In Paris, France at the 850-year-old church, a fire alarm rang out, interrupting mass at 6:20 p.m. local time on Monday, April 15. The cathedral was in the midst of undergoing a major restoration and part of the roof was covered in scaffolding. Around 400 firefighters were deployed to the scene but were delayed slightly by rush hour traffic. By the time the Paris Fire Department’s chaplain made his way inside of Notre-Dame, flames had already consumed most of the cathedral’s roof and its spire had smashed onto the nave. The cause of the blaze remains unclear, but officials do not suspect terrorism or arson. The full restoration of Notre Dame Cathedral will take between “10 to 15 years," according to Frédéric Létoffé, the head of the group of companies for the Restoration of Historic Monuments. So far, about a billion dollars have been pledged to help restore the landmark.
As of April 17, French president Emanuel Macron set a controversial five-year deadline to get the work done. Macron is holding a special Cabinet meeting Wednesday dedicated to the Notre Dame disaster, which investigators believe was an accident possibly linked to renovation work. As of Wednesday, 880 million euros (USD $995 million) has been raised in just a day and a half since the fire. Some criticism has already surfaced among those in France who say the money could be better spent elsewhere, such as on smaller struggling churches or workers. Macron's 5-year deadline happens to coincide with the 2024 Paris Olympics, which the government wants to make a major showcase.
1. Is it irresponsible for Macron to set a 5-year deadline for restoration given many experts predict a longer timeline?
2. Should it be up to the French government solely to fund the restoration, or is it for the public to provide donations?
3. Are the concerns about the use of the billion dollar budget valid?
I think a 5 year plan for restoration may be too optimistic considering the size and detail of the project. This short deadline is probably influenced by the pride of the Paris Olympics. It is evident that the public is eager to provide funds and donations for the restoration of the project. I think that is the money is being willingly given the French government should use that money and match half of it to restore the building. However, neither the government nor the public should be responsible for procuring all the funds. Because not all the money will come from the government I think the concerns are less valid. The amount of money allocated to the project will be less than if it was all covered by the government. Additionally, I think patriotism is important for a country to feel like a whole and if the Notre Dame acts as this connector then it should be preserved best it can.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think that the 5-year plan for restoration might be a little unrealistic, the amount of money and support that has already been raised for the project points towards a much faster restoration than expected. Notre Dame is one of Paris's most esteemed landmarks, attracting millions of tourists every year. Because of this, I believe that its restoration is not only a high priority to the French government, but also to the French public. I also think that the upcoming 2024 Paris Olympics is encouraging the French government to restore Notre Dame more quickly because the whole city will be on showcase and people will be coming from all across the globe to view its many landmarks.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the first question, I think that The 5 year plans is not going to work. With pressure to show off the restored church in the 2024 Olympics being a special moment, I think the rush will great greater problems in the future. The Notre Dame is one of the most well known tourist attractions and holds great historical value, so I think the responsibility for the government and the public to pay for restorations. I think the people of Paris donate so much due to their connection with the iconic landmark.
ReplyDeleteI think that the 5 year restoration plan is overly ambitious, and that it won't happen. Even if it does happen, it won't be executed properly, and a landmark as beautiful and historic as the Notre Dame requires a lot of specialized detailing and attention. I think rushing through it will ultimately be an insult to the time actually needed to do this properly. Additionally, many very very wealthy people have come forward pledging hundreds of millions of dollars towards repairing the Notre Dame. As much as I value these historical landmarks, I question the decision to donate such large sums of money towards material objects while people around the world don't have clean water or food to eat.
ReplyDeleteMacron’s five year deadline is probably an underestimate for the amount of time it will take to repair the Notre Dame given the extent of its damage. His estimate is probably just overly hopeful since he wants the restoration to be finished before the Paris Olympics. To answer the second question, while I think that the French government should fund most of the costly restoration since the building is one of France’s major tourist landmarks, I think the public should and will help provide donations to relieve some of the financial pressure off of France’s government. Although the concerns from French citizens about the use of the billion dollar budget is valid since a billion dollars could be used in so many other areas, I still think it is important for the Notre Dame to be restored since it is such a popular historical landmark.
ReplyDeleteMacron's promise of a 5 year restoration is a little optimistic, as the Notre Dame is a very complex and culturally significant monument. Although I understand his desire to restore it before the Olympics, there is no point in rushing and lowering the quality of the final product. I think that it is commendable that there was so much money raised for the landmark, but also find it frustrating how easily large amounts of money can be fundraised for monuments, but not humanitarian causes.
ReplyDelete