Notre Dame Cathedral is burning

[TenEightyOne]

It's kindof a strange impulse isn't it? To require the preservation of something because it reaches a certain age, regardless of the cost, out of some sort of sense of benefit to... people... for... reasons.

It isn't based purely on age. Something could be 50 years old and listed, or be 300 years old and not listed. Nominations for listing are on historic value, architectural value, group value (difficult to apply and often appealed), and wider consideration is made of curtilage and conservation areas. About 50,000 structures are listed in the UK.

(EDIT: 500,000 are listed, bad typo!)

And then there's Scheduled Monuments. You can't even break ground on top of those without a proper license and a Conservation Officer. Mrs. Ten did that for a while... she owns a van full of waterproof clothing

 

[baldgye]

It isn't based purely on age. Something could be 50 years old and listed, or be 300 years old and not listed. Nominations for listing are on historic value, architectural value, group value (difficult to apply and often appealed), and wider consideration is made of curtilage and conservation areas. About 50,000 structures are listed in the UK.

And then there's Scheduled Monuments. You can't even break ground on top of those without a proper license and a Conservation Officer. Mrs. Ten did that for a while... she owns a van full of waterproof clothing

Indeed, I think it's a pretty great way of making sure really special and important buildings are preserved. That said, I have spent a year living in a grade 1 listed building and it was terrible!

 

[Vegard]

It's kindof a strange impulse isn't it? To require the preservation of something because it reaches a certain age, regardless of the cost, out of some sort of sense of benefit to... people... for... reasons.

Is the concept of preservation for historical reasons really that alien and repugnant to you?

Strictly hypothetical; let's say the City of Philadelphia, for one reason or another, were forced to sell the Independence National Historical Park to Walmart. Would you be perfectly fine with them tearing it down in order to build a superstore there?

 

[Danoff]

Indeed, I think it's a pretty great way of making sure really special and important buildings are preserved. That said, I have spent a year living in a grade 1 listed building and it was terrible!

"Great" for whom?

Is the concept of preservation for historical reasons really that alien and repugnant to you?

Strictly hypothetical; let's say the City of Philadelphia, for one reason or another, were forced to sell the Independence National Historical Park to Walmart. Would you be perfectly fine with them tearing it down in order to build a superstore there?

What do you mean "forced"? If the city literally didn't have the funds or couldn't be bothered to spend them? Yes they should sell it to someone who would. Walmart wouldn't build a store there, it's worth more as it is. If it's not worth more as it is, and nobody prioritizes it, well then who am I to be bothered about it?

 

[Dotini]

Latest estimates to repair the cathedral to "look like" the original: $8 Billion + twenty years. Not a penny from insurance.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Latest estimates to repair the cathedral to "look like" the original: $8 Billion + twenty years. Not a penny from insurance.

That isn't known at this time. If fault can be proven with a private contractor then their liability comes into play. Otherwise the state is the "insurer" and your statement then becomes correct.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

What do you mean "forced"? If the city literally didn't have the funds or couldn't be bothered to spend them? Yes they should sell it to someone who would. Walmart wouldn't build a store there, it's worth more as it is. If it's not worth more as it is, and nobody prioritizes it, well then who am I to be bothered about it?

Most of the time, this logic holds and things that are worth preserving are preserved. However, sometimes financial realities produce some pretty sad results. Sometimes monetary value shouldn't be the only consideration.

On the other hand, Penn Station's death catalyzed a preservation movement with actual teeth, saving many other architectural treasures throughout the US.

 

[Milouse]

Ubisoft pledged 500,000 € and makes Assassin's Creed Unity, the one staring Notre-Dame, free on PC (Uplay).
It's still a visually sumptuous game today, despite being very demanding even with nowadays hardware if you aim 4k.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Good bit of opportunistic marketing. 👍

 

[TenEightyOne]

Ubisoft pledged 500,000 € and makes Assassin's Creed Unity, the one staring Notre-Dame, free on PC (Uplay).

They're also offering to make their 3D datasets available to reconstruction agencies if so required. Not sure they'll be needed, Tallon's 3D scan of the building a couple of years ago is supposed to be exhaustive... but it's a nice offer that may yet prove helpful.

Good bit of opportunistic marketing. 👍

I agree, but at least they're giving half a million back

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I didn't expect this. France has announced an architectural competition for replacing the spire.

I'm a big fan of this idea. I don't imagine they will be fishing for anything too outlandish, but there are sure to be some interesting entries from the likes of Jean Nouvel, BIG, Renzo Piano, Calatrava, SHoP, (as well as 25% of all third year architecture students in the entire world ) etc.

I'm of the belief that buildings should be treated as living things (metaphorically) and that updates and renovation are a natural part of their life. I'm glad they are not defaulting to replacing the spire with a 1-1 replica of the original. The fire is now a part of the building's story, and it shouldn't be deleted from the record. In my opinion, the best kind of architectural intervention is one that respects the original building while also differentiating itself from it. I look forward to the spire & roof proposals.

 

[Dennisch]

When it's finished, there will be another competition to name the new spire.

Spiry McSpireface.

 

[Populuxe]

When it's finished, there will be another competition to name the new spire.

Spiry McSpireface.

Only if Britain still hasn't Brexited and is still in the EU when the votes are tallied.

 

[Hun200kmh]

That's a given ....

 

[SestoScudo]

I can see why the French feel horried as the Cathedral is the symbol of their country and the symbol of Paris.

Every country has a monument that is so significant that seeing it destroyed or burnt down horrifies anybody. Istanbul has the Sultan Ahmet and the Hagia Sophia, India had the Taj Mahal, Italy has the Colosseum, China and its Great Wall and numerous others.

Imagine if these were gone in a blink of an eye.

 

[Danoff]

Most of the time, this logic holds and things that are worth preserving are preserved. However, sometimes financial realities produce some pretty sad results. Sometimes monetary value shouldn't be the only consideration.

On the other hand, Penn Station's death catalyzed a preservation movement with actual teeth, saving many other architectural treasures throughout the US.

I agree that that's sad.... on the otherhand....

If they couldn't maintain it (and the article says they couldn't), letting it deteriorate into a graffiti riddled home for rats and crime is not exactly a preferable alternative. I get that there's lots of outrage over these kinds of things, but until people are willing to put their own money up for it (which they are for Notre Dame) then it's hard to claim that it really is worth keeping. Still, I wonder how much French taxpayers care anymore.

The public cry to save Notre Dame is in direct opposition to the cry to use public money to feed and house the needy. The billionaires contributing money to it are being criticized left and left for not providing that money to the poor. It is a matter of priority, specifically the priorities of those billionaires.

 

[Milouse]

I can see why the French feel horried as the Cathedral is the symbol of their country and the symbol of Paris.

I'm pretty certain that if asked, Parisian wouldn't consider Notre-Dame to be the symbol of the city - it's the Eiffel tower for sure, and second probably Arc de Triomphe.
As for the French, whose a majority doesn't relate themselves to a specific religion, the reaction would have been the same if a fire wiped Mont St Michel, Versailles, the Louvre or the Eiffel tower. The fact that Notre-Dame is both old and a famous religious monument helped the international outrage. The "symbol of France that burned" is part of the media dramatisation narrative.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I can see why the French feel horried as the Cathedral is the symbol of their country and the symbol of Paris.

Every country has a monument that is so significant that seeing it destroyed or burnt down horrifies anybody. Istanbul has the Sultan Ahmet and the Hagia Sophia, India had the Taj Mahal, Italy has the Colosseum, China and its Great Wall and numerous others.

Imagine if these were gone in a blink of an eye.

America has the original Chuck E Cheese pizza parlor in San Jose, Ca.

 

[Danoff]

America has the original Chuck E Cheese pizza parlor in San Jose, Ca.

We also have the statue of liberty... which is french...

 

[Milouse]

We also have the statue of liberty... which is french...

It has been built in my neighborhood. Actually my wife used to work at that exact location .

 

[McLaren]

I agree that that's sad.... on the otherhand....

If they couldn't maintain it (and the article says they couldn't), letting it deteriorate into a graffiti riddled home for rats and crime is not exactly a preferable alternative. I get that there's lots of outrage over these kinds of things, but until people are willing to put their own money up for it (which they are for Notre Dame) then it's hard to claim that it really is worth keeping. Still, I wonder how much French taxpayers care anymore.

The public cry to save Notre Dame is in direct opposition to the cry to use public money to feed and house the needy. The billionaires contributing money to it are being criticized left and left for not providing that money to the poor. It is a matter of priority, specifically the priorities of those billionaires.

Yeah, I’m not sure people understand the benefit of private billionaires pledging money if what I’ve learned from this thread about the church and the French Govt. unable to decide who between them should foot the bill means anything.

I’ve also learned the first backer mentioned in the thread (married to Selma Hayek) apparently donates a lot of money to French charities.

But I guess people just want to act on emotion and not research. Criticizing someone donating $100 million to preserving a historic building like this seems like a good way for the wealthy to just say, “Ok. Pay for it yourself”.

 

[Populuxe]

But I guess people just want to act on emotion and not research. Criticizing someone donating $100 million to preserving a historic building like this seems like a good way for the wealthy to just say, “Ok. Pay for it yourself”.

We should not be relying on the generosity of the small number of billionaires in this world. We should be taxing the extraordinarily wealthy so governments will have the money necessary to deal with disasters like this without hoping for a rich person to pony up a few euros.

 

[McLaren]

We should not be relying on the generosity of the small number of billionaires in this world. We should be taxing the extraordinarily wealthy so governments will have the money necessary to deal with disasters like this without hoping for a rich person to pony up a few euros.

So you want to go from hoping they donate money to forcing them to give money.

No point in the idea of charity for anyone then; I'm already taxed by the government, why should I give even a dollar more to a disaster relief fund? They already have my money for those issues by your argument.

 

[Danoff]

No point in the idea of charity for anyone then; I'm already taxed by the government, why should I give even a dollar more to a disaster relief fund? They already have my money for those issues by your argument.

I already do a little bit of that. I pay the fair share of quite a few people each year. When it comes to private charity, I do donate, but I try to donate specifically to areas where the government is not helping enough. Opportunity Village in Nevada for example. I also donate to the Chinese orphanage that my daughter is from. The fact that I pay so much in taxes pushes me a little more toward benevolent capitalism and away from pure charity.

 

[McLaren]

I already do a little bit of that. I pay the fair share of quite a few people each year. When it comes to private charity, I do donate, but I try to donate specifically to areas where the government is not helping enough. Opportunity Village in Nevada for example. I also donate to the Chinese orphanage that my daughter is from. The fact that I pay so much in taxes pushes me a little more toward benevolent capitalism and away from pure charity.

My comment was more in jest, but that’s good that you continue to tribute.

I just find the idea that instead of hoping a wealthy person will donate to a cause (on top of their already taxed dollars), just tax them more so their money will automatically be there for said cause, as theft.

It’s not a good argument anyway; who says the govt. is going to distribute a wealthy persons’ higher taxes to a good cause and not towards another outlet? I’m not aware if our govt. let’s the public know exactly where each individual’s taxes go.

On top of that, just how much would France have to tax the wealthy to guarantee the 300 million Euros already donated?

 

[Danoff]

It’s not a good argument anyway; who says the govt. is going to distribute a wealthy persons’ higher taxes to a good cause and not towards another outlet? I’m not aware if our govt. let’s the public know exactly where each individual’s taxes go.

Or indeed in this case will just turn around and use it to fund the Notre Dame reconstruction!

Damned these rich people contributing to the church reconstruction! Let's tax them and use that money to rebuild the church!

 

[Populuxe]

So you want to go from hoping they donate money to forcing them to give money.

Yes.

 

[McLaren]

Yes.

Good luck with that. They’ll just leave the country and make the middle class foot the tax bill.

 

[Biggles]

I'm no expert, but ca. $1 billion to rebuild the damaged parts of Notre Dame seems like an excessive figure. Rebuilding the whole structure from scratch ... possibly, but just rebuilding the roof & spire & other parts damaged by the fire? For comparison, it apparently cost $1.6 billion to build the Petronas towers in Malaysia.

I wonder if they will rebuild the roof sub-structure out of wood, duplicating the historical construction methods ... or out of modern fire-retardant materials? This would seem to be a crucial decision & no doubt will become the subject of much discussion & disagreement.

 

[Famine]

disasters

A church roof burned itself to cinders.