- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
This may seem a little disconnected from the most recent lecture series concerning sustainability and technology, however I think the recent news coming from Paris is an excellent opportunity to view architecture through a social, political, and economic lens. For those behind on the times, the Cathedral of Notre Dame recently caught fire during renovation work. Although structurally in tact, this historic architectural artifact suffered greatly during the fire, including the collapse of one of the towers. Given the historical significance of the cathedral, it was considered an international tragedy. Within the past few days, however, over 1 billion dollars have been raised to go towards renovation efforts. This, in turn, has sparked a great deal of protests in Paris, predominantly from lower-class citizens arguing that this money would be better spent on their surrounding communities and personal welfare. The protests have, to date, grown significantly in number and severity, leading to multiple arrests. As architects we can see clearly a dichotomy here…. the vastly different value assigned to an architecture from two distinct communities, the wealthy and disenfranchised. How can this insight inform further how we continue to view architecture and value. It’s easy, from my perspective, to sympathize with the protestors… all that freakin money could be used for a plethora of other issues. However, Notre Dame remains among of handful of architectural icons form Paris, and France. An architectural icon so strong that it’s integrity and health seems to some undeniably linked to a national or personal welfare.
Comments
Popular Posts
On Koolhaas’s “Culture of Congestion”
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Good topic. There were much historic building burned or disappeared in the past years. But this one happened at this time is so special. I know this news from social media. That is much faster than in other ways. And also on social media, people discuss this building a lot. Some people who are not an architect also involved in the discussion. That means the architecture was disturbed by a different way now.
ReplyDelete