Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Huge fire at Notre Dame cathedral, Paris

I see bloody great big theatres and sports stadiums as having, in part, dubious motives for their building, right down to them being named after royals and dukes.
 
JuanTwoThree said:
Can anybody think of a single great building whose construction was not in part for some dubious purpose, ranging from state religion (cathedrals) to state power (castles and famous walls) or to big up some nobleman, billionaire, dictator, philanthropist or whatever? Look how often these places end up with a person's name: Cheops, Hadrian, Offa, Buckingham, Guggenheim.

BTW I was thinking of how many words try to convey much the same feeling: marvellous, wonderful, awesome. 'Fabulous' meaning 'fable-ous'. 'Magnificent' means 'making great' I suppose, or 'doing great'. 'Astonishing' originally meaning 'thunder-striking'.

We may use them now to talk about a quite nice meal but they had the sense of jaw-dropping amazement.

So I don't too much mind the dodginess of the first if it gives me the second.
Click to expand...

If bridges count as ''buildings'', there are a few I'd offer as examples of perhaps less dubious, but spectacular constructions.
 
JuanTwoThree said:
I see bloody great big theatres and sports stadiums as having, in part, dubious motives for their building, right down to them being named after royals and dukes.
Click to expand...
You're kind of trying to make your case unrefutable by definition now. :D In addition to the Barbican (an arts centre and housing estate - hardly dubious), I also really like the South Bank Centre, especially the Festival Hall. Built for the Festival of Britain - was that a dubious motive? Both these examples are creations of intentionally public, open, democratic spaces.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
You're kind of trying to make your case unrefutable by definition now. :D In addition to the Barbican (an arts centre and housing estate - hardly dubious), I also really like the South Bank Centre, especially the Festival Hall. Built for the Festival of Britain - was that a dubious motive? Both these examples are creations of intentionally public, open, democratic spaces
Click to expand...

You're right really, but it's hard to untangle the 'New Elizabethan Age' of the early 50s and the fact that it's the Royal Festival Hall from the public space created.
 
JuanTwoThree said:
Can anybody think of a single great building whose construction was not in part for some dubious purpose, ranging from state religion (cathedrals) to state power (castles and famous walls) or to big up some nobleman, billionaire, dictator, philanthropist or whatever? Look how often these places end up with a person's name: Cheops, Hadrian, Offa, Buckingham, Guggenheim.

BTW I was thinking of how many words try to convey much the same feeling: marvellous, wonderful, awesome. 'Fabulous' meaning 'fable-ous'. 'Magnificent' means 'making great' I suppose, or 'doing great'. 'Astonishing' originally meaning 'thunder-striking'.

We may use them now to talk about a quite nice meal but they had the sense of jaw-dropping amazement.

So I don't too much mind the dodginess of the first if it gives me the second.
Click to expand...
Shitloads of truly wonderful railway stations were built with beautiful architecture.
 
editor said:
Shitloads of truly wonderful railway stations were built with beautiful architecture.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more but think of the semiotics of (ETA one of the)the biggest buildings in a town being the palace, the cathedral, or the town hall or indeed the station. There are reasons.
 
JuanTwoThree said:
I couldn't agree more but think of the semiotics of (ETA one of the)the biggest buildings in a town being the palace, the cathedral, or the town hall or indeed the station. There are reasons.
Click to expand...
Ah, if you're going to go all semiotic on our arses, you need to remember the rather subversive nature of public projects like the South Bank. The Festival Hall may have 'royal' tagged onto it, but it is as far from a 'royal' space as you can possibly get, and that's no accident.
 
Epona said:
Why are you so ridiculously keen on preventing people of that religious persuasion from worshipping there? I'm not religious and do understand it (religion in general, and different denominations) as being a somewhat divisive force, but you can't just order the shutdown of religious sites and worship and expect things to go well. It just smacks of being intolerant tbh.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm surprised you drew that impression from what I'd posted...certainly not my intent...but if that's how it came across, apologies.
It's clearly not down to anyone, other than the state owners, to determine who get's exclusive religious use of the building. Maybe the neoliberal state will approach the Saudis to see if they'd like to buy out the current freehold or pay for the repair bill in exchange for the tenancy?

e2a: wrt to shutting down religious worship at such sites, for the 9 years 1793 to 1802 that's exactly what happened to Notre Dame de Paris.
 
Last edited:
The cricket loving Dean of Westminster Abbey has already done such a deal with lmran Khan.

DYz1bwGWsAEBGLH.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TopCat
Paris burns after police murder youth
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
273
Views
12K
pbsmooth
P
tim
Explosion in Paris 21/6/23
Replies
8
Views
609
petee
petee
editor
Fire bulls: Spain's indescribably cruel animal torture 'tradition'
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Boris Sprinkler
Boris Sprinkler
danny la rouge
Paris shooting 23/12/22
Replies
9
Views
897
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
P
Forest fires in Chile, Feb 2024
Replies
11
Views
693
planetgeli
P
Back
Top Bottom