Notre Dame cathedral in Paris, France, is burning down.

[MirrorMask]

I would assume that we don't have the exact blueprints of how those buildings actually and really looked, so trying to rebuild them would have the risk of ending up like the architetonical equivlent of movies about vikings, with helmets with horns that no viking ever wore.

Also I guess that the sensibility to preserve historical landmarks came later in our history, and so people before us got accustomed to see ruins and cherish them as such. By now we have the skills and the knowledge to rebuild stuff and we just do it.

Also, Notre Dame is an actually active church. You just can't say "damn, it burned down, let's keep it this way and let's have all those masses somewhere else".

[lordxizor]

is it really necessary and mandatory to rebuild it? Would it really lose historical value/charm/relevance as a monument in ruins?

If it was truly in ruins, I would tend to agree that it shouldn't be rebuilt. In this case, it's damaged but mostly intact apart from the roof. Makes sense to repair it, IMO. Especially since it still holds a huge cultural significance and it sounds like it can largely, if not completely, be done using private donations.

[Chino]

It's a huge draw for the city. More people visit that building per year than the Colosseum, the Parthenon, and Pompeii combined.

[cramx3]

is it really necessary and mandatory to rebuild it? Would it really lose historical value/charm/relevance as a monument in ruins?

If it was truly in ruins, I would tend to agree that it shouldn't be rebuilt. In this case, it's damaged but mostly intact apart from the roof. Makes sense to repair it, IMO. Especially since it still holds a huge cultural significance and it sounds like it can largely, if not completely, be done using private donations.

Yea, if it burnt to the ground, I'd say sucks but I personally dont see the point in replacing it, its just not the same.. however in this case, I think this burn down may just add to the history of it since it seems to have pretty much survived which is kind of cool in its own way.

[El Barto]

Tears inducing images, I won't forget that bonfire and the centuries of culture and memories gone up in smoke.

But, and please don't PC jump at my throat because it's just food (albeit rotten) for thought, is it really necessary and mandatory to rebuild it? Would it really lose historical value/charm/relevance as a monument in ruins? Aren't the Colosseum/Akropolis/Sphynx/Pompei majestic cultural and artistic landmarks even though no one bothered to erase the passage of time and historical occurances from them?

In this day and age, what's prevailing between preservation of beauty and preservation of testimony?

I think that's a very reasonable point, and I can't help but think a rebuilt version isn't the same as the original. I think there are differences, though. Most historical monuments are a testimony to something, and don't serve any other purpose. The passage of time. The handiness of our ancestors. The ease with which the planet can kill us all in a matter of minutes. They don't really function outside of those testaments. Notre Damn was still being used for its original purpose. The new version will still be used for that purpose. At some point it'll exist as a historical fossil, and its weathering will be a part of that for whoever is around to see it. We're not to that point. Moreover, what would be the testimony of leaving it as it is be? Fire sucks?

[MirrorMask]

Moreover, what would be the testimony of leaving it as it is be? Fire sucks?

Right, didn't think of it. The reasons to leave that building ruin in Hiroshima and the ruins of the Coventry cathedral for example are far more important.

[The Walrus]

From what I know, the cathedral has already been restored once from desecration during the French Revolution; I guess lots of treasures inside were stolen and/or destroyed, and half the inside lay in ruin prior to it being restored after the Revolution. No sense in leaving a still magnificent piece of architecture and beauty with an open roof for all the pigeons to shit in when it's mostly still intact and standing strong, especially at the heart of the city. They still clean it periodically of all the grime, too.

Also gonna plug The Hunchback of Notre Dame, an amazing classic novel well worth your time. I feel like going through it again.

[Indiscipline]

Guys, that was way more civil than I expected, I am really thankful. You raised excellent points I wasn't considering (especially the one pertaining cult practise, silly me) and - more importantly - stimulated a couple of questions, always for questioning's love, not arguing's:

It's a huge draw for the city. More people visit that building per year than the Colosseum, the Parthenon, and Pompeii combined.

Would it be less of a draw without a roof?

Tears inducing images, I won't forget that bonfire and the centuries of culture and memories gone up in smoke.

But, and please don't PC jump at my throat because it's just food (albeit rotten) for thought, is it really necessary and mandatory to rebuild it? Would it really lose historical value/charm/relevance as a monument in ruins? Aren't the Colosseum/Akropolis/Sphynx/Pompei majestic cultural and artistic landmarks even though no one bothered to erase the passage of time and historical occurances from them?

In this day and age, what's prevailing between preservation of beauty and preservation of testimony?

I think that's a very reasonable point, and I can't help but think a rebuilt version isn't the same as the original. I think there are differences, though. Most historical monuments are a testimony to something, and don't serve any other purpose. The passage of time. The handiness of our ancestors. The ease with which the planet can kill us all in a matter of minutes. They don't really function outside of those testaments. Notre Damn was still being used for its original purpose. The new version will still be used for that purpose. At some point it'll exist as a historical fossil, and its weathering will be a part of that for whoever is around to see it. We're not to that point. Moreover, what would be the testimony of leaving it as it is be? Fire sucks?

  A good testimony of our generation being the first one in 850 years to let it burn due to absent-minded technological arrogance, not wars or revolutions?

[Chino]

Guys, that was way more civil than I expected, I am really thankful. You raised excellent points I wasn't considering (especially the one pertaining cult practise, silly me) and - more importantly - stimulated a couple of questions, always for questioning's love, not arguing's:

It's a huge draw for the city. More people visit that building per year than the Colosseum, the Parthenon, and Pompeii combined.

Would it be less of a draw without a roof?

Well, yeah. For one, it could no longer be used as a church, and birds and other animals would eventually take it over. Secondly, it acted as a museum as much as it did anything else. It housed paintings, statues, carvings, etc... Can't do that without a roof either.

[El Barto]

Tears inducing images, I won't forget that bonfire and the centuries of culture and memories gone up in smoke.

But, and please don't PC jump at my throat because it's just food (albeit rotten) for thought, is it really necessary and mandatory to rebuild it? Would it really lose historical value/charm/relevance as a monument in ruins? Aren't the Colosseum/Akropolis/Sphynx/Pompei majestic cultural and artistic landmarks even though no one bothered to erase the passage of time and historical occurances from them?

In this day and age, what's prevailing between preservation of beauty and preservation of testimony?

I think that's a very reasonable point, and I can't help but think a rebuilt version isn't the same as the original. I think there are differences, though. Most historical monuments are a testimony to something, and don't serve any other purpose. The passage of time. The handiness of our ancestors. The ease with which the planet can kill us all in a matter of minutes. They don't really function outside of those testaments. Notre Damn was still being used for its original purpose. The new version will still be used for that purpose. At some point it'll exist as a historical fossil, and its weathering will be a part of that for whoever is around to see it. We're not to that point. Moreover, what would be the testimony of leaving it as it is be? Fire sucks?

  A good testimony of our generation being the first one in 850 years to let it burn due to absent-minded technological arrogance, not wars or revolutions?

Normally the cynical bastard in me would be all over that. However, like I pointed out the other day, the attic was stuffed with hundreds of tons of dry timber. It was really just luck of the draw that it happened in this century rather than a previous (or future) one.

[Chino]

Speaking of the Timber, I was reading this morning that the support beams for that building's roof were pulled from forests with trees large enough to provide support beams of that size. Those forests don't exist anymore. I wonder if they'll go with steel replacements instead.

[cramx3]

Speaking of the Timber, I was reading this morning that the support beams for that building's roof were pulled from forests with trees large enough to provide support beams of that size. Those forests don't exist anymore. I wonder if they'll go with steel replacements instead.

Sounds like there isn't much of a choice, and honestly, if those trees are rare I'd rather them not be chopped down personally.

[Stadler]

Guys, that was way more civil than I expected, I am really thankful. You raised excellent points I wasn't considering (especially the one pertaining cult practise, silly me) and - more importantly - stimulated a couple of questions, always for questioning's love, not arguing's:

It's a huge draw for the city. More people visit that building per year than the Colosseum, the Parthenon, and Pompeii combined.

Would it be less of a draw without a roof?

Tears inducing images, I won't forget that bonfire and the centuries of culture and memories gone up in smoke.

But, and please don't PC jump at my throat because it's just food (albeit rotten) for thought, is it really necessary and mandatory to rebuild it? Would it really lose historical value/charm/relevance as a monument in ruins? Aren't the Colosseum/Akropolis/Sphynx/Pompei majestic cultural and artistic landmarks even though no one bothered to erase the passage of time and historical occurances from them?

In this day and age, what's prevailing between preservation of beauty and preservation of testimony?

I think that's a very reasonable point, and I can't help but think a rebuilt version isn't the same as the original. I think there are differences, though. Most historical monuments are a testimony to something, and don't serve any other purpose. The passage of time. The handiness of our ancestors. The ease with which the planet can kill us all in a matter of minutes. They don't really function outside of those testaments. Notre Damn was still being used for its original purpose. The new version will still be used for that purpose. At some point it'll exist as a historical fossil, and its weathering will be a part of that for whoever is around to see it. We're not to that point. Moreover, what would be the testimony of leaving it as it is be? Fire sucks?

  A good testimony of our generation being the first one in 850 years to let it burn due to absent-minded technological arrogance, not wars or revolutions?

If they only water-bombed it, none of this would have ever happened.   


In all seriousness, I think you have a good point, but I agree with the others.  Here, in this case, I think we'd have to put "A" roof over it, if not "THE" roof, so there's that, and if you're going to do that, why not keep it in a state where it's functioning?

[Herrick]

I hope no one got killed or seriously hurt in there.

[MirrorMask]

I hope no one got killed or seriously hurt in there.

Nope, no casualties. Hurray for the firefighters!