On 15th April, 2019 a fire ravaged the roof and oak spire of the Notre-Dame cathedral in central Paris. The blaze raised a lump in the throat of a nation that is notoriously proud of its decorated architectural history. As the pieces have been picked up and the rest of the world waits to see what will become of the quintessentially French landmark, a few facts have become clear, inciting an architectural backlash that has wider social reachings on how the public view the value of historical architecture.
Notre Dame fire:Image source
French President, Emmanuel Macron has already vowed to restore the wrecked roof within the arguably optimistic time frame of five years. While the notion that an icon as revered as the Notre-Dame could have such a work conscientiously designed, built and opened in that period of time may seem naive to the point of unreasonable, his words have been backed up by the wide and steady flow of donations that have streamed in since the catastrophe. Among the donors are French billionaire Bernard Arnault and the celebrity Pinault family as well as the famous gaming publisher and developer Ubisoft (famous for their Assassin’s Creed line of titles which pay particular attention to detail in regard to recreating historic architecture in virtual worlds). At the time of writing, nearly a billion dollars has been raised to help fund the restoration.
This has started a host of sensitive conversations about the worth that the Notre-Dame held. Comparisons have been brought forward between another recent and significant fire in Western Europe: the Grenfell Tragedy of June 2017. There are obvious distinctions: the Notre-Dame was an architectural masterpiece, Grenfell was a 1970 concrete tower block; the former was a centre for one of the most powerful religious institutions in the world, the latter a home for those who were dependent upon the Local Authority for shelter; Notre-Dame is widely seen as a tourism hotspot due to its cultural heritage while the area of North Kensington has little that places itself on the world stage.
With the former points under scrutiny, it might seem obvious why the funding process for the Notre-Dame has raised almost forty times as much money in donations in three days than Grenfell did in almost two years (the current donation figure for Grenfell is around the £26 million mark). The big difference? Grenfell claimed 72 lives whereas the Notre-Dame claimed none.
As already mentioned, there is more than a single difference between the two disasters and they should be seen as exactly that: disasters. It is however, interesting to explore the potential outcomes if the victim building was altered. What would have been the public outcry if the seventy two victims of Grenfell were all Catholic priests? What would the French public have thought if the building in question was a tower block rather than a cathedral? What could have been if Grenfell instead claimed no victims? Would we even be having this conversation if that had been the case (and so much better if it had been)?
Tragedies inspire change; or, at least, they should do. At a minimum, both of these terrible events have started a conversation about the value of architecture. It might be saddening to see the two as a comparison of architecture for people and architecture for art’s sake. It’s even more disheartening to realise that, monetarily, the latter seems to evoke more of a response than the former.
Not taking anything away from the need for beauty, the respect for historic tradition and the conservation of heritage: people are more than the things that they create and I believe that we’ve lost sight of that. I hope I’m wrong.
If you disagree (there’s certainly an argument for people being finite and works being infinite) then let me know why below.
Matt's Architecture 