-
- La Fontaine Saint-Michel à Paris
Photo : Pline (CC BY-SA 3.0) - See the image in its page
The system is perverse, and we have denounced it on many occasions (see articles): advertising on historic monuments in France, which is usually prohibited, was authorised in 2007 on condition that it was placed on scaffolding concealing a restoration site, and that all the revenue generated was allocated to the work.
But this infringement of the law is even more vicious than we thought, and it was an article published in Le Parisien on 29 September that alerted us. It says that the elected representatives ‘are smiling’ because the City of Paris has sold advertising for ten months on the Fontaine Saint-Michel, which is to be restored at a cost of €2.5 million, for a record price of at least €5.24 million. This represents a net profit of €2.74 million ‘at least’.
From next March to January 2026, the banks of the Seine, a World Heritage site, will once again be polluted by gigantic advertising for smartphones and pairs of trainers!
The French Heritage Law is clear: ‘The revenue received by the owner of the monument for this advertising is allocated by the project owner to finance the work’. In fact, this is what appears below the advertisements: ‘Revenues from this advertising contribute to the restoration of this monument’.
But if the money must be allocated to the restoration, what happens when, as in this case, the amount brought in by the restoration is greater?
We didn’t know, but the answer can be found in article R621-91 of the French Heritage Law: ‘If the total billposting revenue received is greater than the cost of the work, this surplus is taken into account when considering applications for subsidies for subsequent work on the same building’.
In other words, when the City of Paris restores the Fontaine Saint-Michel again, the amount of subsidies will take into account the fact that money has already been collected thanks to advertising.
This is simply astounding If the restoration of the Fontaine Saint-Michel is well done (thanks in particular to COARC [1], which is responsible for the sculptures), the next restoration will not take place for another twenty or thirty years. The money collected immediately will obviously not be put into a blocked account to carry out hypothetical work in several decades’ time: it will be used as soon as possible, which obviously explains why the elected representatives are “smiling”.
We spoke to Karen Taieb, the City of Paris’ deputy mayor in charge of heritage. She confirmed that ‘the rules state that surplus funds can be used at a later date for the restoration of the same building’, thus confirming what we have just written.
She added: ‘it seems possible, however, to use it for an object of the same nature and in the same borough. The surplus funds could be used to restore the Fontaine Saint-Sulpice in the same arrondissement, which is due to be restored in the near future. But this option has not yet been decided at this stage’.
We have every confidence in Karen Taieb, who regularly fights for Parisian heritage. But apart from the fact that there is no legal requirement for this extra money to be used for other restorations, even ‘in the same borough’ and for an ‘object of the same nature’ (i.e. a fountain), the fact that this has not yet been decided is worrying. The city can use it as it sees fit, and it will remain legal. And if it were decided to allocate this 2.74 million to the Fontaine Saint-Sulpice, this money would simply replace what the City had planned to spend on this monument, since its restoration has already been announced (since 2022, it’s true).
If you think about it, the condition that the advertising revenue must be allocated to the restoration of the monument is absurd anyway: either the amount received is less, and the municipality allocates de facto this money directly or indirectly to the work, or the amount received is greater, and this money will not go to the monument. And if - as is likely - the enormous profit made by the City on this restoration actually ends up in its coffers to finance something else, this will mean that advertising is now authorised on historic monuments without even benefiting them.
It is urgent to abolish, once and for all, this unhealthy system of advertising on historic monuments, decided by Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres when he was Minister of Culture. And to think about a sustainable and painless way of funding the restoration of France’s heritage, as we have been suggesting for some time: a percentage on the stakes at the Française des Jeux and a tourist tax (see in particular this article).