Arbed chimneys: listing, memory and the future

The Minister for Culture believes that the Arbed chimneys do not meet the criteria for national listing. However, their preservation also depends on their owners, a project and its funding.

In 2012, the two Arbed chimneys between Belval and Sanem were reduced from 150 to 40 metres for safety reasons, according to RTL. This alteration is now at the heart of a heritage debate: Culture Minister Eric Thill believes that the elements of authenticity required for national protection are no longer present. But the fact that they cannot rely on listed status does not mean demolition has been decided. The towers’ future also depends on their owners and on whether it is possible to fund their preservation.

An industrial silhouette transformed

The chimneys are no longer the 150-metre structures that once dominated the site. Their reduction changed their shape, but did not erase their history: they remain tangible witnesses to the steel industry that shaped the south of the country. This is where the difficulty lies. The commemorative value of a relic and its eligibility for a specific category of protection do not necessarily coincide.

At the parliamentary Culture Committee, Eric Thill explained that, in his view, the chimneys’ authenticity was no longer sufficient for them to be listed as national heritage. His assessment is based on their transformation in 2012. RTL reported the minister’s position on the application of listing criteria.

Authenticity and memory do not mean the same thing

The National Institute for Architectural Heritage (INPA) describes architectural heritage as a group of immovable properties that bear witness to history. Authenticity is among its criteria: a property must have retained elements from its own period. The Institute also refers to industrial, economic or scientific history, which can make a building a witness to a region’s technological development.

These aspects shed light on the tension surrounding the chimneys. Their connection with the industrial history of southern Luxembourg may contribute to their heritage interest; their height, however, has been substantially altered. Recognising the importance of their history does not therefore automatically mean concluding that they meet the conditions for national listing. Nor is the alteration, by itself, enough to tell the full story of their value: it is one element of the debate, not a verdict by the INPA on this particular case.

The INPA explains that heritage assessments are based on historical research, observations of buildings and several scientific criteria. Its presentation describes the Institute’s general working framework; it is not a published assessment of these two chimneys. The useful distinction for understanding the debate is simpler: industrial history can count in the assessment, while authenticity remains a condition that the minister considers unmet in this case.

Listing does not settle the question of ownership

Another distinction emerges from Eric Thill’s remarks: the Ministry of Culture does not own the land on which the towers stand. RTL names Agora and the Fonds Belval among the owners concerned. The minister thus stresses that a position on heritage protection is not enough to decide what happens to a property in practical terms.

According to RTL’s report, Agora no longer wishes to invest in the chimneys and the municipality of Sanem does not want to accept them as a gift. These positions leave a practical question open: which party would take forward a preservation project, and with what resources? The report gives no restoration budget. It therefore does not allow the debate to be turned into a funded plan, or any claim to be made that a solution already exists.

Pirate MP Marc Goergen put forward the idea of a transfer or alternative funding and challenged the link he sees between official protection and preservation. This is a political proposal, distinct from any commitment by the Fonds Belval to fund works. The minister, for his part, stressed the difference between not protecting the chimneys at national level and requiring their demolition: he said that their lack of listed status did not mean they had to be demolished.

This distinction avoids two opposite oversimplifications. Listing is not, by itself, a restoration budget; the absence of listing is not authorisation to demolish. Preservation requires a project led by a party with the necessary resources, as well as a decision on the structures’ future use. The public debate reported by RTL does not resolve these steps.

A motion is still awaiting parliamentary debate

The issue also divides the parties represented on the committee. According to RTL, the CSV, LSAP and Piraten have come out in favour of restoration. RTL reports that representatives of Agora were also heard by the Buildings Committee. Marc Goergen’s motion must then be brought before a plenary sitting: the report does not yet announce the result of a vote.

The case thus brings together questions that are moving forward at different speeds. Historical value and authenticity criteria are matters of heritage assessment; ownership and funding determine whether a project can be carried out; Parliament, for its part, can continue the political debate. Confusing them would suggest that an answer to one automatically settles the others.

For the Arbed chimneys, then, their industrial history is a reason to consider what remains, but it is not, on its own, a means of preserving them. The immediate question is whether a party and a project can take the matter forward, while national protection is disputed and financial responsibilities remain at the centre of the debate.