Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
EDIT: Apparently French billionaire François-Henri Pinault intends to donate 100 million Euro for the restoration of Notre-Dame.

If only that money was pledged beforehand. Lowest-cost contractor policies may have been the cause of this.

And: I've heard that "The Hunchback on Notre Dame" book was written to raise repair funds, back in 1831.
This building (and lots like it) have been falling down for centuries.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
True, but what could he say? "Nah, the single most iconic landmark in France can go get bent"? He really has no choice, anything that isn't "rebuild it!" is political suicide.

Plus, I don't think it's fair to characterize Notre-Dame as a "vanity project". Sure, it was back in the 1100s when the cornerstone was laid, but...

He didn't have to say anything. He could have wheeled out a statement of tragedy alone or just pledged to restore what was left without rebuilding, or anything in between. If Canterbury Cathedral burned down tomorrow, I wouldn't expect the government to blow three hundred million quid on rebuilding it. Our country is covered in churchs and cathedrals of all size, and France is no different.

I'm a historian, and I know the value of preservation for future generations. But this building has been recorded from every angle a hundred times, the relics have been saved, and it was crumbling in the first place. It's no important icon of French culture anymore than two dozen other items in Paris are. It's very pretty, but then again, so was the Crystal Palace.

Meanwhile, people sleep on the streets so that somebody else can say they put some gargoyles back up.

It's the single most iconic example of Gothic architecture in the world, the single most visited tourist attraction in France (it beats out the Eiffel Tower!). A better comparison would be if Big Ben burned, or Stonehenge somehow got wrecked.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that it's more than a little obscene to pretend that there isn't any money for the poor and then all of a sudden have a lot of money, but at the same time that doesn't mean the Notre-Dame shouldn't be restored. Restoring it while helping the homeless would be possible at the same time.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's the single most iconic example of Gothic architecture in the world, the single most visited tourist attraction in France (it beats out the Eiffel Tower!). A better comparison would be if Big Ben burned, or Stonehenge somehow got wrecked.

And what would putting up a fake stonehenge accomplish? Or another clock tower? I repeat, I know well the value of preserving things for future generations. But part of the same equation is knowing when to let go.

If this was something on the scale of the Mackintosh Building which Glasgow's School of Art was in? Perhaps then. It cost £35 million to start rebuilding after the fire, and the Government chipped in about a third of it. But it then burnt down again before the first restoration was finished, and it would now require well over a hundred to (effectively) replace. This, to put it in context, is still less than half than has been pledged to Notre Dame.

But there will be no rebuilding project this time because the cost is too high for too little gain. If you have to literally build entire new towers, what's the point? It's not Notre Dame anymore; it's simply a duplication that you've chosen to erect on the ashes and burnt out walls of the former. Notre Dame MK II, as it were.

I look at the sums involved and simply do not see the point or value to the French nation of Notre Dame MK II at this scale. And then I gawk at the knee-jerk pledge to commit vast amounts of money to erect what will effectively be little more than a nice piece of architecture; when there are such pressing needs on the fiscus to deal with the disadvantaged.

I'm not trying to spoil the party, it just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth is all.

Most of the structure is still intact though. I can agree that if they had to rebuild from scratch it'd be stupid, but they're not having to: the stonework from the 1200s is still there, the 1125 rose window on the western facade is intact, the organ from the 1400s is still there. There's a tonne of stuff that has survived centuries. Sure, you need to know when to let go, but it's a bit premature to let go when most of the historical value is still there.

Besides, if the restoration is privately funded through collections, where is the issue beyond the sad fact that it illustrates that people care more about an architectural symbol than their fellow humans?

The party needs to be spoiled. The reaction has been pathetic. Loads of churches are torn down every day and nobody cares. Suddenly Notre Dame burns and everybody has the cash to rebuild it. 100 million from one billionaire to give away at the drop of a spire but no ability for him to use that money to build up his countries poorest. Pathetic.

The Church has robbed the poor of Europe for too long. No more.

if its private capital then he can do with it as he pleases.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
There's a short video of a man in middle eastern garb walking around in the upper areas near the roof.

It's a construction worker, clearly visible in higher resolution versions of the clip. I'll see if I can find it.

EDIT:

Spoiler:

https://twitter.com/TsumiXTREME/status/1118041482886295552

How do I link videos that aren't YouTube?

Right. Don't believe everything you read from Russian troll accounts, kids.

Aye he can, but it's a pure nonsense.

"I'll rebuild a church but I won't feed the poor"

Matthew 19:21 - 24

There is certainly an argument to be made that this perfectly illustrates the wealth disparities of a modern society, and completely legitimate criticism to point out that perhaps something could be done about it. That is not mutually exclusive with a desire to see one of the most famous buildings in the world restored.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Most of the structure is still intact though. I can agree that if they had to rebuild from scratch it'd be stupid, but they're not having to: the stonework from the 1200s is still there, the 1125 rose window on the western facade is intact, the organ from the 1400s is still there. There's a tonne of stuff that has survived centuries. Sure, you need to know when to let go, but it's a bit premature to let go when most of the historical value is still there.

This is the thing though. It's one thing to restore the fire damage, remove unstable parts, put a smaller roof (in neutral keeping with existing styles) over it and generally clean up a bit. If that was in the works for fifty or sixty million, I wouldn't say a word. It is, as you say, a historic monument. It does deserve preservation for as long as is practical. I'm not advocating for one minute it should just be left to rot.

It's the grandiose desire to rebuild the entire thing for vast sums of money that turns it into a vanity project for me. Nobody needs to see a replica tower. Nothing will happen if cheaper windows get put into the slots where the damaged ones have had to be taken out. The building won't lose historical value if you fail to have five dozen heavily fire damaged gargoyles replaced.

Besides, if the restoration is privately funded through collections, where is the issue beyond the sad fact that it illustrates that people care more about an architectural symbol than their fellow humans?

Well....that kind of is my issue?

 Gael Knight wrote:
Aye he can, but it's a pure nonsense.

"I'll rebuild a church but I won't feed the poor"

Mathew 19:24

"I'm rich, you."
-Jesus

Can't say I'm surprised, the church has a long history of keeping wealth for its highest members instead of helping charitable causes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Gael Knight wrote:
Aye he can, but it's a pure nonsense.

"I'll rebuild a church but I won't feed the poor"

Mathew 19:24

"I'm rich, you."
-Jesus

Can't say I'm surprised, the church has a long history of keeping wealth for its highest members instead of helping charitable causes.

Are you stupid? It's literally the opposite meaning of that.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There is certainly an argument to be made that this perfectly illustrates the wealth disparities of a modern society, and completely legitimate criticism to point out that perhaps something could be done about it. That is not mutually exclusive with a desire to see one of the most famous buildings in the world restored.

and what do you propose? without getting dangerously close to that awful S word.

Anyway, we digress.if they want it rebuilt, then rebuilt it most likely will be.

 Ketara wrote:

Besides, if the restoration is privately funded through collections, where is the issue beyond the sad fact that it illustrates that people care more about an architectural symbol than their fellow humans?

Well....that kind of is my issue?

I agree completely with you, then, but I'd also argue that it's better the money gets spent restoring the Notre-Dame rather than just sitting around in a bank account. We've already established that he's not willing to spend the money to help the poor, but at least restoring a public masterpiece like this is better than him just hogging the money or buying a gold-plated yatch or something.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
True, but what could he say? "Nah, the single most iconic landmark in France can go get bent"? He really has no choice, anything that isn't "rebuild it!" is political suicide.

Plus, I don't think it's fair to characterize Notre-Dame as a "vanity project". Sure, it was back in the 1100s when the cornerstone was laid, but...

The Walrus has the way of it. Its like if the White House burned down, or more importantly the Salt Lick Barbeque - talk about a shrine!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Most of the structure is still intact though. I can agree that if they had to rebuild from scratch it'd be stupid, but they're not having to: the stonework from the 1200s is still there, the 1125 rose window on the western facade is intact, the organ from the 1400s is still there. There's a tonne of stuff that has survived centuries. Sure, you need to know when to let go, but it's a bit premature to let go when most of the historical value is still there.

This is the thing though. It's one thing to restore the fire damage, remove unstable parts, put a smaller roof (in neutral keeping with existing styles) over it and generally clean up a bit. If that was in the works for fifty or sixty million, I wouldn't say a word. It is, as you say, a historic monument. It does deserve preservation for as long as is practical. I'm not advocating for one minute it should just be left to rot.

It's the grandiose desire to rebuild the entire thing for vast sums of money that turns it into a vanity project for me. Nobody needs to see a replica tower. Nothing will happen if cheaper windows get put into the slots where the damaged ones have had to be taken out. The building won't lose historical value if you fail to have five dozen heavily fire damaged gargoyles replaced.

Besides, if the restoration is privately funded through collections, where is the issue beyond the sad fact that it illustrates that people care more about an architectural symbol than their fellow humans?

Well....that kind of is my issue?

Dude its one of the three biggest symbols of the Catholic Faith...its going to get rebuilt.

 Ketara wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Perhaps it's just me, but I find my eyebrows raising at how quickly the hundreds of millions of Euros appear to repair a building owned by one of the wealthiest organisations in the world; as compared to much small charities/causes who could do so much good with that kind of money.

It's owned by the French state but the Catholic church has exclusive access in perpetuity.

That I didn't know, but it doesn't change my feeling one iota. Macron was pledging to rebuild long before the donations rolled in; which was nice of him. It's funny how politicians seem to loose the purse strings whenever a large scale vanity project which they can attach their name to appears; but playgrounds for deprived children, disability grants, or getting the homeless off the street struggle to attract a fraction of that kind of funding.

Churches built before 1905 all belong to the state. Upkeep is actually a big issue in small villages, where there are almost no inhabitants anymore, but pretty larges churches everywhere.
Notre Dame is the most visited monument in Europe (~14 million people a year), so rebuilding can be seen as an investment, as it generates huge revenues. I'm not saying that's where money should be spent first, just that in this case, there is a return on investment.

 Ketara wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's the single most iconic example of Gothic architecture in the world, the single most visited tourist attraction in France (it beats out the Eiffel Tower!). A better comparison would be if Big Ben burned, or Stonehenge somehow got wrecked.

And what would putting up a fake stonehenge accomplish? Or another clock tower? I repeat, I know well the value of preserving things for future generations. But part of the same equation is knowing when to let go.

If this was something on the scale of the Mackintosh Building which Glasgow's School of Art was in? Perhaps then. It cost £35 million to start rebuilding after the fire, and the Government chipped in about a third of it. But it then burnt down again before the first restoration was finished, and it would now require well over a hundred to (effectively) replace. This, to put it in context, is still less than half than has been pledged to Notre Dame.

But there will be no rebuilding project this time because the cost is too high for too little gain. If you have to literally build entire new towers, what's the point? It's not Notre Dame anymore; it's simply a duplication that you've chosen to erect on the ashes and burnt out walls of the former. Notre Dame MK II, as it were.

I look at the sums involved and simply do not see the point or value to the French nation of Notre Dame MK II at this scale. And then I gawk at the knee-jerk pledge to commit vast amounts of money to erect what will effectively be little more than a nice piece of architecture; when there are such pressing needs on the fiscus to deal with the disadvantaged.

I'm not trying to spoil the party, it just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth is all.

That's a matter of perspective. In Europe we tend to not rebuild things, just restore them. A decent chunk of the big heritage sites are ruins (especially for the Greeks or the Romans), and we're fine with it.
In other places like Japan, it's a lot more common to rebuild after of fire/earthquake/war. Actually, most of Japan's historical buildings are not the original ones, but replicas built centuries after the first monument was erected. When people visit the Todai-Ji and look at the statue inside, they're wowed by the stuff, not thinking about the date it was rebuilt for the nth time.


About the talks regarding "cheap workers" doing the renovation, and how it lead to the fire: I don't know much about who was working on all the parts of the sites, but we actually often see documentaries on TV about the stonemasons specialized in renovation. Notre-Dame pops up quite often regarding this subject, about how there is a new generation of stonemason that had to be trained specifically to handle that type of work. It usually involves a young person who wanted to do something manual despite being good at school, who spent the last years working on a tiny portion of a huge wall/statue.
In other words, there are some very qualified people working on the site, the best money can buy actually. I'm not saying there isn't a dump guy doing funny stuff with electricals or a blowtorch somewhere, but it's definitely not a simple "people cheapened out on the work".

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I agree completely with you, then, but I'd also argue that it's better the money gets spent restoring the Notre-Dame rather than just sitting around in a bank account. We've already established that he's not willing to spend the money to help the poor, but at least restoring a public masterpiece like this is better than him just hogging the money or buying a gold-plated yatch or something.

You won't get an argument from me on that score.

At the same time though, Macron deserves a slap for committing the French taxpayer with no public consultation or idea as to the extent of the damage.

CNN, quoting the Archbishop of Paris, is reporting all three of the rose windows are intact.

 Ketara wrote:
Perhaps it's just me, but I find my eyebrows raising at how quickly the hundreds of millions of Euros are donated to repair a building owned by one of the wealthiest organisations in the world; as compared to much smaller charities/causes who could do so much good with that kind of money.

It's like watching the millions disappear at the whiff of old Boris' garden bridge. Don't get me wrong, Notre Dame is nice and all. But there are a lot of cathedrals in the world, and many better uses that money could have been put to.

There are ALWAYS better uses for money. Donate money to build a school for disadvantaged children in Central America? That money could be used to feed starving children in another country, or vaccinate babies in yet a different country.

Nobody can live up to that standard.

I'll be overjoyed if a bunch of French billionares cough up hundreds of millions to renovate Notre Dame, rather than just investing it in stocks to make even more obscene amounts of money. All that money will go into the French economy, mostly at the middle class level (skilled trades, especially antique skilled trades).

Plus, all the government really has to do is open a Restoration Charity and let the bucks flow in. It's a national symbol on par with the Eiffel Tower or the Arc de Triumph.

 John Prins wrote:

There are ALWAYS better uses for money. Donate money to build a school for disadvantaged children in Central America? That money could be used to feed starving children in another country, or vaccinate babies in yet a different country.

Nobody can live up to that standard.

Please either read the thread or abstain from using hyperbole to misrepresent/dismiss me (since one of the two has clearly occurred).

It's really quite evident that I'm not deploying such an imaginary 'standard' as you mention; given that I clearly said up above that I wouldn't have raised an eyebrow at fifty million or so being spent to stabilise and undertake preservation work. Given your examples of (1) Feeding starving kids and, (2) Schooling disadvantaged children as compared to (3) Spending mindblowing sums to prop up an old building of debatable cultural significance, well....one of these three is not like the others?

Hey, why don't we drop the political aspect of charitable giving shall we? Lest this thread get cranky and then unholy baned..

tneva82 wrote:
Well could have been worst. With treasures safe it should be just reconstructing it. Expensive yes but doable. And as said above can be used to do improvements without changing looks.

Sad event but silver lining being worst dodged.

Albeit my PV might be coloured bit by having been to Japan where many of the old famous buildings have been rebuilt over again and again through history when they keep getting burned down(one seem to have got sick and tired of that one so rebuilt temple into concrete block...) so I have no real issue with reconstructing buildings.

There is a temple in Japan, or maybe a shrine, which is specifically torn down and reconstructed every 20 years (?) for religious reasons.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well could have been worst. With treasures safe it should be just reconstructing it. Expensive yes but doable. And as said above can be used to do improvements without changing looks.

Sad event but silver lining being worst dodged.

Albeit my PV might be coloured bit by having been to Japan where many of the old famous buildings have been rebuilt over again and again through history when they keep getting burned down(one seem to have got sick and tired of that one so rebuilt temple into concrete block...) so I have no real issue with reconstructing buildings.

There is a temple in Japan, or maybe a shrine, which is specifically torn down and reconstructed every 20 years (?) for religious reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise_Grand_Shrine

It used to be a fairly common thing in Japan. This temple in particular is fitted wood (no nails), which makes the reconstruction possible on a 20 year cycle.

One thing I really sick of this news is that many comments by some Thai Chauvinists. they rejoiced this fire and concluded 'This is Karmic Retribution against the French sins against Siam and its Kings, (and they list two instances that concluded that the french shall suffer)
- Franco - Siamese War (Irrendists claimed 'Land Loss')
- Granting asylum to 'at least Three Enemies of the Thrones' (Aum Neko, Dr. Somsak Jeam, and Pavin),

and some even went as far as praising 'Siamese Divine Protector' for this retribution.

Even I am Thai myself. I NEVER agrees with these right wings, even I used to believe that France did try to take an entire Siam back in the late Industrial Era, in recent years I've made some historical study and found out that such 'Land loss' was irrenditism, rather a war to define an undefined extents of borders (Who owned what, from where to where). Much to my surprise. Lanna was once a country of its own and has been 'colonized' by 'Citystate Bangkok'.

Now i'm all against nationalists and royalists propaganda machine. and I don't think these rightwings can influence national populace as much as they used to anymore.

Imagine if people cared as much about real issues as they apparently do about an utterly pointless 850 year tribute to idolatry.

I'm sure the homeless and vulnerable people of Paris are gratified to know that millions of Euros have been raised in less than 24 hours to assist in solving the real problems.

It's what Jesus would have done.

Yes I understood an immense expense to maintain this 'Derelict sybol of the bygone era' and the benefits if these expenses are rerounted to some more useful budgetry areas.

Yet The Notre Dame is 'World Heritage', it will be rebuild, taxes and donations combined.

and none if these 'charitable reasons' are cited by Thai Rightwing goons.

For clarity, I hadn't seen your post when I wrote mine and nothing in it is a response to anything you wrote.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Imagine if people cared as much about real issues as they apparently do about an utterly pointless 850 year tribute to idolatry.

I'm sure the homeless and vulnerable people of Paris are gratified to know that millions of Euros have been raised in less than 24 hours to assist in solving the real problems.

It's what Jesus would have done.

God was happy with a box in a tent back in the day. Heck, the box was only built to stop the Israelites from building more idols.

But monument building is pretty essential to human nature, it seems to satisfy a deep need in us to build stuff that's impressive and long lasting.

As is hypocrisy, seemingly.