Thanks for the clarification on the ownership of the cathedral. If people wish to donate for its restoration, that’s there business. People have all sorts of pet charities that they give to that may not coincide with mine.
As far as giving credit to Notre-Dame for bringing in $17 billion of tourist revenues annually, that’s a bit delusional. People visit Paris for numerous reasons, I highly doubt that even a small % of those are there precisely to make some sort of Pilgrimage to the cathedral. Even if the cathedral was 100% demolished and not rebuilt, people would still visit Paris. :rolleyes:
If Paris had no tourist attractions at all, fewer people would visit it. Unless even one such draw means that the same number of tourists would visit for the same amount of time, for each person thinking about Paris, there is an attraction such that some will make up their mind to go or not go based on its existence or non-existence.
I’m not saying you have to - your money is your money and it’s no business of mine how you spend it - but if you or anyone else does feel an urge to make such a donation here is one place you can do so. I’m sure there are others.
Or take this an opportunity to donate to any worthy cause of your choice if you feel a need to give. My favorite charity(s) are the local food pantries/soup kitchens, as an example.
It’s a good thing no one said that, then. I said that it helps to bring in that money. If you think that the loss of Notre Dame wouldn’t affect anyone’s choice to visit Paris over London, Rome, Madrid or some other destination then I don’t know what to tell you. Perhaps you’re not “delusional” but you’re absolutely mistaken.
So? Barcelona’s Liceum has burned down completely twice and been the site of one of Spain’s worst terrorist attacks (fourth worst IIRC). Have you ever seen the pictures of Köln Cathedral after WWII? There’s farms in Spain where the pockmarks in the walls are from 19th century wars (bigger holes from previous wars usually led to partial reconstruction); I imagine we’re not the only ones in Europe to have that kind of scars on our homes. For centuries, abandoned monuments all over Europe were used as quarries by the locals; some of them are now rebuilt. If we refrained from rebuilding stuff when it breaks down, burns down or gets otherwise damaged or destroyed, there wouldn’t be anywhere near as much Old Stuff around as there is.
FYI, Notre-Dame Cathedral has no insurance policy. As is common when a large government is the owner of pretty much anything, they elect to self-insure. Why wouldn’t they? Not only are there no high premiums to pay, the government of a first world country is generally much bigger than any insurer and better able to absorb the loss - not to mention the whole “can get more money when needed through taxes and fees” angle. In 2017 France took in over $1.3 trillion USD in revenue. If the rebuilding ends up costing $13 billion (almost double latest estimate I saw), that is still 1/1000th of 1% of annual revenue. Add in the fact that the expense will be spread over 5+ years, and it really is a nit.
That said, if people want to donate so the French taxpayers don’t have to, I’m good with that.
It’s quite pretty, though on purely aesthetic grounds I’d have been more upset if Sacré-Cœur burned down. It’s one of the most beautiful buildings in the world, especially when you see it lit up from across the city at night.
It’s not gone. It’s just damaged. To follow up on Nava’s post, most of the world’s ancient and medieval wonders are at least partial “recreations.” Almost every inch of the gemstones that decorate the walls of the Taj Mahal are reproductions, because the original lapis lazuli, emeralds, rubies and so on were pilfered by locals years ago.
There are ample instances of taxpayers being on the hook for many hundreds of millions of dollars for sports stadiums that aren’t used all that much during the year. I’d be surprised if any of them last 50 years.
Knowing that this occurs, having people volunteer their own money to put towards something that may last another half millennia or longer seems totally fine.
Mind you, I am under no illusion that the main donors include billionaires who are throughly contemptible. But their donations are not.
As I’ve said in another thread, I’m a bit leery of both the financial boondoggle this will likely create with graft and fake contracts galore ; and I’m afraid that the Macron government will seize on this opportunity to slash the general culture budget because “Private patronage is more than enough ! It’s like the Renaissance all over again !”. Or, well, they might also keep doing what they’d been doing before, which is quietly treating the Department of Culture like a Piggybank of Miscellaneous.
As for the billionaire donors themselves, they get no sympathy from me either way. The fuckers have been dodging their taxes, stashing their money abroad or pushing for (and getting) tax breaks left and right for decades, which is (in part) why there’s so little state money available to be budgeted for national monuments (or social programs, education and whatnot, of course). And now they turn it around and want to look like the great saviours of Hhigh Cultchure ? Fuck the lot of 'em.
-Los Angeles Stadium (home of the Rams) 2.66 billion
-Las Vegas Raiders Stadium 2.4 billion (est.)
-Atlanta Falcons Stadium 1.6 billion
-MetLife Stadium (Jets and Giants) 1.7 billion
-Wembley Stadium (England Nat Soccer Team 1.5 billion
-Yankee Stadium 1.5 billion
-Tottenham Hotspur Stadium 1.33 billion
-Levi’s Stadium (49ers) 1.2 billion
-AT&T Stadium (Cowboys) 1.15 billion
-Madison Square Garden (Knicks and NYRangers) 1.1 billion just in renovations
-US Bank Stadium (Vikings) 1.1 billion
-Barclay’s Center (Nets and Islanders) 1 billion
I’m sure there are others that surpass the billion mark.
People were talking about money to colleges, Texas A&M spent 500 million just renovating their stadium and Notre Dame spent 400 million renovating theirs. Notre Dame is practically a bargain and what’s nice is that it’s private financing. Almost all pro facilities are financed primarily by the taxpayer.
Maybe it’s because you see it every day. But some of us like meringues. Also, I live in the US, where a build designed to look like a giant meringue is the heart of restraint.
I actually do - my uni is on the avenue that leads up to it. I literally have to see that piece of shit every morning. And I’ll stand by the opinion that it’s a shame ND burned and not the Sacré Coeur. Think about it. Fat tasteless s’more ! It’d have been perfect !
When you think of all of the other needy causes in the world, it would be fiscally irresponsible to not fund this one. Millions of people visit Notre Dame. And when they do, they make donations, donations which go to other causes. How much do you think those donations amount to over the course of, oh, 800 years?
In 99.9% of situations, I put humans first, things second without hesitation.
But in this case, we’re talking about the 0.1% (if that) of cases where “things” have priceless historical and symbolic value. I wouldn’t feel that way for, say, the Eiffel Tower.
Plus, it was whole generations of people who built the Cathedral. Preserving it and rebuilding is a way of honoring their lives and works. In the end, it still boils down to humans, and their greatest achievements.
Yeah, that’s my opinion as well. I could care less about the religious aspect of it, and buildings crashing down is part of history - we have photos and drawings and written descriptions of the cathedral at many points in time, so it’s not like it would be a lost piece of history if it were destroyed.
However, it’s a gigantic, elegant building that took over a hundred years to build, and was built by people whose height of technology was the fricking plumbline. But with that dumb plumb, they reached for the stars all the same. And the people who started building the thing died long before it was finished, but they left it for their children, and their children’s children, to finish. It’s a very powerful message, symbol and testament. As far as “we were there, and we mattered” buildings go, I wish it was one of those future aliens stumble upon when we’re all space dust.
I’ve had jobs where I coddled billionaires with upgrades to their homes that [del]seemed[/del] were silly, overpriced, and quickly obsolete. I saw it as my duty as a good socialist to separate them from as much money as I could, filtering it through my and my co-workers’ pockets. (Michael Dell basically supported my family and I from 2000 to 2008.) I would be honored to do the same here.
Also, I live in the US, where a build designed to look like a giant meringue is the heart of restraint.