-
- 1. The Eiffel Tower
Photo: Didier Rykner - See the image in its page
It’s one thing for politicians to talk rubbish about the legislation governing historic monuments, but it’s quite another for them to be able to do so over and over again on the airwaves without being contradicted. Jean-François Martins, director of the Eiffel Tower operating company (who is also a politician, since he is a Paris councillor, a former deputy mayor of Paris and SETE is 99% owned by the city of Paris), spoke on France Bleu Paris radio this morning and, of course, talked nonsense, as Emmanuel Grégoire had done (see article) but on other points too.
Here’s what he said to this microphone: "What happens when you classify a monument, a building or a building as a historic monument: you freeze, you vitrify the object and its surroundings, so you vitrify the tower and everything that happens around it - you have virtually no right to move. So the proposal from the Minister for Culture is to vitrify the tower as it is now [so] that you can’t move anything around it, i.e. two lanes, cars and all that. So I’m willing to look into the question of classification as a historic monument, on one condition: that in these cases we return the Eiffel Tower to the way it was when it was built in 1889, that we respect the Tower as it was in 1889 when Eiffel built it, at the time of the Universal Exhibition, in other words that there are no cars around it. If the Minister of Culture undertakes to ensure that the MH classification is carried out at the same time as pedestrianisation of the surrounding area, in other words a return to the condition of the Tower in 1889, I’d like to look into it".
-
- 2. The entrance hall to Versailles, in what was once the old wing.
You will appreciate how it has been frozen by the classification as a historic monument.
Photo: Didier Rykner - See the image in its page
So let’s rectify these remarks.
First of all, in what way does Jean-François Martins have any legitimacy to agree or disagree with the classification of the Eiffel Tower (ill. 1)? Only the owner has a say in this proposal. The owner is the Paris City Council. Not SETE, which operates the monument, as its name suggests. So he is to kind to tell the Minister of Culture that he would agree to such and such a condition for classifying the monument. Because his agreement is not required.
His opinion is of even less value because Jean-François Martins does not know what a classified historic monument is. No, this type of protection does not "freeze" anything and "vitrifies" even less, neither the monument itself nor its surroundings. In fact, at La Tribune de l’Art we regret this because we would be spared many heritage disasters if this were the case. A monument or its surroundings can be modified, even if it is listed, but this requires authorisation from the Ministry of Culture, which may or may not be granted. While, in principle, classification prevents a monument from being seriously altered, it does not set it in stone. And indeed, in some cases, classified monuments are vandalised. For example, we would have liked the Panthéon to have been "freezed" and not to have been denatured by Anselm Kiefer’s installations (see article). We would have preferred the area around the Panthéon to be "freezed" and not denatured by the installations of the Mairie de Paris (see article). We would like Notre-Dame to be "freezed" and not denatured by the contemporary stained glass windows that Emmanuel Macron wants to install there (see les article). We would have liked the Château de Versailles to have been "freezed" and not denatured on numerous occasions, the most serious of which was undoubtedly the destruction of the interior of the Old Wing (ill. 2; see the articles)...
-
- 3. The real vitrification of the Eiffel Tower
Photo: Didier Rykner - See the image in its page
In short, we could multiply the examples of classified monuments that have been modified - and sometimes denatured - which have therefore not been "freezed". The fact remains that, in principle, it is more difficult to damage a listed monument than a monument that is not, and this is undoubtedly what bothers Jean-François Martins.
I should add that on the question of the surrounding area, the constraints of historic monument classification - the Eiffel Tower is already inscribed - are no different, according to the Heritage Code, from those of classification. Unfortunately, this has not prevented the Tower’s surroundings from being "vitrified" (ill. 3) (see article).
What Jean-François Martins says on this subject is therefore false, as is his assertion that "all the world’s great monuments have large pedestrian areas around them to manage traffic". Where are the "big pedestrian areas" around St Peter’s Square, the Coliseum, the Tower of London, Westminster Abbey, the Royal Palace in Madrid, the Museo del Prado or the Brandenburg Gate? We could find dozens, hundreds of examples of major monuments where pedestrian areas are far less important than, for example... the Champ-de-Mars at the foot of the Eiffel Tower.
-
- 4. Photograph of the Eiffel Tower under construction in 1888
showing traffic on the bridge - See the image in its page
-
- 5. Photograph of the Eiffel Tower in 1919
showing traffic on the bridge and on the quay - See the image in its page
In fact, none of what Jean-François Martins says in the quote we have extracted from his interview is accurate, even when he says that originally there were no cars nearby. Old photos of the Eiffel Tower (ill. 4 and 5) reveal that, of course, with the exception of the World’s Fairs, which stretched from the Champ-de-Mars to the Trocadéro, there was traffic on both the bridge and the quay.