Notre Dame Cathedral is burning

[baldgye]

No doubt, such a move would provide @baldgye another picture of another magnificent church to point out how (not) humble the catholic church is.

I was being a little silly, but yeah... saying the catholic church isn't decadent would be like saying Trumps 'flat' in NY is modest.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Atheism never quite really knows what to do with temples, if they belong to a church they want it for the people

...

Overlooking the whole who-owns-what and religious discussions, this was a pretty big bummer to read about yesterday. My first trip to Europe was just over two years ago, and our first real stop was Paris. I was borderline delirious due to a lack of sleep — I had been up for well over 24 hours at this point thanks to a delayed take-off at YYZ and a missed connection in DUB — but we walked over to Notre Dame from our AirBNB as soon as we dropped our stuff off. It was such a great introduction to the history of the area, and woke me right up. The sheer scale, the architecture, and the age of it all is just so impressive to me. I believe it's important we preserve things like it for future generations.

 

[Danoff]

I read the "sell it back to the Church" call and can't avoid finding it funny. Atheism never quite really knows what to do with temples, if they belong to a church they want it for the people if it belongs to the people they want it back to the church.

Doesn't really seem like a religiously or a-religiously affiliated position. Seems more like a political position.

But the fact that I've stated is relevant. The history of the US is shorter and less complicated - they're a State born in the modern era, with no past to be indebted towards. Easy enough to talk about "separation of church and State", then. But here in old Europe, it's not all that easy. There is "selling Notre Dame back to the Church", because the Church essentially never owned it - the problem of legal ownership was raised much after the building was constructed (actually, the first time someone claimed to "own" Notre Dame may have been in the early 20th century, when the French government passed a law appropriating historic churches, while letting the Catholic Church retain them as places of cult).

That doesn't complicate anything. It can still be sold to the catholic church.

In other words, the US don't have to face such issues, therefore the "US perspective" can be discounted as irrelevant.

Except not really, because it can be "fixed" right now.

 

[PzR Slim]

...

Overlooking the whole who-owns-what and religious discussions, this was a pretty big bummer to read about yesterday. My first trip to Europe was just over two years ago, and our first real stop was Paris. I was borderline delirious due to a lack of sleep — I had been up for well over 24 hours at this point thanks to a delayed take-off at YYZ and a missed connection in DUB — but we walked over to Notre Dame from our AirBNB as soon as we dropped our stuff off. It was such a great introduction to the history of the area, and woke me right up. The sheer scale, the architecture, and the age of it all is just so impressive to me. I believe it's important we preserve things like it for future generations.

I had a similar experience 15 years ago. Won a weekend trip to Paris with work colleagues and whilst the rest of them slept off a hangover on Sunday morning I got up at 6.00 am and just walked the streets of Paris taking it all in. Notre-Dame was a sight to behold. It was a beautiful, sunny, summer morning and it was a couple of hours I'll never forget.

 

[Rage Racer]

 

[TenEightyOne]

Travelling around Paris in a boat with his name on is the last thing anybody would expect. He's clever, I'll give him that.

 

[Milouse]

I'm going to say something I'm absolutely not sure about and can be completely wrong but I wouldn't be surprised if these billionaires get some kind of financial advantages for donating that money (tax reduction perhaps?).

Up to 90% in this case.
If someone "gives", for say 100,000 € to ND, and happens to have enough income that year to pay that much of money in income tax, 90,000 € will be instantly returned:
-> the states gives 90,000.
-> the donator gives 10,000.

This is more than proof enough that the French are not content with the way things are going in France. And this is not the only protest I have seen in the last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement

Some French. There's a media distortion at work here, due to the violence. Every Saturday, the news channels are live all the day on this, filming a few thousand people with titles like "No violence yet in Paris" until something happens. Without this attention, those people would be back to their life for months. Polls shows that political lines didn't move.

I read the "sell it back to the Church" call and can't avoid finding it funny. Atheism never quite really knows what to do with temples, if they belong to a church they want it for the people if it belongs to the people they want it back to the church.

These temple were public from the start, then came the separation of state and church, with the pope blocking the transfert of the properties to the church. The intent of 1905 government was to get rid of this, but had to keep it.

This is pretty embarrassing for France. They can't afford to maintain their historical monuments? Calling for help from private donors to keep their history preserved? If they can't afford to maintain it, they should sell it.

Thing is France is littered with cultural and human made legacy, as old as 17,000 years old painted caves to 20th century buildings, fueled in between by Frank, Roman, German, Viking, Saracen or Celtic cultures, having got partial governing of this lands at a point in time. That legacy, which brings load of tourists, is also a burden when it comes to keep that human heritage safe.

yes, even this cost money: the whole cave has been replicated next to the original, as visitors breath was deteriorating the paintings.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Thing is France is littered with cultural and human made legacy, as old as 17,000 years old painted caves to 20th century buildings, fueled in between by Frank, Roman, German, Viking, Saracen or Celtic cultures, having got partial governing of this lands at a point in time. That legacy, which brings load of tourists, is also a burden when it comes to keep that human heritage safe.

The American archaeologists I know (lots of them, York's rammed with the buggers) came to Europe to study because there's a lack of built heritage in America before the mid-17th century (with a few exceptions).

 

[Danoff]

Thing is France is littered with cultural and human made legacy, as old as 17,000 years old painted caves to 20th century buildings, fueled in between by Frank, Roman, German, Viking, Saracen or Celtic cultures, having got partial governing of this lands at a point in time. That legacy, which brings load of tourists, is also a burden when it comes to keep that human heritage safe.

yes, even this cost money: the whole cave has been replicated next to the original, as visitors breath was deteriorating the paintings.

It turns out even America has stuff like that.

Is this church a public historical preservation? Or is it for use exclusively by the catholic church?

 

[Vegard]

I had a similar experience 15 years ago.

Me three, though that was back in the nineties.

Historical sites like the Notre-Dame de Paris are a big part of the reason why Paris is the most popular travel destination in the world.

 

[PzR Slim]

It turns out even America has stuff like that.

Is this church a public historical preservation? Or is it for use exclusively by the catholic church?

Like most Cathedrals (and Churches) around the world you can enter for free. There is a cost if you want to climb the tower or enter the Crypt but you can mosey on in there and have a look around, sit, pray, read, chat. So in that regard it belongs to all the people of the world.

 

[Famine]

Historical sites like the Notre-Dame de Paris is a big part of the reason why Paris is the most popular travel destination in the world.

It wasn't that popular last time I was there...

​

 

[Danoff]

Like most Cathedrals (and Churches) around the world you can enter for free. There is a cost if you want to climb the tower or enter the Crypt but you can mosey on in there and have a look around, sit, pray, read, chat. So in that regard it belongs to all the people of the world.

I have more questions .

Is public access because the Catholic church deems it to be publicly accessible? Or is the church contractually obliged to allow public access? Do they restrict public access at any time? Such as for private ceremonies? Are there limits on how much they can restrict public access?

 

[Milouse]

It turns out even America has stuff like that.

Not the same period, but i was surprised and pleased to discover and visit this a while ago... in VR (in the app MasterWorks: Journey Through History)
USA have also a good share of geological treasures.
And i think Washington would be worth a visit, after having spent a lot of time in The Division 2 replica. (following my game sessions, i took a visit in VR in Google Earth)

 

[PzR Slim]

I have more questions .

Is public access because the Catholic church deems it to be publicly accessible? Or is the church contractually obliged to allow public access? Do they restrict public access at any time? Such as for private ceremonies? Are there limits on how much they can restrict public access?

Don't know the answer to those I'm afraid.

 

[Vegard]

It wasn't that popular last time I was there

They probably went In the House, In a Heartbeat when they saw you coming.



I'll get my coat.

 

[Famine]

They probably went In the House, In a Heartbeat when they saw you coming.

I'll get my coat.

Make sure it's not a yellow one - that's why Paris was empty when we were there

We had to carry passports and official invitation documentation everywhere, to get through the police barricades. The view of the Place de la Concord from above, deserted, was awesome.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I have more questions .

Is public access because the Catholic church deems it to be publicly accessible? Or is the church contractually obliged to allow public access? Do they restrict public access at any time? Such as for private ceremonies? Are there limits on how much they can restrict public access?

I will guess that all that depends from country to country (whatever agreements are in place between state and church) and also from church (I mean the building) to church. The catholic church (I know nothing about how others function) is very territorial and based on a medieval form of hierarchy. Each bishop rules over the territory of the diocesis with almost absolute independance, and sets whatever rules he wants regarding the functioning of the individual parishes. (The Pope, in this regard, is "only" the bishop of Rome).

So, if we talk about Lisbon, I'd say this:

is probably under an agreement between state and church regarding accessability, visiting hours, etc

while this:

will only be open to the public if and when the bishop or indeed the priest say so.

 

[ClydeYellow]

I have more questions .

Is public access because the Catholic church deems it to be publicly accessible? Or is the church contractually obliged to allow public access? Do they restrict public access at any time? Such as for private ceremonies? Are there limits on how much they can restrict public access?

The latter. Not sure how much the French government can tell the Archdiocese of Paris to take a hike if they want to restrict public access for private events, tho. Also, IIRC the Archdiocese has to pay up for all the expenses incurred in keeping it accessible (e.g. installing ramps for wheelchair-bound people, etc.), so the arrangement ends up being more of a financial drag for the Church than it is for the State.

And the Church would go bankrupt pretty quickly if it had to buy all the pretty Cathedrals of Europe. Most of them were never in the possession of the Church to start with, because it couldn't afford it - one of the most ancient businesses in Italy, for example, is the Veneranda Fabbrica del Duomo which built the Cathedral of Milan and still owns the building to this date. "Selling it to the Church" is not a realistic option.

[

[...]will only be open to the public if and when the bishop or indeed the priest say so.

...if the local Diocese owns it, and in this day and age, it's not necessarily a given even for small, rural churches. And I'm going to take a gander and say this one (which shows up in the Portughese registry of publicly-owned heritage sites) doesn't.

 

[Danoff]

The latter. Not sure how much the French government can tell the Archdiocese of Paris to take a hike if they want to restrict public access for private events, tho.

Sounds like a weird mix of public/private, which seems pretty likely to cause issues when there's a fire.

And the Church would go bankrupt pretty quickly if it had to buy all the pretty Cathedrals of Europe. Most of them were never in the possession of the Church to start with, because it couldn't afford it - one of the most ancient businesses in Italy, for example, is the Veneranda Fabbrica del Duomo which built the Cathedral of Milan and still owns the building to this date. "Selling it to the Church" is not a realistic option.

So selling it to the church is not realistic because the church can't buy all of them? Why does that make selling this one unrealistic? If France can't maintain it, they should sell it to someone who can/will. Otherwise it'll fall down.

 

[ClydeYellow]

Sounds like a weird mix of public/private, which seems pretty likely to cause issues when there's a fire.

Not really. Ultimately it's public property, with the Church only having some marginal responsibilities and needing to go through state approval even for the things they are contractually bound to do. Ultimately the management of sites like Notre Dame is handled in its totality by ad-hoc committees established by the respective ministries for cultural heritage (at least that's the case in Italy, but I think it's fair to assume that in this, like in many other aspects of the preservation of historic buildings, the French operate under a very similar system).

So selling it to the church is not realistic because the church can't buy all of them? Why does that make selling this one unrealistic? If France can't maintain it, they should sell it to someone who can/will. Otherwise it'll fall down.

It's not a realistic solution to the generalized problem of the upkeep costs of heritage sites. And how would you decide on a suitable market value for Notre Dame? If we are to take the expected costs of restoration as its economic value, we may as well come up with a total of well over 1bln euros. The Archdiocese of Paris most definitely can't afford that, and I am extremely dubious the Vatican (if it were to do away with almost two millennia of political tradition) has that kind of cash just lying around (although it could, eventually, raise the capital).

"Selling it" implies that ancient cathedrals are marketable real estate, but they really aren't.

 

[Dotini]

It would seem to be unconscionable to rebuild it with wood and lead, as in the original highly flammable structure. Better be realistic, safe and frugal, so go with a modern steel reinforced sheet metal roof. And leave off le-Duc's satanic 19th Century gargoyles and spire.

 

[Danoff]

Not really. Ultimately it's public property, with the Church only having some marginal responsibilities and needing to go through state approval even for the things they are contractually bound to do. Ultimately the management of sites like Notre Dame is handled in its totality by ad-hoc committees established by the respective ministries for cultural heritage (at least that's the case in Italy, but I think it's fair to assume that in this, like in many other aspects of the preservation of historic buildings, the French operate under a very similar system).

Then perhaps the church should be leasing it. I understand that there's an existing contract in place here, but this seems like a good opportunity to re-think the agreement. Maybe France is more capable than I'm giving them credit for, but it seemed like France was appealing to private donors to bail them out.

It's not a realistic solution to the generalized problem of the upkeep costs of heritage sites.

How about to this specific heritage site? Which is what I'm talking about.

And how would you decide on a suitable market value for Notre Dame?

Auction?

The Archdiocese of Paris most definitely can't afford that, and I am extremely dubious the Vatican (if it were to do away with almost two millennia of political tradition) has that kind of cash just lying around (although it could, eventually, raise the capital).

Seems like donors abound.

"Selling it" implies that ancient cathedrals are marketable real estate, but they really aren't.

I'm guessing they could find a buyer if they were inclined. On the otherhand, maybe France thinks they can pay for it, and maybe the Catholic church doesn't really have the rights to the use, and so maybe it's not an issue.

 

[DDastardly00]

It turns out even America has stuff like that.

Is this church a public historical preservation? Or is it for use exclusively by the catholic church?

This location is literally in the Crew 2, I even took some pictures there.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It turns out even America has stuff like that.

Yes, but that's one of very few pre-1000 AD structures. Imagine the heritage maintenance bill when there are cities, towns and villages full of built remains from Saxon and Viking eras.

 

[Danoff]

Yes, but that's one of very few pre-1000 AD structures. Imagine the heritage maintenance bill when there are cities, towns and villages full of built remains from Saxon and Viking eras.

Yea, they should probably pick and choose which ones they want to pay to maintain and which ones should be maintained privately.

We do a really weird thing here where cities declare certain structures to be "historical". They maintain private ownership, but the owner has to maintain the structure as it was. It's kindof a horrible deal for the owners, tramples their property rights.

Anyway, if the bill is too high, they should revisit what they're doing.

 

[Milouse]

They maintain private ownership, but the owner has to maintain the structure as it was. It's kindof a horrible deal for the owners, tramples their property rights.

It is the sole purpose of the deal.
The administration is quite zealous here, and it don't need a transaction to decide that something is "classé" (it could be just a stair of particular interest in your house) and can't be changed. But in the end, beyond preservation, this is the only way to keep architectural coherence in towns, which is a common good.

 

[TenEightyOne]

We do a really weird thing here where cities declare certain structures to be "historical". They maintain private ownership, but the owner has to maintain the structure as it was.

That's also the case in Britain, buildings can be Listed on a graded system which requires extra consents during the planning process and which can strongly limit some types of work on the building itself and its curtilage. That listing can be national or local. We then also have Conservation Areas which apply similar constraints. Grants are available from various bodies for maintaining those buildings up to the condition in which they were listed.

Anyway, if the bill is too high, they should revisit what they're doing.

It's a difficult one, people like their heritage to be intact but don't like to pay to keep it that way. Notre Dame (as I said earlier) is a great example of people failing to respond/help until they perceive an immediate threat to something which is important to them.

 

[Danoff]

It is the sole purpose of the deal.
The administration is quite zealous here, and it don't need a transaction to decide that something is "classé" (it could be just a stair of particular interest in your house) and can't be changed. But in the end, beyond preservation, this is the only way to keep architectural coherence in towns, which is a common good.

That's also the case in Britain, buildings can be Listed on a graded system which requires extra consents during the planning process and which can strongly limit some types of work on the building itself and its curtilage. That listing can be national or local. We then also have Conservation Areas which apply similar constraints. Grants are available from various bodies for maintaining those buildings up to the condition in which they were listed.



It's a difficult one, people like their heritage to be intact but don't like to pay to keep it that way. Notre Dame (as I said earlier) is a great example of people failing to respond/help until they perceive an immediate threat to something which is important to them.

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.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

We do a really weird thing here where cities declare certain structures to be "historical". They maintain private ownership, but the owner has to maintain the structure as it was. It's kindof a horrible deal for the owners, tramples their property rights.

San Francisco Orders Man To Rebuild His Iconic Home After It Was Demolished

[T]he City Planning Commission unanimously ruled that Johnston must build an exact replica of the house, as well as a plaque detailing the building’s history.

[the sound of Danoff's mind imploding]