Maymester Day 6

Ah, the beautiful sounds of Saint Germain Church…under construction. As I sit watching the workers drill away, sparks flying and all I begin to wonder about what goes into the process of doing reconstruction on historic landmarks. In the case of Haussmann and Napoleon III, all it took was Napoleons orders, given that he was Emperor. But now, I’m sure the process is much more layered and bureaucratic.
For both art and architecture, there is an ongoing process of “the wheel” being torn down, reinvented and so on. But art is able to physically and digitally remain existing as a tangible thing. With architecture, it must literally be torn down. Wiped out, and either rebuilt in an entirely different way, or at best rebuilt only as a replica of what was once the “original”. Even wonders of the world that we have the privilege to see on this trip such as Versailles, the Opera Garnier etc. can only at best be a recreations of their former selves. Thus, the decisions of when to tear down a monument, or even when to rebuild something when it is not absolutely necessary, holds a great deal of weight and importance.
It is difficult to make comparisons between Los Angeles and Paris when it comes to this debate over demolition and restoration. The oldest building in Los Angeles(the Avila Adobe) was built in 1818, while the oldest building in Paris(the house of Nicolas Flamel), was built in 1407. So there is clearly a disconnect(more than 400 years in this case!) in the comparison of what counts as “historic” for these two great cities. So should a building like the Avila Adobe not be considered important because it is nowhere near as old as Paris’s oldest buildings? I would say this would be unfair, because time itself should not be the only factor when the question of preservation rolls around. I think that the cultural contributions that the building or monuments have given to the city should be more important than their age. Nonetheless, there is something inherently magical about something that is ancient, I just don’t feel like this should be the sole reason of preserving a building or monument.
If I were to take one aspect of Paris’s architectural feel and apply it to LA, it would have to be the concept of these elongated streets with views that keep stretching on and on. There is something incredibly freeing about being able to see down a street for miles and miles. Of course, there are not the same drastic types of hills(and definitely no mountains) here in Paris so this is easier said than done. But I do feel like there are many parts of LA where you just feel suffocated by buildings and short stretches of street. Also, there is no overarching sense of uniformity among the style of architecture in LA, even within counties. Who knows, maybe LA will find its own 21st century Hausmann to give the city a grand makeover.

The beautiful Saint Germain church

Saint Germain under construction

The splendid organ inside Saint Germain

Alvaro, Scott and I busking next to the Seine River