Version classiqueVersion mobile

Hà Nội, a Metropolis in the Making

Sylvie Fanchette

Part One. A city woven from water and villages

Chapter 4. Breaks with the traditional city: the colonial and collectivist eras

E. Cerise et L. Pandolfi

Texte intégral

1Up until the colonial era, the integration of villages into the city had taken place in keeping with the Chinese model, namely that the administration had integrated within the city limits a hundred or so villages, comprising the craft green belt that supplied the capital. In contrast, during the colonial era (1873-1945), then during the collectivist era (1954-1986), the urban model promoted at that time was a clear separation between what was defined as urban and as rural, with development plans targeting the city centre. During this latter period, rural development was favoured and village populations strictly contained within their rural environment by means of residence permits.

2A study based on plans and maps depicting the projects of the colonial then collectivist administrations shows how difficult it was to impose these town planning philosophies imported from France and the Soviet Union onto rural populations. The revenge of rural ‘revolutionaries’ who occupied the villas of the capital’s middle classes when Independence came, in the context of a great housing shortage, bears witness to the contradictions of a system established by a rural administration (it was the villagers who won the wars of independence) pursuing a very urban policy of land use, favouring modernity and high-rise constructions.

An ‘authoritarian’ urban project: the colonial city ignores villages

3The birth of the colonial city is marked by a plan laying out a regular grid pattern of streets to the south of Hoàn Kiếm Lake, the Old Quarter of 36 Streets and the Citadel. This document, drawn up in 1890 by Mr Leclanger, Head of the Hà Nội Highway Department, proposed the following urban organisation: in the centre, a heavily urbanised city, then a peri-urban fringe that is destined to be urbanised and, further out, the countryside and villages often excluded from projects. These entities are not named on the plan, but appear through the limits mentioned: the city inside the ‘city limits’, the peri-urban fringe between this and the ‘limits of the French Concession’ and the countryside outside the latter.

4In line with this principle, some villages making up the urban structure of pre-colonial Hà Nội, which fulfilled an economic and demographic role within the city, are dissociated with it. Only villages located in the ‘peri-urban’ zone likely to be rapidly integrated into the city are addressed by urban planning. In this manner, the colonial urban order impugns the spatial organisation of the ancient city; the urban planning rules produced apply to a territory controlled according to new criteria. Territorial division thus defined made it possible to preserve certain sectors not taken into account in the new urban perimeter. Villages situated near the urban centre illustrated this tendency: located inside city limits before colonisation, they were excluded from it after these were redefined and the city’s perimeter reduced by the French administration (Plate 14). They retained a relative autonomy and were, to a certain degree, preserves of traditional local practices and skills.

5Between 1890 and 1924, the position and morphology of villages underwent modifications. Accordingly, village settlements established on the site of the colonial project for a grid pattern of streets disappeared (such as for example the villages of Lồng Đỏ and Phú Lãm), as did those located to the north of the Citadel. Established on the territory of expansion projects of this new colonial quarter, in particular that of the new indigenous neighbourhood, other villages saw their area shrink (such as Liên Ðýờng, Thuyền Quang or Giáo Phýờng). Conversely, some villages developed considerably, in particular those located beyond the railway line and to the south of the Temple of Literature (such as Linh Quang and Lýõng Xã, barely in existence in 1890, very developed by 1924). It was migratory phenomena that brought about the growth of these villages close to the city. The colonial government developed Hà Nội’s economic sector, but the French administration had no clear policy for the housing of local inhabitants; newcomers, seeking to take advantage of the city’s economic dynamism, settled in nearby villages.

6The French intervention had a paradoxical effect: it erased the village settlements in the city (according to the colonial sense of the term) in particular, in the project sectors; but at the same time, it contributed to preserving, even developing, village structures located outside its administrative remit, through omission. By doing this, it rejected villages outside the city; this represented a radical mutation in Vietnamese urban space, particularly of the relationship between the rural and the urban. These villages, excluded from urban control, were rapidly to become a focus of opposition to colonial power, and of Vietnamese resistance.

Country dwellers occupy the colonial villas

7In 1960, the state implemented the ‘policy of socialist transformation of housing’. The aim of the housing reform was to attain a socialist utilisation of the existing housing resources. This consisted of forced sharing of housing by different families. In terms of property law, there were two different forms of house sharing: nationalisation and contracts between private individuals.

8Nationalisation concerned housing abandoned by people having fled the country, rented housing (identified as a capitalist activity) and the dwellings of families considered as ‘bourgeois’ (namely those in business, but also civil servants of the colonial administration, teachers, doctors, etc.). Houses that had been requisitioned by the military or the party during the war – for which, up until that point, the administration had paid a modest rent to the former owners – were also declared state property without any provision for compensation.

9The merging of private property into public property took place according to the same principle as that of commerce and industry. Owners became nothing more than simple occupants among others of state property. They only kept an area of their house fixed according to official norms (between 3, 5 and 6 m2 per inhabitant). In the ideological context of the era, property owners were ‘bourgeois’, who henceforth had to share the same living conditions as all other workers.

10Here is the case of Mr Minh, whose father was a rich Vietnamese businessman. In 1935, he had bought from a Frenchman a European-style house located in a neighbourhood built during the colonial era. He also had a business that was requisitioned by the state when private trade was outlawed.

11His property consisted of a main building, a garage for a car and an annex building. In 1961, the ward political officials asked Mr Minh to house the family of Mr Hùng in the annex building. A few years later, he was asked to give up an upstairs room to set up an infant school class. But once he had agreed, he was ordered to take in another family, that of Mrs Hông. A little later, a third family, that of Mr Luân, came to live in the garage. Mr Minh retained only his ground-floor room and a bedroom upstairs. In total, four families, or between 15 and 18 people, share the house (Plate 15).

12These families were those of young political officials from neighbouring provinces. The provincial origins of new inhabitants must be highlighted. They were at the source of many conflicts existing between the old and the new inhabitants. Without saying so openly, the owners of the house criticise the ‘rustic’ lifestyle of families from the countryside. Conversely, the ‘old families of Hà Nội’, those who were immersed in the European culture of the colony, were often very cultivated and had adopted a Western way of life.

13The title deeds to the house were leftwith Mr Minh, although they were now worthless. Henceforth he was only the owner – in the sense of personal Property – of one room. The rest of the house had become state property. The state rents it out to other families.

14Concretely, the housing service issued to families a certificate of ‘usage rights to housing’ signed by the president of the Hà Nội People’s Committee. The certificate stated in a few lines the floor area allocated to each household as well as rights to all communal areas (bathroom, kitchen, etc.) when they shared a house. This certificate was supposed to give rise to payment of rent. Although rents were very low, it appears that most people did not pay any.

15Sharing homes, by coercion and by means of nationalisation, mostly involved families said to be ‘bourgeois’. Yet other families also had to accept sharing their dwellings, even if this was not imposed through nationalisation. This was the case of families who lived in the Old Quarter and who, although of modest means, owned separate houses. They realised that they could not retain the exclusive use of their houses without appearing to lack solidarity with the shared housing policy.

16Very many families were in this situation. Although officially they could retain full property rights over their houses, as they were neither bourgeois nor associated with the former colonial power, some gave shelter to poor families from the countryside in a room of their house. Others preferred to ask kith or kin to come and live with them, rather than having to cohabit with strangers, imposed by the authorities, or imposing themselves. The Vietnamese use the term ‘parachutists’ to define these opportunist families who occupied empty spaces (gardens, courtyards, etc.) without seeking anyone’s opinion on the matter. At the time of the American bombardments (from where the expression probably derived), many came to occupy commercial premises abandoned by state employees on the ground floors of houses. Up to five families sometimes went to live with house-owners in this way, building on their land, in the garden, the courtyard, or adding rooms and makeshift shelters on top of their houses.

The Soviet model: the collectivist city ignores existing structures

  • 1 The Khu tập thể or collective units are generally four-or five-storey blocks, with flats allocated (...)

17An enormous rural exodus, difficult to manage, marked Vietnam’s independence in 1954. The first measures adopted, the requisition of villas and their transformation into multi-family accommodation, manifestly did not suffice to meet needs for urban housing. It was in this context that was undertaken a vast construction programme of subsidised accommodation: the ‘housing units’, called Khu tập thể (KTTs)1.

18Soviet and Chinese influence played a role in Hà Nội’s planning decisions. The plans drawn up in these circumstances gave special attention to the administrative definition of spaces, evidence of the growing power of bureaucratic and administrative land management. The socialist model of national land management integrated conurbations into very large provinces. The definition of these new administrative boundaries and the communist ideology in which agriculture and the countryside played a driving role in productivist society contributed to renegotiating the relationships between the rural and the urban. The national territory is divided into provinces that are supposed to be self-sufficient for food.

19Hà Nội was no longer considered as just a city but was put together with its province of 580 km2 in 1961, enlarged still further in 1978 to reach 2,131 km2 (let it be remembered that in 1954, Hà Nội’s administrative boundaries contained an area of 152 km2 with an urban zone of 12 km2).

20The urban models implemented during this period persisted in ignoring local characteristics, in particular the relation between Vietnamese society and its village organisation. A paradox can be observed here between, on the one hand, the administrative divisions that gave villages a place back within the city limits and, on the other, the methods and models imported from the Soviet Union that tended to ignore them.

21The will to build a socialist city and the urgency of reconstruction created favourable conditions for this new housing policy. These residential neighbourhoods were, with the industrialisation programme, the major architectural and urban action of the collectivist period. These KTTs were initially built in the first ring of urbanisation around Hà Nội, on the former agricultural land of villages from which they took their names.

22For all of these developments, lakes that were once used by village inhabitants were developed into public spaces located in the centre or on the periphery of the new neighbourhoods. Villages lost their agricultural activities; they were converted into urban neighbourhoods while retaining their internal spatial structure.

23Reproductions of the 1960s project are not precise enough to evaluate the place of villages in the development of city expansions. However, building of KTTs, facilities and sectors of industry show that the new structures took shape close to villages, but never in place of them; no village was destroyed.

Plate 15. Occupation of a villa by rural families during the collectivist era

Plate 15. Occupation of a villa by rural families during the collectivist era

In this specific case, accommodating new families did not lead to increased construction on the plot of land. The creation of dwellings took place through conversion of the annex building and the garage. Only a space in the corner of the property was used to build a shared annex. Mr Minh’s former property was to undergo other modifications after 1986. Plates by Vû Duc Tùng.

  • 2 It came about that landowners, rich farmers or village dignitaries were sentenced and executed by (...)

24The countryside and the villages maintained a peculiar and ambiguous relationship with power and the socialist government from the very beginning of proindependence resistance. The rural population, right from the start, supported resistance fighters in organising revolts and assembling workers, labourers and farmers. But very rapidly, the traditional rural system based on the corrupt power of mandarins was denounced and rejected by the communist revolutionaries, the more so since village dignitaries had often been integrated into the French colonial system2.

  • 3 This plan was approved in April 1981; it was the work of a co-operation between the Vietnamese Tow (...)

25The ‘Hà Nội general plan to the year 2000 drawn up in 1981’3 (see Plate 10) was the first city project where village structures were ignored to such an extent, excluded from the process of Hà Nội’s development and expansion, despite this being projected onto a vast area which at that time was still agricultural.

26In 1984, in the Hà Nội atlas, the villages were not marked; nothing distinguished them from the existing or projected urban fabric. Beyond the zone of the project, in the rural part of the province of Hà Nội, several villages were still shown. Although they were represented in the areas reserved for urban development after the year 2000, they completely disappeared from the zone of the project.

27The 1981 project spread over a wide area. This scale change in urban planning could have given rise to a progressive transition from city to countryside. The city plan, organised into concentric rings, could also have favoured a balance between city and countryside, the outer, less urban rings integrating villages. But, paradoxically, this project drew sharp boundaries between the urban and rural zones; it used this urban fringe for an entirely different purpose, that of industrialisation.

Social housing: an urban front in contrast with traditional dwellings

28Inaugurated by experiments at the end of the 1950s, most construction projects dated from the 1970s and received aid from fellow socialist countries; they were built in the first ring of urbanisation around the colonial city. Also used as a propaganda tool, the KTTs were designed in a desire for modernisation of society that sought to look only forward, without heed for the legacy from a past considered anti-revolutionary.

29The neighbourhood of Nguyễn Công Trứ (1958) (Plate 16 and Figure 10) was one of the first projects to see the light of day. Built on the former European cemetery, on the edge of the urbanised area at that time, it perfectly expressed an idea of Soviet-style modernity. The favoured type of flats remained similar to military barrack buildings: a single room for the household, bathrooms and kitchens shared between eight flats. There is no balcony; the flats give onto a central corridor that leads to the shared facilities (bathrooms and kitchens). Collective services, such as canteens, crèches, an infant school and a health centre are set up in dedicated buildings or on the ground floors of the blocks of flats. An administrative service manages the neighbourhood; shops and a state store in theory keep households supplied; centralised power and water supplies link the neighbourhood to the city networks and distribute power and water to the inhabitants. This was a radically new type of dwelling, contrasting with rural and traditional houses of the neighbouring villages.

30Analysis of projects and construction of KTTs show discrepancies between ideology and reality. The plans of this period, be they of the city or the new neighbourhoods, made no mention of the inherited city; they didn’t show historic neighbourhoods which nonetheless have characteristic outlines, nor neighbouring existing structures like the villages.

31However, large-scale construction projects for housing, urban facilities, and industry show that new structures took shape without encroaching on villages. The major housing projects, such as the KTTs of Nghĩa Đô, Nghĩa Tân or Thanh Xuân, were programmed relatively far from villages and existing urban structures; they thus avoided the conflicts, effects of competition and inevitable spatial negotiations of the denser fabric of the first ring of urbanisation. At Trung Tự, the KTT was planned on the agricultural land of a village itself destroyed to make way for new blocks of flats. This project, lacking any concession for the village, did not see the light of day in this form; on the contrary, the rational structuration of the KTT neighbourhood was fitted into the organic contours of the untouched village.

32These negotiations with the material space of villages did nothing to alleviate the difficulties of vocational retraining undergone by villagers henceforth deprived of their agricultural land. The formal and spatial contrast between the KTTs and traditional dwellings is all the more stark given that these blocks of flats of several storeys reared up directly out of the villagers’paddy fields.

Plate 16. Location of collective neighbourhoods and planning models of four neighbourhoods

Plate 16. Location of collective neighbourhoods and planning models of four neighbourhoods

The densification of collective neighbourhoods and village practices

33Appropriations by those living in the shared spaces of KTTs were the result of a desire and a necessity to increase the living space in the blocks, which was insufficient from the start. For a long time, independent Vietnam’s economy followed the precepts of a war economy, implicating the population in the effort of reconstruction and in accepting privations and precarious conditions of comfort. However, for want of being able to obtain more spacious housing and as soon as they had been given the possibility and the means, inhabitants sought to enlarge their dwellings. Such transformations became apparent through the densification of flats, blocks of flats and residential neighbourhoods (Plate 17). Transformations undertaken by the inhabitants in the KTT neighbourhoods at the very beginning of economic liberalisation were particularly visible and representative of changes that Đổi mới brought to citizens. Every political decision in favour of greater freedom of action for citizens brought about an immediate reaction from the people and in particular inhabitants of blocks of flats.

34Modifications of living quarters were sufficiently numerous and significant to provoke an impact on the nearby urban environment. In this manner, the relationship between the buildings and the street, the organisation of buildings between themselves and the neighbourhood’s function encountered radical changes in all the KTT sectors. Frequently, the addition of individual and private initiatives also produced a modification of the relationship between the neighbourhood and the city. With the appearance of fresh functions, such as local services, shops, bars and restaurants, these neighbourhoods, formerly strictly residential, became a more attractive prospect and increased, by doing so, urban mobility. Mainly situated in the first ring of the city’ surbanisation, the KTTs formed a dormitory belt around the historic centre. The new situation and the functional diversity acquired by this sector made these places resemble the city centre more than the outskirts. Actions by those living there thus strengthened the urban nature of the first ring that had until then been very rural. The actions and practices of inhabitants, a driving force with regard to the evolution of KTTs, tended to express and affirm the ambiguity between urban and rural cultures in the city of Hà Nội.



Source: Cerise E.

Plate 17. Densification of collective housing

Plate 17. Densification of collective housing

35The evolution of the relationship between the buildings and the vegetation expresses remarkably well the societal and spatial transformations in the KTTs. At the time of their construction, the residential neighbourhoods were conceived with a ‘green space’ of vegetation in a functionalist vision of the whole. Rapidly, the plant life of the KTTs moved from the public to the private domain.

36However, just the opposite of the urbanity brought by functional diversity, the development of private vegetation was evidence of an opposite tendency, re-establishing ties with certain rural, spatial and customary practices. Ground-floor flats were the first to be transformed, both inside and out. Very rapidly, they were extended with small private gardens where the tenants cultivated a little fruit and vegetables for their consumption, re-establishing ties in this manner with rural tradition. In the enclosures of rural houses in Red River Delta villages, it is common to have a vegetable garden, in particular for the aromatic herbs indispensable to Vietnamese cooking (Gourou, 1936). This plant growth spread to almost all the flats of the KTTs, the windows and the loggias, covered with aromatic plants and flowers, creating an appearance of walls of plants.

37The small gardens were at first without fencing, located indiscriminately on the side of the road or inside the neighbourhood before being closed off with low walls. After 1992 and the possibility for all citizens to make money with private trade, they progressively gave way to shops. Progressively the vegetation of public spaces, conceived as a ‘green space’, gave way to shops and service activities. Today in the KTTs, the gardens have disappeared, but not private, small-scale cultivation of vegetables, because they can be found in pots on patios and climbing up façades of buildings.

38The widespread persistence, even in the 1990s and 2000s, of this practice stemming from rural culture is explained by the village origins of the KTTs’ inhabitants. A second explanation comes from considerable difficulties in supply of foodstuffs within a system distributing food coupons organised by a state-subsidised economy, which made attractive the opportunity of cultivating one’s own vegetable garden.

39Ground-floor extensions to housing consist mainly of setting up businesses between the street and the flat. These extensions began after 1992 and haven’t stopped spreading since then. In the original plans for KTTs, ground-floor flats were strictly identical to those upstairs that also had a loggia or a passageway. Building on an extraneous ground-floor room transforms the relationship between the building and the street, offering an enlarged and direct opening. Created for commercial activity, these extensions are regularly refurbished to meet the running and marketing needs of a business.

40The appearance of shops at the foot of buildings and the shape of flats housing businesses created links with the spatial culture of the traditional trading city and its emblematic model that is the Chinese-style shophouse. Although in its original design, the KTT was set up in opposition to the cultural and formal reference of the shophouse, its similarities became progressively more numerous as time passed. The fresh layout of flats combined with shops, with rows of adjoining rooms, strongly recalls the traditional shophouse layout.

41The disposition of new businesses, at the foot of the block of flats, reproduces the typical configuration of trading streets in the Old Quarter of 36 Streets. But above all, these flats now blend trade and housing, reproducing the functional diversity characteristic of the traditional shophouse. Finally, some flats, after modifications, offer a variety going from the ‘most public’, opening out onto the street, to ‘most private’, at the back, recalling the traditional spatial disposition of compartments in the commercial part of the city.

42Buildings making the neighbourhoods with blocks of flats denser were not always private constructions built on individual initiatives. The demand for housing always being very strong, the ground plans were slightly modified by the administration to receive fresh buildings among the original ones.

43In the 1980s, the authorities in charge of managing housing stock decided to make denser KTT developments among those that were completed or still in construction. At Trung Tự, in 1980, three new blocks of flats and three plots were built, taking their place inside the initial design dating back to 1970. At Kim Liên, two new buildings, B8b and B8a, were built in the second half of the 1980s, while the rest of the KTTs date back to 1965.

44Official densification did not upset the arrangement of KTTs organised into neighbourhood units; the new buildings took shape between these units made up of four or five blocks of flats with public facilities in the centre.

Photo 6
The new residential zone Splendora Project: an urban dream in a densely populated region

45New blocks of flats were built and planned according to the methods used when the first blocks were built. Sometimes, the shape of the building differed and plots appeared in the sectors until then largely composed of blocks of flats. On the other hand, the flats are all of the same kind. The buildings constructed to densify the KTT neighbourhoods were built back at the time when appropriations by inhabitants were spreading rapidly. The planners thus noted the growing need for space among the population and accordingly, they progressively increased the ratios of living space per person, but without questioning the methods of producing housing. In this manner, like their predecessors, these extra buildings were rapidly transformed by their occupants.

46The construction of compartments in the KTTs always resulted from a lack of housing and limited space in existing flats. It was also an instance of planned densification, as the compartments respected certain rules shared by the immediate neighbourhood, such as consolidation, alignment and heights of buildings. The grouping of compartments transformed the link created between the new constructions and the original blocks of flats, the link between the blocks and the street and that between the buildings and undeveloped land.

47In some cases, such as in Trung Tự, compartments were planned by the public authorities and grouped together in regular strips opposite an existing block of flats. More often, they were the result of private initiatives that, step by step, constituted an alignment. They also formed the original part of some streets, by creating a line of buildings where before, there were none. Alignments of compartments were established between two blocks of flats, only leaving a little room for the narrow passage leading to entrances, where the original project showed a wide green space.

48This was the case, for example, of Sector A in Kim Liên, where the compartments, located between two blocks of flats, are gathered into city blocks of the same length as the blocks of flats. In this case, the new constructions deprived the older ones of their visual link with the street or with the open space between the blocks of flats.

49Some KTT projects organised space with uniform alignments of buildings at least one and a half times the height of the buildings apart. These spaces between the blocks of flats are designated by a Sino-Vietnamese term, lýu không, taken from musical terminology, meaning a ‘silence’. These ‘silences’ are often planted with trees to prevent blocks from being overlooked by the flats of neighbouring blocks. When the spaces are filled with compartments, they lose their primary function and purpose.


50Ignored in development projects for urban zones during the colonial era, then the collectivist period, the village and its practices are resurgent. The fact that villagers moved into the bourgeois villas of the ‘French Quarter’ led to a very intensive usage of these dwellings, then later to the opening of businesses and stalls, unfamiliar practices in this neighbourhood. In the daily space of inhabitants of KTTs, whether through creation of little ‘hanging’ gardens or through specific community and social practices in collective spaces, the village is reclaiming its rights.

51A ‘smoothing’ phenomenon between the spatial practices of inhabitants of these new neighbourhoods and those of villagers in surrounding neighbourhoods has occurred to differing degrees, owing to the village origins of KTT inhabitants, but also to the relatively modest scale of these neighbourhoods.

52Zones under construction and at the planning stage on the outskirts of the capital are on a much larger scale than those of the first generation. In addition, the social origins of inhabitants of these areas will be very different from their villager neighbours. The lofty standards of many khu đô thị mới, or new urban areas, built by investors whose main aim is a short-term return on their capital investment, as well as the ongoing land speculation, greatly compromise access to such areas for less privileged social categories. The socio-spatial fragmentation of these new urban fringes where urban neighbourhoods for privileged social groups will exist alongside urbanised villages where employment will be scarce, runs the risk in the medium term of causing serious socio-economic and neighbourhood cohabitation problems.


1 The Khu tập thể or collective units are generally four-or five-storey blocks, with flats allocated according to very precise evaluations and ratios. This type of housing was intimately linked to the political system of this era; it was part of the control measures exerted over the population.

2 It came about that landowners, rich farmers or village dignitaries were sentenced and executed by peoples’tribunals. The aim being on one hand to show the rural proletariat the downfall of these former lords, and on the other, to destabilise the power and influence of dignitaries in Vietnamese villages. ‘Les Américains au Vietnam’, intentionally anonymous article, in Les Temps Modernes, 236, January 1966: 1153-1193.

3 This plan was approved in April 1981; it was the work of a co-operation between the Vietnamese Town Planning Department and the Leningrad Institute for Town Planning (Logan, 2000)..

Table des illustrations

Titre Plate 14
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,1M
Titre Plate 15. Occupation of a villa by rural families during the collectivist era
Légende In this specific case, accommodating new families did not lead to increased construction on the plot of land. The creation of dwellings took place through conversion of the annex building and the garage. Only a space in the corner of the property was used to build a shared annex. Mr Minh’s former property was to undergo other modifications after 1986. Plates by Vû Duc Tùng.
Fichier image/jpeg, 305k
Titre Plate 16. Location of collective neighbourhoods and planning models of four neighbourhoods
Fichier image/jpeg, 647k
Légende Source: Cerise E.
Fichier image/jpeg, 677k
Titre Plate 17. Densification of collective housing
Fichier image/jpeg, 662k
Légende Photo 6The new residential zone Splendora Project: an urban dream in a densely populated region
Fichier image/jpeg, 644k


PhD in Architecture and Urban Studies from Ensa (École nationale supérieure d’architecture de Paris-Belleville). He is a researcher at UMR Ipraus (Institut parisien de recherche: architecture, urbanistique et société) and Co-Director of the Institut des métiers de la ville in Hà Nội.
He is interested in production and in transformation of habitat in Hà Nội, which was the subject of his thesis, in cartography of Asian cities, and in the protection of architectural and urban heritage in Southeast Asia. He works on issues concerning housing projects, their design, their production and their reception by the communities concerned.

PhD in Urban Studies from the Institut français d’urbanisme, is a specialist in urban land issues in Vietnam and is a former Co-Director of the Institut des métiers de la ville in Hà Nội.
He is currently in charge of the Asia Sector for the Île-de-France Region’s Department of Urban Planning. He is responsible for the implementation of co-operation projects aimed at improving proficiency in tendering of local public contracts in the fields of urban planning, development and urban services.

© IRD Éditions, 2016

Conditions d’utilisation :


Volume papier

IRD Éditions
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search