1. Imperial legacies and the influence on architecture: Differences
between case of Beirut and Algeria
How did French modern style become an architectural culture in Algeria and
Lebanon?
Introduction
The history of imperialism cannot be reduced to political ambitions, nor to economic
interests, or military campaigns, but has also consistedof a cultural project. Research
concerning the influence of French historical heritage on architecture in formerly
colonised countries such as Algeria and Lebanon, has flourished over the past decade.
As Jean Luis Cohen recently stated, a large number of scholars explored this field in
their respected writings. Cohen argues that the: “explosion of research” is a result of
“heritage protection campaigns, expansion of historical research through ever more
doctoral training programmes, and the development in research process establishing
colonial and post-colonial discourse as subjects of study for further research and
consideration” (Cohen, 2006, 349). This essay will highlight the architectural heritage
of the French Empire, and will analyse how the Empire’s cultural legacy shaped the
modernized culture of architecture in Lebanon and Algeria. The case study of French
urbanism can have different implications from country to another. This paper will also
argue how the French Empire had varying degrees of influence from Algeria to
Lebanon in architecture.
The assimilation policy applied in Algeria by the French power was mainly a process
of investment in pre-colonial towns driven by a motivation to “exclude all the new
Muslims population from the enlarged agglomeration, conceived as the capital of a
colony to be populated by the French alone” (Cohen, 2006, 357). In both cases
(Algeria and Lebanon), France succeeded in leaving a huge influence on architecture.
Moreover, this paper will provide an analysis of the interdependent yet distinct
relationship between culture and politics, through examining the French cultural
legacy on architecture. In essence, the core of the paper's argument will discuss the
direct influence of French urbanism. Two major questions will be posed. Firstly, does
a certain political agenda generate particular urbanistic styles and policies that
advance political goals? Secondly, can the evolution of certain urbanistic styles or
policies evident in different countries, be studied in isolation of one another each in its
separate context? Therefore, this essay will discuss the influence of French urbanism
on Lebanon and Algeria, focusing on how this policy served the cultural imperial goal
of France. Many assumptions can be taken into consideration, as Gwendolyn Wright
argues: “the urban design was a key element for colonial administrations in their effort

2. to curb resistance abroad and win political and economical support at home”(Wright,
1991, 8). The French colonial systems and laws differed between Lebanon and
Algeria, a fact directly linked to what was the core target of the architectural policies
in both states. Lebanon was one of the French mandates after the First World War.
France was assigned by the United Nations to control domestic situations in Lebanon
and Syria until 1946. The case of Algeria is different, the French colonial
administration tried to “rationalize a legal transition from Islamic law to French law”
(Kudo, 26).
An accepted argument of modern French urbanism and its objectives behind is made
by Paul Rabinow who described this process as a ‘series of models of urban form’. He
mentioned that “at the end of the nineteenth century, spatial scientific elements were
finally combined in a comprehensive model. In one of those moments of conjectural
creativity, between 1899 and 1909 a group of prize winning architects came together
in Rome, where they produced a series of models of urban form”(Rabinow, 1989,
211). This paper will demonstrate how the French colonialism of Algeria in 1830
intended to hold a long-term plan for shifting social and demographic balance of
powers through urbanism. It is important however to begin with a definition of
modernization. In general terms, modernization is both a political and an economic
concept, which refers to the: "process of transforming traditional institutions to
modern forms, as are to be found in Western society" (Alpago, 2010, p.72). Such a
process increasingly extends to the infrastructure of cities. Whether the French empire
intended to apply this policy of urbanism in Algeria to serve its political agenda or
not, it is still clear that the French goals in the Middle East, especially in Lebanon
were much far from those in North Africa. Ambe J. Njoh supports this argument in his
study about the French urbanism in the Middle East. He states that: “French urbanism
as manifested through monumental projects in built space is relatively scanty in the
Middle East. The French didn’t view the Middle East as a valuably prize of
colonialism. In fact, the French had a very little incentive to colonize the Middle
East”(Njoh, 2016, 119). Another argument will be presented in this essay in relation
to French urbanism and segregation. Racial segregation was used as a form of power
to achieve social control in built space. This policy served the French abilities of using
military means to quell anti-colonial resistance. In both cases, the French urbanism
left its impact. The legacy of the French empire is clearly presented in the architecture
of both Beirut and Algeria. But what were the factors behind the French architectural
policies in each will also be explored in this paper.
French Urbanism: colonial objectives and architecture.
The history of French urbanism can be directly related to colonisation. As mentioned
before the architecture as a concrete component of culture primarily served the

3. imperial goals of the French empire. It is important to highlight the case study of
French urbanism in Africa in order to gain a deeper understanding of the gradualism
and complexity of such a process. France controlled more than any other European
power in Africa. The role that France played in shaping the urban structure and design
in previously colonised countries did not receive the attention it deserves. Carlos
Nunes Silva elaborated on the important effect of the French Empire in forming
architecture in Africa. In his literature about urban planning in Sub-Saharan Africa he
argued that the “French colonial urbanism had many objectives within the broader
frame of the French colonial project. The French colonial government initiatives in the
built environment were designed to reinforce France’s power in colonial space.”
(Silva, 2015, 106) Urbanism was important for serving the French colonial intention
in many ways. But first, it is fundamental to state that the French colonialism of
Algeria was settler colonialism. Settler colonialism was a basic example of French
urbanism in Algeria. It represented a major goal for the French to create societies with
pure French population. David Prochaska justified this by stating that “settler society
is formed that stratification is based more on race and ethnicity than on socioeconomic
classes.”(Prochaska, 1990, 10), which explains how the cultural homogenization by
France, was becoming actualized through these constructed and politicized divisions
in Algeria.
However, this argument requires an understanding of the legal status of both Algeria
and Lebanon in the French Empire. William I. Shorrok’s article targeted the history
and origin or the French mandate of Lebanon. Shorrok considered that “France's
acquisition of Syria and Lebanon as mandated territoryafter the First World War has
often been described as the result of war-time arrangements such as the Sykes-Picot
Agreement and the MacMahon-Hussein Correspondence. In fact, however, the French
claim to these parts of the old Ottoman Empire was recognized internationally even
before the war erupted. “(Shorrok, 133, 1991). Whether the French had an eye on
Lebanon since the times of the Ottoman Empire, the colonization didn’t take place
until the end of World War One. This makes the legal status of Lebanon in the Empire
different from the Algerian. Although colonialism in all shapes deprived states form
their total autonomy and sovereignty, the authority of the French Empire in Lebanon
was less than that in Algeria. The colonial administration left role for Lebanese local
authorities until 1946. The case in Algeria was more coercive on the standards of laws
and authority. French urbanism in Algeria reflectedthe importance of the state to
France itself. Patricia M. E. Lorcin developed this argument. “Algeria was in many
ways as vital to France’s sense of itself as was France to Algeria.” (Lorcin, XXI,
2006). The political agenda of France required power and coerciveness. French
urbanism justified the fact that the colony’s population was marked by the presence of
racial practices, which undermined the possibility of equitable relations between the
French and Algerians. An accepted conclusion of the French architectural policy in

4. colonies, especially Algeria, is that France viewed major interests in creating Pure-
French societies. First, a chance of expansion of the French culture: language,
institution, and civilization. Second, which I consider a core factor of the French
urbanism is finding solutions for the nation’s problems. To the French conservatives
benefits seemed beyond doubt. They asserted that by “sending poor families to the
colonies, the nation could address its own internal class tensions: ‘instead of making
rebels you will make workers’” (Lemire, 21, 1890). Moreover, economic benefit
provided an important factor and motive for urbanism expansion. In 1914 Algeria
headed the list of being responsible of 12% of the French trade. Wright indicated this
as a “by no means an overshadowing of the enormous profits and exploitive tactics of
major industrialists in the colonies.”(Wright, 54, 1991).
One of the limitations with this discourse is that it does not explain why did the
French urbanism policy was not the same in all the colonies. This argument mainly
relies on what was different in Lebanon than Algeria. Why did the French mandate in
Lebanon didn’t follow the same coercive cultural policy that was followed in Algeria?
Perhaps the most serious reason can be found in both the French intentions and in the
circumstances of both cases. Beyond the legal description of both colonies, there are
more factors that actually prevented the French from setting their colonial goals in
Algeria to be the same in Lebanon. The experiments in colonies in turn demonstrated
a complex modern role of architecture and urban design. Urbanism had a major role
that cannot be masked: serving the quest for political control and economic
modernization. As we will see, in other cases of colonialism the French treated
colonies as independent mini- states with autonomous or semi-autonomous status.
Lebanon being one of the semi-independent mandates, allowed the country to
maintain its culture as the prime culture including language for example, this allowed
different groups in the country to claim the existence of a separate republic of
Lebanon in early 1920.
French Urbanism goals and motives: Algerian and Lebanese model and
the differences betweenthem
The French vision of Algeria as a colony was clear. As a colonial city it had to
include the components of the term. A western-style central business district, a
corresponding indigenous and stranger retailing district, residential neighbourhoods
segregated according to ethnic or racial line and military or police quarters. It is
important to define the colonial city before proceeding with the analysis. Simply, it is
the urban form which results when two societies intersect, the link in the interaction of
two civilizations”(Prochaska, 12, 1990). In fact, using this term in this argument refers
to cities that colonialism left a huge impact on. The French colonialism of Algeria in
my perspective was a unique case of imperial acts. The French administration’s usage

5. of urbanism was clearly to create a separation of societies in Algeria. The cultural
colonialism was not only on the architectural sector. Language, economy, and
education were major targets of the French as factors that will serve the French goals.
In the terms of Lorcin, the frame in which define the relationship with Algeria is one
of violence, it became part if the system and was incorporated in the social structure of
colonial city in racial discourses.”(Lorcin, 2006, XXII). The Impact of the French
urbanism in Algeria is evident. In the 1950s more than half of the Algerian population
was reckoned to be European. Cohen best describes the extreme urbanism in Algeria
and Morocco by the French to be a “modification process” rather than being a control
of urban space. He stated:
“after this era of major road layout, which saw the construction at Algiers, from
1860 onwards, of the exceptional Boulevard de l'lmperatrice, a kind of Parisian
Rue de Rivoli, set down above the Mediterranean, the arcaded streets of the
Prost plan for Casablanca inaugurated another approach. It was no longer a
matter of any total visual control of urban space, in which each building would
be subordinated to an overall design, but rather a matter of modification, in
which the individuality of buildings was encouraged, so long as they respected
'constraints' (servitudes) such as the inclusion of arcades or such minor
regulations as the setting of balconies and decorative features on the
facade.”(Cohen, 360, 2006).
The colonization of Algeria in 1830 marked the beginning of the French presence in
that region. Even after decolonization the French Empire legacy survived till the
present days. The assimilation strategy that France progressed to incorporate Algeria
as a part of France failed as the religious societyin Algeria didn’t fall. French
Algerians believed that Algeria should be an extension of France, and the objective of
Algerian colonization became assimilating the Algerian colony into existing political
and economic institutions in France. The primary goal of the colons was essentially to
“ensure the absolute and complete subjugation of the population to the needs and
interests of colonization,”(Stora, 2001, 6) contrasting with the more benevolent
approach of the military, who was concerned about maintaining security in French
Algeria rather than controlling the native population. In conclusion, the French
urbanism in Algeria was employed to be a major help in achieving total assimilation
of Algeria into France. In addition to the education system that was directly organized
in France, colonizers attempted to separate the French populations from Algerians.
The French distrust to Islam in Algeria was presented clearly in French urbanism
policies and cultural policies in general. Colonial authorities in Algeria created a two-
tier system to differentiate between Muslims and non-Muslims. Local Algerian
Catholics and Jews could attain French citizenship, but Algerian Muslims were denied

6. this option because colons perceived Islam to be an impediment to achieving
Frenchness and deemed it to be incompatible with French and Christian modernity.
Furthermore, the case of depriving Muslim Algerians from citizenship highlights the
French negative acts towards Islam. “The issue of citizenship clearly illustrated the
dichotomy between Algeria and France, tradition and modernity, and Islam and
secularism. France was concerned with any legitimation of Islam, especially in regard
to French citizenship, because acknowledging Islam as lawful and legitimate
threatened the vision of France itself as a progressive, secular republic.”(Silverstein,
2004, 47) which explains more about the French urbanism policies in Algeria as a
intended racial act to create a Pure-French modernity there.
In the case of Beirut and despite the gap and lack of literature concerning the French
urbanism there it is considered as a different case of colonialism. For many reasons it
can be argued that the French intentions in Lebanon were limited in comparison to the
policies progressed in Algeria. First, the circumstances in which France colonized
Lebanon deprived colonial administrations to consider assimilation policies. The end
of 400 years of ottoman rule, the vast destruction of World War One, and the huge
numbers of injuries and killed obliged the French to consider a reconstructionpolicy
rather than an assimilation one. A second reason is what Philip Shukry Khoury argued
about the French mandate in Syria and Lebanon. He considered that “the advent of
French rule in Syria and Lebanon did not fundamentally change the behaviour patterns
of the urban leaders or fundamental characteristics of political life” (Khoury, 1987, 4)
this can be directly related to local consideration of France as a totally illegitimate
power. The weak legitimization provided also by the “weak mandate
system”(Hourani, 1910, 70) also deprived the French from total colonization policy in
Beirut.
It seems that this understanding of the French colonization ambition in Beirut can be
questionable. Previously in the essay it was mentioned that the French had colonial
ambition in Lebanon and Syria before World War One. But, the major obstacle that
deprived the French from applying the Algerian case in Beirut is in part she was
illegitimate and in part because of “exogenous factors-the international and moral
restrictions of the mandate system and the fragility of France’s post-war political and
economical order.” (Khoury, 1987, 5). The French urbanism policy did not find its
way in Lebanon. This is an argument in which needs to be discussed more in
literature. The ignorance of French policy makers in peasant mentality in Lebanon and
Syria and the fact that the lands were mostly owned by the countryside peasants didn’t
allow France to expand its architecture there. This fact is reflectedin the huge
difference between the architecture style in Beirut’s down town that was influenced by
the French style and the countryside of Lebanon which maintained its urban style.

7. The lack of proper connection between cities of Syria and Lebanon was a reason as
well for the French not to consider total colonization, and to invest in wide range of
urbanism, language, and education. Hourani supported this argument, he considered
that “the division between towns people, peasants, and by the interwar period, the
differences in the degree of contact with the West by individuals, districts,
communities and generations as a result of Western missionary activity and the
expansion of western economy into the region” was a major characteristic of the entire
region beyond religious and social differences. (Hourani, 1941, 2) .
Conclusion
In the two cases of French urbanism, one majorly was political, and served a colonial
agenda of the Empire. This essay developed an understanding of both cases, in which
a powerful nationalist movement emerged against the French. In the case of Algeria as
discussed, the coercive methods, and the enormous usage of power allowed the
Colonial policy makers to extend their urbanism policies. The French succeeded in
creating an intensive public domain in Algeria, represented by Pure-French societies
with modern architecture similar to Paris, local hospitals, state schools, governmental
offices, and post offices. The colonization that Martin D. Lewis described as “Not
democratic at all” left an impact on Algeria, preventing them for more than 100 year
to create their own development of urbanism. The imperial usage of urbanism in
Algeria was an act of evil imperial intentions, and majorly what went wrong in it is
not that the French actually progressed their policy of assimilation with no regard to
any morals, but “what was wrong with "assimilation" was not that it was illogical,
unrealistic, or impossible, but rather that no serious effort was ever made to carry it
out” (Lewis, 1962,153).This paper developed a distinguishing conclusion of how the
legacy of French urbanism was developed in Algeria and what where the reasons
behind this serious French culture effect on the Algerian on, in comparison with why
didn’t this happen in Lebanon the same way. The legal frames of both colonies were
defined, beside multiple other reasons of why the French urbanism was employed in
different ways and why it had different effects. What can be noticed is that urbanism
managed in addition to other cultural influences to shift the French colonial
perspective of colonies, as Jules Harmand, a man of much colonial experience, first
described colonial acts as “association between conqueror and conquered” then shifted
to “assimilation” to describe the French colonial policy. (Harmand, 1910, 160).
Despite the differences, the legacy of the French empire is still clearly present in both
Beirut and Algeria. The French imperial influence though differed as the colonial
policy from one case to another changes. What was limited in Beirut because of Legal
frame and international moral limits was not present in Algeria. Perhaps what can be
concluded is that French urbanism was not a wrong act as a modernization act, but its
deployment in a total colonial agenda made the difference between both cases.

8. Bibliography
Akihito Kudo. (2009). French Colonial Rule in Algeria C.1840 1900.Recognized Legal
Disorder . 1 (1), 26.
Alpago Alpago (2010). Power and Poverty Is the EU a New Planet ?. Frankfurt : Peter
Lang. 72.
Carlos Nunes Silva (2015). Urban Planing in Sub-Saharan Africa: Colonial and Post
colonial Planing Cultures. New York and London: Routledge taylor and Francis group. 1-
67.
charles lemire les colonies et la question sociale un frence (PAris challamel Aine, n.d), p 21
David Prochaska (1990). Making Algeria French. Cambridge : Cambridge university
Press. 1-68.
FO 371/8310, vol. 27319. "Syria and Lebanon"report by A. H. Hourani, 5 Dec. 1941 p.2-
72
Gwendolyn Wright, The Politics of Design in French Colonial Urbanism (Chicago,1991)p.8-60
Jean-Luis Cohen. (2006). Architectural History and the Colonial Question: Casablanca,
Algiers and Beyond. Architectural History. 49 (1), 349-372.
Jules Harmand, Domination et Colonisation (Paris, 1910), pp. 160, 163.
Martin Deming Lewis. (1962). One Hundred Million Frenchmen:The "Assimilation" Theory
in French Colonial Policy. Comparative Studies in Society and History. 4 (2), 129-153.
Patricia M. E. Lorcin (2006). Algeria and France 1800-2000: Identity, Memory, Nostalgia.
New York : Syracuse University Press. 1-84.
Paul Rabinow: French Modern (Chicago 1995), c hapter 7 Modern French Urbanism
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo3615890.html
Philip Shukry Khoury (1987). Syria And the French Mandate: The Policy Of Arab
Nationalism. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 27-375.
Silverstein, Paul A. Algeria in France: Transpolitics, Race, and Nation. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 2004. Print.
Stora, Benjamin. Algeria, 1830-2000: A Short History. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
2001. Print.
William I. Shorrock. (1991). THE ORIGIN OF THE FRENCH MANDATE IN SYRIA AND
LEBANON: THE RAILROAD QUESTION, 1901-1914.International Middle East Studies. 11
(1), 133-153.