Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.