ed. Bordas
1947).
-Chopin, A. & H. Guadeloupe dAntan, Ed. HC, 1998.
-Fabre, C. De clocher en clocher, Aubenas, 1979.
-Fanon, F. Peau noire, masques blancs, Edition du Seuil, 1952.
-Bernab, Confiant., Chamoiseau, loge de la crolit, Gallimard, 1989.
-Chamoiseau, P Texaco, Gallimard, 1992.
-Collectif Muses Nationaux, Tropiques mtis. Mmoires et cultures de Guadeloupe, Guyane,
Martinique et Runion, 1998.
-Desmoulin, M-E, La Cte-sous-le-vent, Guadeloupe/ Inventaire gnral des monuments et
des richesses artistiques de la France. Rgion Guadeloupe. Pointe--Pitre: Jasor,
2002.
-Gorsfoguel, R (Ed.). The Modern/Colonial/Capitalist World-System in the Twentieth Century, New York: Praeger, 2002.
-La Guadeloupe, Librairie des Arts Dcoratifs, Paris, c1935.
-Martin, R. La Guadeloupe en zigzag, journal du gendarme cheval Georges Bonnemaison
(1900-1903), Ed. Caret, 2001.
-Michalon, T. Sur les spcificits de lOutre-mer: enqute et proposition, in La France et
les Outre-mers, lenjeu multiculturel, Herms-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 multresse solitude, Ed. Seuil, 1972.
-Toumson, R. Mythologie du mtissage, PUF, 1998.
6- History and Geography In the West Indies
-Abenon, L-R. Petite histoire de la Guadeloupe, Ed. LHarmattan, 1992.
-Abenon, Bgot, Bgot, Burac, Calmont, Hartog, Relire lhistoire et la gographie de lespace
cariben, Hachette, 2001.
-Adelade-Merlande, J. (dir) Histoire des Communes, Antilles-Guyane, Ed. Pressplay, 1986.
-Adlade-Merlande, J. (dir.) Historial antillais, tome IV.
-Ageron, C-R. & Coquery-Vidrovitch C. Histoire de la France coloniale, III, Le dclin, Paris:
Colin, 1991.
-Atlas des Dpartements Franais dOutre Mer,III (Guadeloupe), CEGET-CNRS-IGN,
Talence-Bordeaux, 1982.
-Baptistide, J. Lhabitat en Guadeloupe, in Atlas de la Guadeloupe, CNRS, 1980.
-Bangou, H. Alination et dsalination dans les socits post-esclavagistes. Le cas de la
Guadeloupe, Ed. LHarmattan, 1997.
-Bgot, D. Les habitations-sucreries du littoral guadeloupen et leur volution in
Caribena, Cahier dtudes amricaines de la Carabe, publ. de la Direction des
Antiquits de la rgion Martinique-Guyane, 1991, pp. 149-190.
-Bgot, D. Les Antilles franaises travers les guides touristiques de 1913 nos jours, Exposition la Mdiathque du Gosier, January 2002 (CD-rom).
-Bgot, D., Pelletier, M. & Bousquet-Bressolier, C. La Martinique de Moreau du Temple,
1770, La carte des ingnieurs gographes, Paris, CTHS, 1998; pp. 20-27.
-Berthelot, J. & Gaume, M. Kaz antiy, lHabitat populaire aux Antilles, Ed Perspectives
309

Croles, 1982.
-Berthelot, J., Stafford, C., Gaume, M., Rozensztroch, D., Slsin, S. Caribbean Style, Ed.
Perspectives croles, 1986.
-Buffon, A. Monnaie et crdit en conomie coloniale, Basse-Terre, Socit dHistoire de la
Guadeloupe, 1979.
-Casimir, G. Lurbanisation de la commune du Gosier : la transformation dun bourg
rural en une ville touristique, doctoral thesis, directed by Dupeux, Bordeaux, Ed.
Universit de Lille III, 1988.
-Celma, C. Le mouvement ouvrier aux Antilles de la Premire Guerre mondiale
1939, in Suvlor R. (dir.), Historial antillais, Fort-de-France, Dajani ,s.d, tome V,
1981, pp. 169-243.
-Chardon, J-P. Gographie des transports maritimes et ariens du bassin cariben, s.l. s.n., thse
Lettres Bordeaux 1984, 3 vol., 1142 p.
-Dupr, K. Permanences et ruptures des formes urbaines des bourgs de Guadeloupe:
cas de Gosier et de Trois-Rivires, de 1928 nos jours, Mmoire de DEA, Bgot D.
(dir.), Universit des Antilles et de la Guyane, unpublished, 2002.
-Erbs, P. Les monuments aux morts de la guerre 1914-1918, Mmoire de matrise,
Begot (dir.), UAG, unpublished, 2003.
-Fallope, J. Esclaves et citoyens, les Noirs la Guadeloupe au XIX sicle, Basse-Terre, Soc.
dHistoire de la Guadeloupe, 1992.
-GEO, Guadeloupe : un an de malheur, n139, sept. 1990, pp. 158-172.
-Giacottino, J-C. Croissance urbaine et dveloppement aux Antilles in Espaces
Tropicaux, Vennetier P. (dir), Talence, CEGET-CNRS, #4, 1991, pp. 81-101.
-Giacottino, J-C. La ville tropicale et ses problmes denvironnement in Les Cahiers
dOutre-Mer, Bordeaux, #125, 1979, pp. 22-38.
-Hocquet J.-C (dir.), Le Sucre, de lAntiquit son destin antillais, Actes du 123 congrs
national des socits historiques et scientifiques, Paris, CTHS, 2000.
-Labat, J. B. Voyage aux Isles, Chronique aventureuse des Carabes 1693-1705, Paris 1722,
edited by Le Bris M, Paris: Phbus, 1993.
-Lacour, A. Histoire de la Guadeloupe, 1858, reed. Fort-de-France/Pointe--Pitre, Edition
et diffusion de la Culture Antillaise, 1978, tome 1-3.
-Lafleur, G. Saint-Claude, Histoire dune commune de Guadeloupe, Paris: Karthala, 1993.
-Lasserre, G. Les Amriques du Centre: Mexique, Amrique centrale, Antilles, Guyanes, Paris :
PUF, 1977 (2nd d.).
-Lasserre, G. La Guadeloupe, tude gographique, Bordeaux, Ed. Kolodziej, Vol. I-II, 1978.
-Lasserre, G. Lvolution socio-conomique et lurbanisation des Antilles franaises in
Actes du congrs international des mdecins de langue francaise de lhmisphre amricain,
Pointe--Pitre (mars-avril 1978). Mdecine dAfrique noire, Dakar-douala-Abidjan,
mai 1979, t. XXXVI, numro special, pp. 117-123.
-Lasserre, G. (dir.) Les dpartements dOutre-Mer: la Gpe, Notes et Etudes
Documentaires, n 4135-4136-4137, 1974.
-Lasserre, G., Urbanisation et modernisation dans les pays tropicaux, in Colloque
franco-indien du CNRS de Bordeaux-Talence, Centre detudes de Gographie tropicale et
Centre dEtudes des Espaces Urbains. Actes du colloque doctobre 1981. Travaux et Documents de gographie tropicale, 1984, n 53.
-Lawson-Body, G. Ltablissement de la paysannerie en Guadeloupe : le cas de lespace
vivrier des Grands Fonds in Burac M. (dir.) La question de la terre dans les colonies et
dpartements franais dAmrique 1848-1998, Karthala & GodeCarabe, 2000.
-Luce, M. C. La route dargent, Mmoire de matrise de Gographie, directeur
Chardon J. P. UAG, unpublished, 1994.
-Musset, A. LAmrique centrale et les Antilles, une approche gographique, Paris: Masson,
1994.
-Oruno, D.L. De lOubli lHistoire, Ed. Maisonneuve& Larose,1998.
-Protin-Dumon, A. La ville aux les, La ville dans lle Basse-Terre et Pointe--Pitre,
Guadeloupe, 1650-1820, Ed. Karthala, 2000.
-Sainton, J-P. Les ngres en politique, couleur, identits et stratgies de pouvoir en Guadeloupe
au tournant du sicle, PU du Septentrion, 1998.
-Schnakenbourg, C. Histoire de lindustrie sucrire en Guadeloupe (XIX-XX sicles),Vol. I,
La crise du systme esclavagiste (1835-1847), Paris: LHarmattan, 1980.
-Schnakenbourg, C. Quelques nouveaux lments sur lhistoire de lmigration
310

indienne vers la Guadeloupe in Bulletin de la Socit dhistoire 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.
-Suvlor R. (dir.), Historial antillais, Fort-de-France, Dajani, s.d, tome V, 1981.
-Yacou, A. (dir.) Les catastrophes naturelles aux Antilles, dune Soufrire lautre, Ed.
Karthala-CERC, 2000.
7- ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN PLANNING IN THE WEST INDIES
-Agence dArchitecture Tropisme (1998) OPAH de Gosier, Diagnostic Architectural et
Urbain, Guadeloupe.
-Bgot, D. (dir.), La Grande Encyclopdie de la Carabe, Ed. Sanoli, tome VIII Architecture, 1990.
-Bgot, D. Imitation et crolit : une problmatique des Beaux-Arts en espace crole
insulaire, le cas des Antilles francophones, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Hati, 18me20me sicle, in Etudes croles, Ottawa, Volume I, 1987, pp. 118-143.
-Bgot, D. Maison de matre et grandcase aux Antilles franaises (17-19me sicle):
question de linguistique? question dhistoire?, Universit Antilles-Guyane,
colloque Habitation et Plantation, mars 2004, sous presse.
-Buisseret, D. Histoire de larchitecture dans la Carabe, Ed. Caribennes, 1980.
-Burac, M. (dir.), La question de la terre dans les colonies et dpartements franais dAmrique
1848-1998, Ed. Karthala & Gode Carabe, 2000.
-Burac, M. Dfiscalisation des investissements et urbanisation la Martinique in
Vennetier, P. (dir.) Espaces Tropicaux n4, Talence, CEGET-CNRS, 1991, pp. 103-114.
-Caemmerer, A. The houses of Key West, Pineapple Press, 1992.
-Charre, L & Flagie, A. Tendances de lurbanisation en Martinique, unpublished, 2000.
-Coquery-Vidrovitch, C. (dir.), La ville europenne outre mers: un modle conqurant? (1520me sicle), Ed. LHarmattan, 1996, 296 pages.
-Crain, E Historic Architecture in the Caribbean Islands, University Press of Florida, 1994.
-Dupr, K. El lakou de Guadelupe, in Memorias, UA, Colecion de Ciencas Sociales y
Economicas, Colombia, 2002.
-Dupr, K. Urban planning and Globalisation in Guadeloupe in Eckardt, F. &
Hassenpflug, D. (eds.), Urbanism and Globalization, Vol. 2, Frankfurt/M.: Peter
Lang, 2004, pp. 341-354.
-Dupr, K. Permanences et ruptures des formes urbaines de deux bourgs de
Guadeloupe: Gosier et Trois-Rivires, de 1928 nos jours, in Les Anneaux de la
Mmoire, 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, Itinraire dune reconstruction, Ministre de la
Culture et de la Communication, Conseil gnral 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 dveloppement aux Antilles in Vennetier, P.
(dir.) Espaces Tropicaux n4, Talence, CEGET-CNRS, 1991, pp. 81-101.
-Giordani, J. P. La Guadeloupe face son patrimoine, Karthala, 1996.
-Gravette, A. Architectural Heritage of the Caribbean: An A-Z of Historic Buildings, Kingston:
Ian Randle Publishers, 2000.
-Guyon, P. LOPAH, une solution pour les quartiers anciens des DOM?, Mmoire de
DESS dUrbanisme et dAmnagement sous la direction de Chateaureynaud P. IFU,
unpublished, 1997.
-Letchimy, S. De lhabitat prcaire la ville: lexemple martiniquais, LHarmattan, Paris,
1992, 150 pages.
-Letchimy, S. Urbanisme et Urbanisation 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 & NewYork, Mansell, 1989.
-Rey, N. Lakou & Ghetto, Les quartiers priphriques aux Antilles franaises, Paris,
LHarmattan, 2001.
-*Robert, G. Les travaux publics de la Guadeloupe, Paris: Librairie militaire L.Fournier, 1935.

311

312

Cover Photo: Karine Dupr (Sainte-Rose)

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

Caribbean Urban Modernization is a typomorphological study of the property development of various urban structures in Guadeloupe, a former
French colony in the Caribbean. It focuses on the dialectic between urban tissue in its human context and the built environment.

The interrelations between space and society have been studied by many scholars, some concluding that space is a social product. Others have
tried to ascertain how society can be defined or interpreted when seen through the lens of the spatial urban setting. In parallel to this, modernity
is often attributed specifically to contemporary societies, particularly in the context of building and urban construction. Although history reveals
its ongoing character, some crucial questions can be raised: Why modernize? How to modernize? Should modernization in one town be a model for
others? These questions relate not only to a societys self-image, but also to its worldview.