Yep.

It’s about as serial as serial can get.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news

Spire has already collapsed, and looking at footage, I’d be surprised if anything survives. 850 years of history, up in smoke.

Cause is thought to be renovation.

Looks like pretty much just the walls standing at this point.

i work at a travel company, everyone's been talking about it all day. Sucks to see it go :( Hope something can be salvaged

The vaults might survive, but would likely be heavily water damaged.

 Necros wrote:
i work at a travel company, everyone's been talking about it all day. Sucks to see it go :( Hope something can be salvaged

This does not just "Sucks to see it go", this is a bloody catastrophy, hopefully they could manage to save people, books and art, if not i dare not think about it.

Yeah this is a pretty major event. Wonder how it started?

It was magnificent in the summer of 05 when i was in France Awe-inspiring It pains me greatly.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Yeah this is a pretty major event. Wonder how it started?

Renovation works.Considering a lot of it was very old wood that can be iron hard to drill into. We live in an old house and you have to use candle wax on the drill bit to help lubricate and drill in short bursts otherwise you build up a LOT of heat (and strip the drill). Could be something as simple as someone doing that and building up enough heat in tinder dry wood that it caught light and wasn't spotted in time. Once super dry wood gets some heat into it and starts burning it can spread insanely fast. Considering that the building likely had artwork, fabrics, wood and other flammable materials there's a lot to catch and burn once it gets going.

It might also be that any sprinkler system was offline if it had one (being old and likely listed it might have had one or might only have had one in high risk areas or none at all).

After that you've got a whole rafter of things that could have caused it from a spark to someone dropping a cigarette to an accident etc....

This is heartbreaking. The pictures are horrific.

“Good news: all the works of art were saved,” reported French journalist Nicolas Delesalle. “The treasure of the Cathedral is intact, the Crown of thorns, the Holy sacraments.”

per Yahoo

Definitely tragic. I can't fathom that phone call from the rennovation company to the owners/protectors ...

 Frazzled wrote:

“Good news: all the works of art were saved,” reported French journalist Nicolas Delesalle. “The treasure of the Cathedral is intact, the Crown of thorns, the Holy sacraments.”

per Yahoo

Well that's something at least.

I didn't get a chance to go in when I went on holiday as a wee lad just appreciated it from across the river, I'd always hoped to go back to Paris one day to see it properly. What baffles me is the idea that it was the restoration work that caused the blaze - how can people working on such a piece of history have been so careless?

This is horrible. Even though from what I've heard nobody has died or even been injured, the loss of such a historic landmark is a horrible tragedy for any nation.

Oh dear, there's also apparently a bigger problem: the roof tiles were all 5mm thick lead, so there's now about 210,000kg of lead burning off right next to a river in the middle of a city. Christ on a bike.

BBC is saying 400 firefighters there inside and out. Also says fighting to keep the bells from falling and the fire spreading to the North Tower.

Can lead burn? I know it melts easily but surely it can't burn,,,,,

That's got to be dangerous as I'd wager a lot of the internals of those towers would be wood so if the bell supports weaken or break they would come crashing a long way down with a huge amount of force.

konst80hummel wrote:
Can lead burn? I know it melts easily but surely it can't burn,,,,,

Depending on the intensity of the blaze, it could hypothetically reach the boiling point of lead, which would release lead vapour.

konst80hummel wrote:
Can lead burn? I know it melts easily but surely it can't burn,,,,,

Lead melts at 327.5 degrees Celsius, and the resulting fumes and particles are toxic.

Visited back in 2006. I found it a genuinely moving experience.

Apparently a French official said they're more optimistic now about saving the structure than they were a couple hours ago. Notre Dame will rise again...a fitting message for Holy Week.

 Overread wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Yeah this is a pretty major event. Wonder how it started?

Renovation works.Considering a lot of it was very old wood that can be iron hard to drill into. We live in an old house and you have to use candle wax on the drill bit to help lubricate and drill in short bursts otherwise you build up a LOT of heat (and strip the drill). Could be something as simple as someone doing that and building up enough heat in tinder dry wood that it caught light and wasn't spotted in time. Once super dry wood gets some heat into it and starts burning it can spread insanely fast. Considering that the building likely had artwork, fabrics, wood and other flammable materials there's a lot to catch and burn once it gets going.

It might also be that any sprinkler system was offline if it had one (being old and likely listed it might have had one or might only have had one in high risk areas or none at all).

After that you've got a whole rafter of things that could have caused it from a spark to someone dropping a cigarette to an accident etc....

Yeah I was thinking the renovation works must've had something to do with it. I like to think that if you were drilling in that situation you'd have a third man ready with a fire extinguisher.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

Yeah I was thinking the renovation works must've had something to do with it. I like to think that if you were drilling in that situation you'd have a third man ready with a fire extinguisher.

Depending on the exact way the woodwork was put together, a fire extinguisher may not even have made an iota of difference.

At least the bell towers seem to have been saved now. It's not a completely unmitigated disaster, it's just completely awful.

Over the last year, the trust looking after the Cathedral have been constantly asking for money to stop it collapsing, giving it 5 years max before it would have started to crumble. This is one of the major problems with lack of funding in heritage across the world. The exact same problems that occurred in the Brazil national museum fire not that long ago.

As for the cause, with most renovation work in historic buildings, what ends up causing the fire is basic mistakes, especially little money saving corners have been cut.

I'd put money on lead roof in situ repair. Soldering isn't done on historic lead because it isn't the same composition as is typically used now. When the burning is done in situ it'll heat up too much and the very old damaged wood will go up instantly, particularly in a high climate area like Paris.

It's genuinely awful to watch, especially the video of the roof collapse.

Although of course it will eventually be rebuilt, its not just the medieval features. It's the centuries of work and rework, building and rebuilding. Unfortunately, we've lost all those layers. It's not just the 'original' masterpiece we're losing, but the culmination of some 900 years of history, which can't just be rebuilt.

The Hunchback’s gonna be pissed.

A third of the roof's still intact and it looks like the oldest of the famous rose windows, dating from 1225, is safe for now as well. The 13-tonne 16th-century bell and all the smaller ones are likewise seemingly out of danger.

I wonder if it's been deliberate. Churches in France have been getting attacked. Although apparently it was having renovation work done, so it could have happened naturally.

Glasgow Art School caught fire twice recently during renovation restoring it from a fire that had happened previously.

Sure, there's been vandalism aimed at churches in France lately, but considering eyewittnesses placed the fire in the wooden support beams of the roof soon after the fire alarm went off anyone doing this on purpose would have had to get access to the roof, which further means sneaking past a bunch of renovation workers undetected. Incredibly tragic accident is far more likely.

Big E says ‘no’ to religion.

Dude...

I went there when I was much younger, but I don't really remember it well. Damn. One of the most iconic structures in the world.

I don't have any sort of connection with France or Paris whatsoever, and I'm still almost in tears. Jesus...

EDIT: Apparently French billionaire François-Henri Pinault intends to donate 100 million Euro for the restoration of Notre-Dame.

I saw this on my phone. Just terrible. So much history, irreparably damaged.

What a travesty, I'm thankful that a lot of the artwork and artefacts were saved, but still that is a lot of crazy damage on such a historic place. Gotta hate that bitter taste of irony of this coming from an attempt at renovation.

I think people are a little hasty saying this is an accident.

Seems like a sign to me.

Seems like a sign to me.

A sign they hired the cheapest workers available? It reminds me of Ecco Homo from a few years back, the picture of Jesus that came out looking like a monkey in restoration. Surely with a structure of importance like this you'd get a team who is aware of potential hazards like this. Like getting some rando to do work on the Eiffel Tower who then cuts through one of the structural supports.

 LordofHats wrote:
Dude...

I went there when I was much younger, but I don't really remember it well. Damn. One of the most iconic structures in the world.

Also a clear influence on 40k’s architecture.

There goes another piece of history. One less reason to visit France now, I guess.

This is one of THE MOST documented buildings in the world. Given enough time and money, it can be rebuilt, though maybe they can leave the lead tiles off this time for something less poisonous. Copper works well enough.

cody.d. wrote:

Seems like a sign to me.

A sign they hired the cheapest workers available? It reminds me of Ecco Homo from a few years back, the picture of Jesus that came out looking like a monkey in restoration. Surely with a structure of importance like this you'd get a team who is aware of potential hazards like this. Like getting some rando to do work on the Eiffel Tower who then cuts through one of the structural supports.

A sign that maybe somebody is upset with the church?

You don't get to pick and choose your signs from God.

Actually, that's exactly how "signs from ghod" work.

You DO get to cherrypick the specific ones that support your pov.
It's not like Ghod is going to contradict you, izzit?

And even if there was a contradiction, whose job is it to presume the will of their lord and creator (pretty sure that's covered as a "no-no" somewhere.)

The morning after, things are looking a bit better than last night.

The roof is gone and the spire (which was a 19th century rebuild.) I don't think they know about the stained glass windows yet, which will be a great loss if they are gone.

On the plus side, the main stone structure and the two bell towers are intact, and the firefighters managed to get most of the artworks out of the building.

It could be a lot worse.

It's a pretty shocking ordeal, I was only there two years ago and it was a beautiful sight.

Could have been worse, but something like should never have happened.

The video of the spire falling is stomach turning.

These Disney live-action remakes are getting out of hand!

 John Prins wrote:
This is one of THE MOST documented buildings in the world. Given enough time and money, it can be rebuilt, though maybe they can leave the lead tiles off this time for something less poisonous. Copper works well enough.

Actually that's a good point - maybe Ubisoft spending ridiculous sums of money to replicate Notre Dame for Assassin's Creed won't turn out to be a ridiculous waste afterall, if they still have and will turn over the image archive they must have generated for reference purposes.

That is an interesting point.

I do wonder if they've got the original architect's plans for the building?

Can you imagine the wealth of archaeological knowledge that could be put to the test if they go for a literal 'original tech only' rebuild, rather than modern equivalents? And the French have form for that via Guedelon Castle.

Make a TV series to go with it, and that's a chunk of the associated costs sourced too.

IIRC none of the glass in any of the rose windows was actually original, but rather from the 1860s rebuild.

I think the real testament of this event is to the masons that built the vaulted ceiling. Most of it held and protected much of the innards from complete destruction. There's an image going around the web with the main altar cross still standing defiant, a lá St. Paul's during the Blitz.

A Swedish professor of history put it pretty well (paraphrasing from memory): "All Cathedrals burn. As long as they are not completely wiped out, they can be rebuilt, adding yet another layer to the history of the building." Considering how the Notre-Dame of Reims, another Gothic Cathedral, was badly damaged by artillery in both world wars but rebuilt anyway there is good hope that Notre-Dame of Paris will weather this storm.

I'm sure it will weather the storm and be rebuilt. Heck some in the future might look back and argue the fire was a good thing since it might generate a huge investment that lets them renovate rebuild and update large swathes of the structure in one go.

It might even relax some of the protections on it as its a rebuild. Sometimes laws regarding listed and protected buildings can result in them having unsafe, dangerous or just very expensive and hard to source/replace/improve structural elements. A full burnout might well let them come to the table and make key changes - eg they might change the lead to something that looks like lead but isn't lead. A modern Notre Dame for a modern France, whilst still retaining much of its historical artistic charm.

The plot thickens?
https://twitter.com/TipsyPianoBar/status/1117938596952993793

https://twitter.com/TipsyPianoBar/status/1117980100782252032

 Overread wrote:
I'm sure it will weather the storm and be rebuilt. Heck some in the future might look back and argue the fire was a good thing since it might generate a huge investment that lets them renovate rebuild and update large swathes of the structure in one go.

It might even relax some of the protections on it as its a rebuild. Sometimes laws regarding listed and protected buildings can result in them having unsafe, dangerous or just very expensive and hard to source/replace/improve structural elements. A full burnout might well let them come to the table and make key changes - eg they might change the lead to something that looks like lead but isn't lead. A modern Notre Dame for a modern France, whilst still retaining much of its historical artistic charm.

Good point. I like the approach the Italians take in those regions of the country that have to be "quake-safe": when you restore an old building, it has to look like original work, but they don't place ridiculous demands on using medieval mortar, or stone sources from a particular quarry, or any of the other nonsense listed buildings have to deal with in some countries.

Aye I can see value in keeping things as they were and preserving such knowledge and structural designs and the like - but at the same time they can be a huge barrier and sometimes structures can easily fall into dilapidation because to repair within the protection laws is just too great a cost. So you end up losing the structure anyway, just over a very prolonged period.

Reports are comning in that the 15th century organ is intact. Images seemingly confirm the survival of the chancel windows above the altar as well (see below, courtesy of the BBC).

Looks like Quasimodo was sneaking a quick smoke break and got distracted by the striking... (who's turn is it to be on strike this week?) and dropped his cigarette

Well could have been worst. With treasures safe it should be just reconstructing it. Expensive yes but doable. And as said above can be used to do improvements without changing looks.

Sad event but silver lining being worst dodged.

Albeit my PV might be coloured bit by having been to Japan where many of the old famous buildings have been rebuilt over again and again through history when they keep getting burned down(one seem to have got sick and tired of that one so rebuilt temple into concrete block...) so I have no real issue with reconstructing buildings.

There's a short video of a man in middle eastern garb walking around in the upper areas near the roof.

Because when I sneak onto a worksite to burn one of the most iconic buildings in the world to the ground, I always wear the most inappropriate and visible clothing I can get my hands on.

Clipboard and hardhat for the win.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
There's a short video of a man in middle eastern garb walking around in the upper areas near the roof.

It's a construction worker, clearly visible in higher resolution versions of the clip. I'll see if I can find it.

EDIT:



How do I link videos that aren't YouTube?

Perhaps it's just me, but I find my eyebrows raising at how quickly the hundreds of millions of Euros are donated to repair a building owned by one of the wealthiest organisations in the world; as compared to much smaller charities/causes who could do so much good with that kind of money.

It's like watching the millions disappear at the whiff of old Boris' garden bridge. Don't get me wrong, Notre Dame is nice and all. But there are a lot of cathedrals in the world, and many better uses that money could have been put to.

 Ketara wrote:
Perhaps it's just me, but I find my eyebrows raising at how quickly the hundreds of millions of Euros appear to repair a building owned by one of the wealthiest organisations in the world; as compared to much small charities/causes who could do so much good with that kind of money.

It's owned by the French state but the Catholic church has exclusive access in perpetuity.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Perhaps it's just me, but I find my eyebrows raising at how quickly the hundreds of millions of Euros appear to repair a building owned by one of the wealthiest organisations in the world; as compared to much small charities/causes who could do so much good with that kind of money.

It's owned by the French state but the Catholic church has exclusive access in perpetuity.

That I didn't know, but it doesn't change my feeling one iota. Macron was pledging to rebuild long before the donations rolled in; which was nice of him. It's funny how politicians seem to loose the purse strings whenever a large scale vanity project which they can attach their name to appears; but playgrounds for deprived children, disability grants, or getting the homeless off the street struggle to attract a fraction of that kind of funding.

True, but what could he say? "Nah, the single most iconic landmark in France can go get bent"? He really has no choice, anything that isn't "rebuild it!" is political suicide.

Plus, I don't think it's fair to characterize Notre-Dame as a "vanity project". Sure, it was back in the 1100s when the cornerstone was laid, but...

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
EDIT: Apparently French billionaire François-Henri Pinault intends to donate 100 million Euro for the restoration of Notre-Dame.

If only that money was pledged beforehand. Lowest-cost contractor policies may have been the cause of this.

And: I've heard that "The Hunchback on Notre Dame" book was written to raise repair funds, back in 1831.
This building (and lots like it) have been falling down for centuries.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
True, but what could he say? "Nah, the single most iconic landmark in France can go get bent"? He really has no choice, anything that isn't "rebuild it!" is political suicide.

Plus, I don't think it's fair to characterize Notre-Dame as a "vanity project". Sure, it was back in the 1100s when the cornerstone was laid, but...

He didn't have to say anything. He could have wheeled out a statement of tragedy alone or just pledged to restore what was left without rebuilding, or anything in between. If Canterbury Cathedral burned down tomorrow, I wouldn't expect the government to blow three hundred million quid on rebuilding it. Our country is covered in churchs and cathedrals of all size, and France is no different.

I'm a historian, and I know the value of preservation for future generations. But this building has been recorded from every angle a hundred times, the relics have been saved, and it was crumbling in the first place. It's no important icon of French culture anymore than two dozen other items in Paris are. It's very pretty, but then again, so was the Crystal Palace.

Meanwhile, people sleep on the streets so that somebody else can say they put some gargoyles back up.

It's the single most iconic example of Gothic architecture in the world, the single most visited tourist attraction in France (it beats out the Eiffel Tower!). A better comparison would be if Big Ben burned, or Stonehenge somehow got wrecked.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that it's more than a little obscene to pretend that there isn't any money for the poor and then all of a sudden have a lot of money, but at the same time that doesn't mean the Notre-Dame shouldn't be restored. Restoring it while helping the homeless would be possible at the same time.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's the single most iconic example of Gothic architecture in the world, the single most visited tourist attraction in France (it beats out the Eiffel Tower!). A better comparison would be if Big Ben burned, or Stonehenge somehow got wrecked.

And what would putting up a fake stonehenge accomplish? Or another clock tower? I repeat, I know well the value of preserving things for future generations. But part of the same equation is knowing when to let go.

If this was something on the scale of the Mackintosh Building which Glasgow's School of Art was in? Perhaps then. It cost £35 million to start rebuilding after the fire, and the Government chipped in about a third of it. But it then burnt down again before the first restoration was finished, and it would now require well over a hundred to (effectively) replace. This, to put it in context, is still less than half than has been pledged to Notre Dame.

But there will be no rebuilding project this time because the cost is too high for too little gain. If you have to literally build entire new towers, what's the point? It's not Notre Dame anymore; it's simply a duplication that you've chosen to erect on the ashes and burnt out walls of the former. Notre Dame MK II, as it were.

I look at the sums involved and simply do not see the point or value to the French nation of Notre Dame MK II at this scale. And then I gawk at the knee-jerk pledge to commit vast amounts of money to erect what will effectively be little more than a nice piece of architecture; when there are such pressing needs on the fiscus to deal with the disadvantaged.

I'm not trying to spoil the party, it just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth is all.

Most of the structure is still intact though. I can agree that if they had to rebuild from scratch it'd be stupid, but they're not having to: the stonework from the 1200s is still there, the 1125 rose window on the western facade is intact, the organ from the 1400s is still there. There's a tonne of stuff that has survived centuries. Sure, you need to know when to let go, but it's a bit premature to let go when most of the historical value is still there.

Besides, if the restoration is privately funded through collections, where is the issue beyond the sad fact that it illustrates that people care more about an architectural symbol than their fellow humans?

The party needs to be spoiled. The reaction has been pathetic. Loads of churches are torn down every day and nobody cares. Suddenly Notre Dame burns and everybody has the cash to rebuild it. 100 million from one billionaire to give away at the drop of a spire but no ability for him to use that money to build up his countries poorest. Pathetic.

The Church has robbed the poor of Europe for too long. No more.

if its private capital then he can do with it as he pleases.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
There's a short video of a man in middle eastern garb walking around in the upper areas near the roof.

It's a construction worker, clearly visible in higher resolution versions of the clip. I'll see if I can find it.

EDIT:

Spoiler:

https://twitter.com/TsumiXTREME/status/1118041482886295552

How do I link videos that aren't YouTube?

Right. Don't believe everything you read from Russian troll accounts, kids.

Aye he can, but it's a pure nonsense.

"I'll rebuild a church but I won't feed the poor"

Matthew 19:21 - 24

There is certainly an argument to be made that this perfectly illustrates the wealth disparities of a modern society, and completely legitimate criticism to point out that perhaps something could be done about it. That is not mutually exclusive with a desire to see one of the most famous buildings in the world restored.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Most of the structure is still intact though. I can agree that if they had to rebuild from scratch it'd be stupid, but they're not having to: the stonework from the 1200s is still there, the 1125 rose window on the western facade is intact, the organ from the 1400s is still there. There's a tonne of stuff that has survived centuries. Sure, you need to know when to let go, but it's a bit premature to let go when most of the historical value is still there.

This is the thing though. It's one thing to restore the fire damage, remove unstable parts, put a smaller roof (in neutral keeping with existing styles) over it and generally clean up a bit. If that was in the works for fifty or sixty million, I wouldn't say a word. It is, as you say, a historic monument. It does deserve preservation for as long as is practical. I'm not advocating for one minute it should just be left to rot.

It's the grandiose desire to rebuild the entire thing for vast sums of money that turns it into a vanity project for me. Nobody needs to see a replica tower. Nothing will happen if cheaper windows get put into the slots where the damaged ones have had to be taken out. The building won't lose historical value if you fail to have five dozen heavily fire damaged gargoyles replaced.

Besides, if the restoration is privately funded through collections, where is the issue beyond the sad fact that it illustrates that people care more about an architectural symbol than their fellow humans?

Well....that kind of is my issue?

 Gael Knight wrote:
Aye he can, but it's a pure nonsense.

"I'll rebuild a church but I won't feed the poor"

Mathew 19:24

"I'm rich, you."
-Jesus

Can't say I'm surprised, the church has a long history of keeping wealth for its highest members instead of helping charitable causes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Gael Knight wrote:
Aye he can, but it's a pure nonsense.

"I'll rebuild a church but I won't feed the poor"

Mathew 19:24

"I'm rich, you."
-Jesus

Can't say I'm surprised, the church has a long history of keeping wealth for its highest members instead of helping charitable causes.

Are you stupid? It's literally the opposite meaning of that.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
There is certainly an argument to be made that this perfectly illustrates the wealth disparities of a modern society, and completely legitimate criticism to point out that perhaps something could be done about it. That is not mutually exclusive with a desire to see one of the most famous buildings in the world restored.

and what do you propose? without getting dangerously close to that awful S word.

Anyway, we digress.if they want it rebuilt, then rebuilt it most likely will be.

 Ketara wrote:

Besides, if the restoration is privately funded through collections, where is the issue beyond the sad fact that it illustrates that people care more about an architectural symbol than their fellow humans?

Well....that kind of is my issue?

I agree completely with you, then, but I'd also argue that it's better the money gets spent restoring the Notre-Dame rather than just sitting around in a bank account. We've already established that he's not willing to spend the money to help the poor, but at least restoring a public masterpiece like this is better than him just hogging the money or buying a gold-plated yatch or something.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
True, but what could he say? "Nah, the single most iconic landmark in France can go get bent"? He really has no choice, anything that isn't "rebuild it!" is political suicide.

Plus, I don't think it's fair to characterize Notre-Dame as a "vanity project". Sure, it was back in the 1100s when the cornerstone was laid, but...

The Walrus has the way of it. Its like if the White House burned down, or more importantly the Salt Lick Barbeque - talk about a shrine!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Most of the structure is still intact though. I can agree that if they had to rebuild from scratch it'd be stupid, but they're not having to: the stonework from the 1200s is still there, the 1125 rose window on the western facade is intact, the organ from the 1400s is still there. There's a tonne of stuff that has survived centuries. Sure, you need to know when to let go, but it's a bit premature to let go when most of the historical value is still there.

This is the thing though. It's one thing to restore the fire damage, remove unstable parts, put a smaller roof (in neutral keeping with existing styles) over it and generally clean up a bit. If that was in the works for fifty or sixty million, I wouldn't say a word. It is, as you say, a historic monument. It does deserve preservation for as long as is practical. I'm not advocating for one minute it should just be left to rot.

It's the grandiose desire to rebuild the entire thing for vast sums of money that turns it into a vanity project for me. Nobody needs to see a replica tower. Nothing will happen if cheaper windows get put into the slots where the damaged ones have had to be taken out. The building won't lose historical value if you fail to have five dozen heavily fire damaged gargoyles replaced.

Besides, if the restoration is privately funded through collections, where is the issue beyond the sad fact that it illustrates that people care more about an architectural symbol than their fellow humans?

Well....that kind of is my issue?

Dude its one of the three biggest symbols of the Catholic Faith...its going to get rebuilt.

 Ketara wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Perhaps it's just me, but I find my eyebrows raising at how quickly the hundreds of millions of Euros appear to repair a building owned by one of the wealthiest organisations in the world; as compared to much small charities/causes who could do so much good with that kind of money.

It's owned by the French state but the Catholic church has exclusive access in perpetuity.

That I didn't know, but it doesn't change my feeling one iota. Macron was pledging to rebuild long before the donations rolled in; which was nice of him. It's funny how politicians seem to loose the purse strings whenever a large scale vanity project which they can attach their name to appears; but playgrounds for deprived children, disability grants, or getting the homeless off the street struggle to attract a fraction of that kind of funding.

Churches built before 1905 all belong to the state. Upkeep is actually a big issue in small villages, where there are almost no inhabitants anymore, but pretty larges churches everywhere.
Notre Dame is the most visited monument in Europe (~14 million people a year), so rebuilding can be seen as an investment, as it generates huge revenues. I'm not saying that's where money should be spent first, just that in this case, there is a return on investment.

 Ketara wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It's the single most iconic example of Gothic architecture in the world, the single most visited tourist attraction in France (it beats out the Eiffel Tower!). A better comparison would be if Big Ben burned, or Stonehenge somehow got wrecked.

And what would putting up a fake stonehenge accomplish? Or another clock tower? I repeat, I know well the value of preserving things for future generations. But part of the same equation is knowing when to let go.

If this was something on the scale of the Mackintosh Building which Glasgow's School of Art was in? Perhaps then. It cost £35 million to start rebuilding after the fire, and the Government chipped in about a third of it. But it then burnt down again before the first restoration was finished, and it would now require well over a hundred to (effectively) replace. This, to put it in context, is still less than half than has been pledged to Notre Dame.

But there will be no rebuilding project this time because the cost is too high for too little gain. If you have to literally build entire new towers, what's the point? It's not Notre Dame anymore; it's simply a duplication that you've chosen to erect on the ashes and burnt out walls of the former. Notre Dame MK II, as it were.

I look at the sums involved and simply do not see the point or value to the French nation of Notre Dame MK II at this scale. And then I gawk at the knee-jerk pledge to commit vast amounts of money to erect what will effectively be little more than a nice piece of architecture; when there are such pressing needs on the fiscus to deal with the disadvantaged.

I'm not trying to spoil the party, it just leaves a bitter taste in my mouth is all.

That's a matter of perspective. In Europe we tend to not rebuild things, just restore them. A decent chunk of the big heritage sites are ruins (especially for the Greeks or the Romans), and we're fine with it.
In other places like Japan, it's a lot more common to rebuild after of fire/earthquake/war. Actually, most of Japan's historical buildings are not the original ones, but replicas built centuries after the first monument was erected. When people visit the Todai-Ji and look at the statue inside, they're wowed by the stuff, not thinking about the date it was rebuilt for the nth time.


About the talks regarding "cheap workers" doing the renovation, and how it lead to the fire: I don't know much about who was working on all the parts of the sites, but we actually often see documentaries on TV about the stonemasons specialized in renovation. Notre-Dame pops up quite often regarding this subject, about how there is a new generation of stonemason that had to be trained specifically to handle that type of work. It usually involves a young person who wanted to do something manual despite being good at school, who spent the last years working on a tiny portion of a huge wall/statue.
In other words, there are some very qualified people working on the site, the best money can buy actually. I'm not saying there isn't a dump guy doing funny stuff with electricals or a blowtorch somewhere, but it's definitely not a simple "people cheapened out on the work".

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

I agree completely with you, then, but I'd also argue that it's better the money gets spent restoring the Notre-Dame rather than just sitting around in a bank account. We've already established that he's not willing to spend the money to help the poor, but at least restoring a public masterpiece like this is better than him just hogging the money or buying a gold-plated yatch or something.

You won't get an argument from me on that score.

At the same time though, Macron deserves a slap for committing the French taxpayer with no public consultation or idea as to the extent of the damage.

CNN, quoting the Archbishop of Paris, is reporting all three of the rose windows are intact.

 Ketara wrote:
Perhaps it's just me, but I find my eyebrows raising at how quickly the hundreds of millions of Euros are donated to repair a building owned by one of the wealthiest organisations in the world; as compared to much smaller charities/causes who could do so much good with that kind of money.

It's like watching the millions disappear at the whiff of old Boris' garden bridge. Don't get me wrong, Notre Dame is nice and all. But there are a lot of cathedrals in the world, and many better uses that money could have been put to.

There are ALWAYS better uses for money. Donate money to build a school for disadvantaged children in Central America? That money could be used to feed starving children in another country, or vaccinate babies in yet a different country.

Nobody can live up to that standard.

I'll be overjoyed if a bunch of French billionares cough up hundreds of millions to renovate Notre Dame, rather than just investing it in stocks to make even more obscene amounts of money. All that money will go into the French economy, mostly at the middle class level (skilled trades, especially antique skilled trades).

Plus, all the government really has to do is open a Restoration Charity and let the bucks flow in. It's a national symbol on par with the Eiffel Tower or the Arc de Triumph.

 John Prins wrote:

There are ALWAYS better uses for money. Donate money to build a school for disadvantaged children in Central America? That money could be used to feed starving children in another country, or vaccinate babies in yet a different country.

Nobody can live up to that standard.

Please either read the thread or abstain from using hyperbole to misrepresent/dismiss me (since one of the two has clearly occurred).

It's really quite evident that I'm not deploying such an imaginary 'standard' as you mention; given that I clearly said up above that I wouldn't have raised an eyebrow at fifty million or so being spent to stabilise and undertake preservation work. Given your examples of (1) Feeding starving kids and, (2) Schooling disadvantaged children as compared to (3) Spending mindblowing sums to prop up an old building of debatable cultural significance, well....one of these three is not like the others?

Hey, why don't we drop the political aspect of charitable giving shall we? Lest this thread get cranky and then unholy baned..

tneva82 wrote:
Well could have been worst. With treasures safe it should be just reconstructing it. Expensive yes but doable. And as said above can be used to do improvements without changing looks.

Sad event but silver lining being worst dodged.

Albeit my PV might be coloured bit by having been to Japan where many of the old famous buildings have been rebuilt over again and again through history when they keep getting burned down(one seem to have got sick and tired of that one so rebuilt temple into concrete block...) so I have no real issue with reconstructing buildings.

There is a temple in Japan, or maybe a shrine, which is specifically torn down and reconstructed every 20 years (?) for religious reasons.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well could have been worst. With treasures safe it should be just reconstructing it. Expensive yes but doable. And as said above can be used to do improvements without changing looks.

Sad event but silver lining being worst dodged.

Albeit my PV might be coloured bit by having been to Japan where many of the old famous buildings have been rebuilt over again and again through history when they keep getting burned down(one seem to have got sick and tired of that one so rebuilt temple into concrete block...) so I have no real issue with reconstructing buildings.

There is a temple in Japan, or maybe a shrine, which is specifically torn down and reconstructed every 20 years (?) for religious reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise_Grand_Shrine

It used to be a fairly common thing in Japan. This temple in particular is fitted wood (no nails), which makes the reconstruction possible on a 20 year cycle.

One thing I really sick of this news is that many comments by some Thai Chauvinists. they rejoiced this fire and concluded 'This is Karmic Retribution against the French sins against Siam and its Kings, (and they list two instances that concluded that the french shall suffer)
- Franco - Siamese War (Irrendists claimed 'Land Loss')
- Granting asylum to 'at least Three Enemies of the Thrones' (Aum Neko, Dr. Somsak Jeam, and Pavin),

and some even went as far as praising 'Siamese Divine Protector' for this retribution.

Even I am Thai myself. I NEVER agrees with these right wings, even I used to believe that France did try to take an entire Siam back in the late Industrial Era, in recent years I've made some historical study and found out that such 'Land loss' was irrenditism, rather a war to define an undefined extents of borders (Who owned what, from where to where). Much to my surprise. Lanna was once a country of its own and has been 'colonized' by 'Citystate Bangkok'.

Now i'm all against nationalists and royalists propaganda machine. and I don't think these rightwings can influence national populace as much as they used to anymore.

Imagine if people cared as much about real issues as they apparently do about an utterly pointless 850 year tribute to idolatry.

I'm sure the homeless and vulnerable people of Paris are gratified to know that millions of Euros have been raised in less than 24 hours to assist in solving the real problems.

It's what Jesus would have done.

Yes I understood an immense expense to maintain this 'Derelict sybol of the bygone era' and the benefits if these expenses are rerounted to some more useful budgetry areas.

Yet The Notre Dame is 'World Heritage', it will be rebuild, taxes and donations combined.

and none if these 'charitable reasons' are cited by Thai Rightwing goons.

For clarity, I hadn't seen your post when I wrote mine and nothing in it is a response to anything you wrote.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Imagine if people cared as much about real issues as they apparently do about an utterly pointless 850 year tribute to idolatry.

I'm sure the homeless and vulnerable people of Paris are gratified to know that millions of Euros have been raised in less than 24 hours to assist in solving the real problems.

It's what Jesus would have done.

God was happy with a box in a tent back in the day. Heck, the box was only built to stop the Israelites from building more idols.

But monument building is pretty essential to human nature, it seems to satisfy a deep need in us to build stuff that's impressive and long lasting.

As is hypocrisy, seemingly.

 Gael Knight wrote:
The plot thickens?
https://twitter.com/TipsyPianoBar/status/1117938596952993793

https://twitter.com/TipsyPianoBar/status/1117980100782252032

At the 42:00 mark in this video, which is better quality footage (so not somebody recording their TV with their phone), the figure appears to be wearing a high-vis vest and hard hat.

The balcony they are on has multiple firefighters travelling backwards and forwards across it around the same time, and an arsonist is probably unlikely to be hanging around the upper floors of a building they've set alight 40 minutes after indulging their pyromania.

 Ketara wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Perhaps it's just me, but I find my eyebrows raising at how quickly the hundreds of millions of Euros appear to repair a building owned by one of the wealthiest organisations in the world; as compared to much small charities/causes who could do so much good with that kind of money.

It's owned by the French state but the Catholic church has exclusive access in perpetuity.

That I didn't know, but it doesn't change my feeling one iota. Macron was pledging to rebuild long before the donations rolled in; which was nice of him. It's funny how politicians seem to loose the purse strings whenever a large scale vanity project which they can attach their name to appears; but playgrounds for deprived children, disability grants, or getting the homeless off the street struggle to attract a fraction of that kind of funding.

Then again without that building French goverment budget will likely take a dent so...

Look at it as investement. You spend money now to gain money in future.

Obviously they will restore Notre Dame. They're not going to sell it off for a Premier Inn conversion, are they?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Obviously they will restore Notre Dame. They're not going to sell it off for a Premier Inn conversion, are they?

Depends on the political climate in france.
That is a historical joke regarding the french love -hate relationship to the Church depending on the government and revolutionary Flair around.

But no, the worst they would do,would be making it into an Arts gallery.

It's also not like the money will just be going into the church or something. All this money will go to parts and labor, in some cases very skilled labor that may not get jobs that often

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It's also not like the money will just be going into the church or something. All this money will go to parts and labor, in some cases very skilled labor that may not get jobs that often

That is something I can never get. People say money gets wasted on big government or cultural projects. Yet, the money they spend goes into some economy somewhere. If the contractor or provider is locally hired, the tax on the wages and work get ploughed back onto the system anyway.
When this is all over, the cathedral/church management might even send some of the excess money off to needy causes.

 Skinnereal wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
It's also not like the money will just be going into the church or something. All this money will go to parts and labor, in some cases very skilled labor that may not get jobs that often

That is something I can never get. People say money gets wasted on big government or cultural projects. Yet, the money they spend goes into some economy somewhere. If the contractor or provider is locally hired, the tax on the wages and work get ploughed back onto the system anyway.
When this is all over, the cathedral/church management might even send some of the excess money off to needy causes.

I think the objections stem from the fact that often it's not local contractors and providers at all, it's huge corporations like Serco and Capita who hoover up the contracts, do a bare-minimum job, and offshore the profits. That's obviously far less likely for an important historical restoration like this, but people don't have a lot of trust in the idea that government spending will actually benefit them any more.

I mean, People are still directly getting jobs because of that.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I mean, People are still directly getting jobs because of that.

True, but are they the people who would visit the site after work is done?
I hear that the UK has a lot of the right Oak trees needed to repair the roof. The originals may have been from the UK in the first place, what with the Norman invasion in 1066, and such.
I do not know anything about restoration projects and obscure craftsmanship skills in France, but I expect this restoration is going to be an international effort, with experts in medieval architecture and building skills from all over.
In this case, with the worldwide reach Notre Dame has, that can only be a good thing. Keeping the work done purely by Frenchmen is going to miss out on a lot of international goodwill.

But, the president's call for a new design replaces this with "a lighter structure of steel beams and titanium panels in place of the oak beams and lead sheeting that were lost."

At any rate, while the fire was a great diaster, no-one was killed, and much of the structure and art was saved. It could have been a lot worse.

The right way to look at this is as an opportunity to think about the cathedral and its meaning to France and history, and what it can mean in the future.

One of the issues is whether to restore the original style of wooden and lead roof, or to put in modern materials which would be safer in the long run.

There actually might be a problem getting the timber needed for a correct restoration. Oak beams of that size are simply not easily found. They come from big, old trees and need to be seasoned for a long time to prevent warpage in situ.

There's going to be a competition to design the new spire. That doesn't stop recreating the 19th century design, but it's an opportunity perhaps to put in a light, airy, glass spire which would open the roof to the heavens.

Aye wood as a resource has changed, most plantations and such focus on fast growing short (by wood standards) growing products so they can get a quicker profit whilst many of the old estates don't always maintain big forests cut in generations of rotations set out for the next 200 years or more. So yeah a lot of the old infrastructure that would have provided oak is gone. Heck its so gone oaks in the UK are a protected species so there's no big stock of mature wood to tap into for a structure of that size I would wager. Or at least not easily/cheaply.


I can see them using modern materials to build the core of the new structure and then laying over that wooden panels and designs for decoration. Allowing them the safety and features of modern construction with some of the aesthetics of the original. That said I can also see them throwing in skylights and the like as well, esp with modern multi-paned glass where you've got insulation, though they might have to balance that against the glass windows - you don't want so much like that the ligh from above dominates the light from the stained glass.

 Overread wrote:
Heck its so gone oaks in the UK are a protected species so there's no big stock of mature wood to tap into for a structure of that size I would wager. Or at least not easily/cheaply.

Isn't that because we chopped them all down in the 18th and 19th centuries to build the Royal Navy to fight the French?

Reims cathedral (another Notre Dame) was shelled in the first World War and subsequently restored; its beams were replaced by concrete beams made in the same shape as the wood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reims_Cathedral#/media/File:Reimscathedralecharpente.JPG

The Spire was already a “new” change from the original cathedral anyway, so it’s worth considering something like that.

 d-usa wrote:
The Spire was already a “new” change from the original cathedral anyway, so it’s worth considering something like that.

Thank you based fire of restoration.

I quite like the idea of "open to the heavens" transparency, but given how many Parisians feel about the pyramid at the Louvre...yeah, I suspect it will end up being something a bit more traditional, at least if they involve anybody beyond the arts world.

The thing with the Pyramid at the Louvre is that it basically clashes with the whole aesthetic surrounding it. It probably looked good on the 3D model but in reality it just seems odd. I think having it as an elevator point as well kind of took away from it too because it means its always got a long line leading up to it and people doing down into the gallery.

The idea is neat but they could have done better and given it some stonework and features that would fit the feel of the structures around it

Imagine the roof replaced with a ceiling of stained glass.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

There actually might be a problem getting the timber needed for a correct restoration. Oak beams of that size are simply not easily found. They come from big, old trees and need to be seasoned for a long time to prevent warpage in situ.

There's going to be a competition to design the new spire. That doesn't stop recreating the 19th century design, but it's an opportunity perhaps to put in a light, airy, glass spire which would open the roof to the heavens.

Engineered lumber is the modern solution to this problem, though using steel would be the best solution for keeping the whole structure lightweight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Imagine the roof replaced with a ceiling of stained glass.

Beautiful, but the stone vaults would block most of the view.

 John Prins wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

There actually might be a problem getting the timber needed for a correct restoration. Oak beams of that size are simply not easily found. They come from big, old trees and need to be seasoned for a long time to prevent warpage in situ.

There's going to be a competition to design the new spire. That doesn't stop recreating the 19th century design, but it's an opportunity perhaps to put in a light, airy, glass spire which would open the roof to the heavens.

Engineered lumber is the modern solution to this problem, though using steel would be the best solution for keeping the whole structure lightweight.

Steelcore synthetic wood (possibly a type of plastic) maybe?

All I can say is I will be visiting Paris in a few weeks and it is an unimaginable tragedy. I do give a big 'hat's off' to the firefighters. I hear it sits on a separated piece of land(?) with water not easy to come by(?) and any early fears of losing the cathedral in its entirety was conquered by the French FD - Bravo to them!!

 Frazzled wrote:
Imagine the roof replaced with a ceiling of stained glass.

My knee-jerk reaction to that or the clear-glass suggestion would be that such a change would drastically and irrevocably change the character of the interior in a way that flies in the face of the 'spirit' of restoration, as it were.

On the other hand... Notre Dame has been shaped by its centuries and if it would take an act of God to make people even consider a change...



There's something striking about the real light streaming down all that way...

Semi-related, Notre Dame Basilica in Montreal has radial stain glass windows in its ceiling, but the light coming in is dimmed from the outside so it's not overpowering.

Real sunlight is probably detrimental to the artworks on display, though you could probably limit that fairly easily.

Plus, as has been mentioned, a gigantic skylight essentially ruins the effect of the rose windows.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Plus, as has been mentioned, a gigantic skylight essentially ruins the effect of the rose windows.

Not if they also are rose windows...

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Plus, as has been mentioned, a gigantic skylight essentially ruins the effect of the rose windows.

Not if they also are rose windows...

But why would you install a 21st century rose window to compete with rose windows from the 1200s?

More light. The roof is gone. they have the option to put on a different roof style now, and a poster mentioned open top like the Louvre. Rose or stained glass roof inserts are in line with the current window structure and could serve for that without being too modern.

 Frazzled wrote:
More light. The roof is gone. they have the option to put on a different roof style now, and a poster mentioned open top like the Louvre. Rose or stained glass roof inserts are in line with the current window structure and could serve for that without being too modern.

I take your rose/stained glass windows and raise you Windows Vista. I want countless Windows Vista opening screens at the top of the ceiling that will blind people with the Dark Age of Microsoft like no tomorrow!

The roof may be gone, but the lead shingle roof isn't directly above most of the building. There's stone vaulted arch ceilings for most of it with the roof over that. Lack of roof meant squat for light getting into them, really.

I got some groans at work a few days back when I mentioned the possibility that this fire might have been started by Quasimodo's meth lab exploding. Watch the cartoon and tell me he doesn't look like a tweeker.

Nahhm he just dropped his blunt.

Yodhrin wrote:I quite like the idea of "open to the heavens" transparency, but given how many Parisians feel about the pyramid at the Louvre...yeah, I suspect it will end up being something a bit more traditional, at least if they involve anybody beyond the arts world.

Overread wrote:The thing with the Pyramid at the Louvre is that it basically clashes with the whole aesthetic surrounding it. It probably looked good on the 3D model but in reality it just seems odd. I think having it as an elevator point as well kind of took away from it too because it means its always got a long line leading up to it and people doing down into the gallery.

The idea is neat but they could have done better and given it some stonework and features that would fit the feel of the structures around it

People complained a lot about the pyramid when it was first built, but now it's really widely accepted and often cited as an example of a successful mix of modern and classic architectures.
Also, many presidents are best remembered for a big architectural project they overseen/planned during their term. The pyramid is strongly associated with President Mitterrand for instance. The current president doesn't have any big project like that in the pipes, so it's possible he might see a big modern take on Notre Dame as a way to be remembered in history books. This could potentially have a big influence. And clearly, the government wants to steer the project, they're not letting the people in charge of maintaining historical monuments take the decisions.

MDSW wrote:All I can say is I will be visiting Paris in a few weeks and it is an unimaginable tragedy. I do give a big 'hat's off' to the firefighters. I hear it sits on a separated piece of land(?) with water not easy to come by(?) and any early fears of losing the cathedral in its entirety was conquered by the French FD - Bravo to them!!

Yes, it's on one of the two islands on the Seine river, right at the center of Paris (there's actually a plate on the floor just in front of Notre Dame, which is the "center of Paris", as it's the reference point when measuring distances to and from Paris).
I don't have any clue about water supplies. Although they didn't seem to draw water from the river (which is like 20m from Notre Dame). I don't know if it's not an option (maybe you would need huge water pumps that they didn't have), or if water supply wasn't really an issue.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I got some groans at work a few days back when I mentioned the possibility that this fire might have been started by Quasimodo's meth lab exploding. Watch the cartoon and tell me he doesn't look like a tweeker.

So, did anyone else have "Hellfire" or "The Bells of Notre Dame" stuck in their head?

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
So, did anyone else have "Hellfire" or "The Bells of Notre Dame" stuck in their head?

100% for me. Mainly Hellfire, its definitely one of the better songs in Disney's movie repertoire.

Seems there's ongoing concern for the remaining structure, as it's now open to the elements, and it's been raining.

Fingers crossed it doesn't suffer further, avoidable damage.