undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjohncoltrane2y ago0 comments

The parent's "them" is not your quote's "endangered spaces". There is no plan to fill the carrières/catacombs (the parent's "them") with concrete and filling parts of it (your quote's "spaces) has been an established practice for decades, either for structural reasons (new metro lines, etc.) or for policing reasons (preventing people from entering the system). It was really hard 30 years ago to stay underground for more than one hour without having to squirt your way above a blob of concrete.

Yes, it progressively makes parts of the system harder or impossible to reach and something is definitely lost in the process for the very few who care but that's how the underground in general—and this underground in particular—has always worked.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

thaumasiotes2y ago· 2 in thread

I really don't see how "there is no plan to fill the catacombs, except for the public plan that's been in place for decades" is supposed to be a defense to the argument "we shouldn't fill the catacombs".

johncoltraneOP2y ago

There was no argument to defend to, only a misconception to correct.

But, if you really want to make the argument that "we shouldn't fill the catacombs", then feel free to petition the IGC, because it is "they", not "we", who are in charge. Be more precise in your petition, though, because "the catacombs" is a very specific and profitable part of the system that no one ever thought of filling up with anything but tourists.

FWIW, I haven't gone down there for nearly three decades so I don't care one bit about the catacombs and the cataphiles. While I have very fond memories of the time I spent down there when I was younger, I moved on, as most people did. If "they" need to fill up a short section somewhere to prevent collapse during the new Metro works, I am fine with it.

thaumasiotes2y ago

What was the misconception?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse