Notre Dame

mr_goo

Very sad to see this magnificent building destroyed by fire. So pleased that the towers were saved.

I read this morning that a couple of French billionaires have already pledged 300m euros for the rebuild. However I can't help but think that the Vatican should be footing most of the bill. Perhaps sell off some of their treasures to fund it.

rjsterry

oxoman wrote:

I'd hate to be the contractors insurance company paying out for the rebuilding. OUCH. Yes it's a shame but it can be rebuilt. Hopefully the people injured will be ok.

Given the number of major fires started during refurbishment work I'm surprised regulation isn't much tighter.

mr_goo

oxoman wrote:

I'd hate to be the contractors insurance company paying out for the rebuilding. OUCH. Yes it's a shame but it can be rebuilt. Hopefully the people injured will be ok.

One firefighter slightly injured. That's quite remarkable given the scale of the incident.

mr_goo

rjsterry wrote:

oxoman wrote:

I'd hate to be the contractors insurance company paying out for the rebuilding. OUCH. Yes it's a shame but it can be rebuilt. Hopefully the people injured will be ok.

Given the number of major fires started during refurbishment work I'm surprised regulation isn't much tighter.

Some projects have embargoes on hot works which minimises risk of fire.

DeVlaeminck

I'd like them to modernise rather than just rebuild as was even if rebuilding as was is possible. Keep what can be saved of course.

morstar

rjsterry wrote:

oxoman wrote:

I'd hate to be the contractors insurance company paying out for the rebuilding. OUCH. Yes it's a shame but it can be rebuilt. Hopefully the people injured will be ok.

Given the number of major fires started during refurbishment work I'm surprised regulation isn't much tighter.

I had the same thought that the restoration & fire theme does seem to re-occur. I guess frequently seeing old timber and lots of flammable chemicals in close proximity dramatically increases the odds of an 'event'.

Dorset_Boy

Mr Goo wrote:

Very sad to see this magnificent building destroyed by fire. So pleased that the towers were saved.

I read this morning that a couple of French billionaires have already pledged 300m euros for the rebuild. However I can't help but think that the Vatican should be footing most of the bill. Perhaps sell off some of their treasures to fund it.

The French State own the building, the Catholic Church use it, so why should the 'tenant' rather than the 'landlord' foot most of the bill?
It seems the damaged may not be 'quite' as bad as first feared, but it will still cost a huge sum to repair and restore, and it does seem pledges to help with the cost are being made.

Ben6899

Mr Goo wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

oxoman wrote:

I'd hate to be the contractors insurance company paying out for the rebuilding. OUCH. Yes it's a shame but it can be rebuilt. Hopefully the people injured will be ok.

Given the number of major fires started during refurbishment work I'm surprised regulation isn't much tighter.

Some projects have embargoes on hot works which minimises risk of fire.

Hot works are often unavoidable though.

If the contractor's Safe System of Work or Hot Works permit paperwork are drafted in a manner anything short of perfect, then they're potentially in huge trouble!

briantrumpet

morstar wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

oxoman wrote:

I'd hate to be the contractors insurance company paying out for the rebuilding. OUCH. Yes it's a shame but it can be rebuilt. Hopefully the people injured will be ok.

Given the number of major fires started during refurbishment work I'm surprised regulation isn't much tighter.

I had the same thought that the restoration & fire theme does seem to re-occur. I guess frequently seeing old timber and lots of flammable chemicals in close proximity dramatically increases the odds of an 'event'.

When I used to ring the bells at Exeter Cathedral, access to the ringing chamber was via the roof space: an awesome sight, the length of the cathedral (about 300ft), stone vaulting beneath your feet, the roof timbers stretching out almost as far as the eye could see. I think it was after the York Minster fire that they installed fire bulkheads - it would seem that similar would not have gone amiss in Paris: having hundreds of tonnes of wood that's been drying out for 850 years in a single pile, and copious supplies of oxygen propelled along a tunnel, isn't going to end well. I'm actually surprised that Notre Dame isn't just an empty shell this morning.

The similarity of the images from last night and from the burning of Reims Cathedral in the First World War are uncanny.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... _War_I.jpg

cougie

It's a huge shame but I'm not minded to give any funds to repair it when there is so much inequality in the world. If billionaires want to chip in then that's fine.

My funds will be going to People.

rolf_f

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I'd like them to modernise rather than just rebuild as was even if rebuilding as was is possible. Keep what can be saved of course.

Why? Concrete and glass? Uglify it? Look at Coventry cathedral. An ugly badly made eyesore. At least the original Cathedral was really just a big parish church but France does not need that sort of philistine solution.

As it happens, my first visit to Notre Dame was probably my worst experience of very many Cathedral/greater church visits. Shuffling through amid a virtual crush of people. Second time much better. Joined the queue before opening. Then the heavens opened and the queue dispersed. We were happy to wait five minutes more in the rain and enjoy the impressive interior when largely empty.

This is its problem - it is an immensely popular attraction. I suppose wrecking it by a thoughtless rebuild would be one solution to that problem.

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

oxoman wrote:

I'd hate to be the contractors insurance company paying out for the rebuilding. OUCH. Yes it's a shame but it can be rebuilt. Hopefully the people injured will be ok.

Given the number of major fires started during refurbishment work I'm surprised regulation isn't much tighter.

Yes, Cutty Sark. I was there just weeks before it went up. I couldn't help notice the plethora of electric cabling stapled to wooden beams. I won't kid myself into thinking that I had a feeling that this can't be a good thing. It just struck me at the time.

rolf_f

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

oxoman wrote:

I'd hate to be the contractors insurance company paying out for the rebuilding. OUCH. Yes it's a shame but it can be rebuilt. Hopefully the people injured will be ok.

Given the number of major fires started during refurbishment work I'm surprised regulation isn't much tighter.

Yes, Cutty Sark. I was there just weeks before it went up. I couldn't help notice the plethora of electric cabling stapled to wooden beams. I won't kid myself into thinking that I had a feeling that this can't be a good thing. It just struck me at the time.

And Glasgow School of Art. Twice.

laurentian

I guess part of the appeal and the aesthetic of historic buildings is that they have not been built to modern building standards with fire breaks, intumescent doors, protected timbers etc. Perhaps a simple and unobtrusive sprinkler system installed in such places could / should be a requirement. Such a shame that all of that history is lost forever

photonic69

So sad to see such a lovely and historic building burn like that.

Two things for sure - it's going to take a very long time and cost an extraordinary amount of money. I doubt that there are many/enough craftsmen left to carry out the intricate woodwork required. Also sourcing the right timbers to restore it is a huge issue. That is one big roof structure requiring massive wooden beams.

If it took 200 years to build then if it was this country it would take 500 years to repair! I'm sure the French will do it quicker - until the workers go on strike over summat.

robert88

oxoman wrote:

I'd hate to be the contractors insurance company paying out for the rebuilding. OUCH. ...

Don't worry, they hedge their risks, a.k.a reinsurance. Like bookies laying off a bet. We'll all pay a bit in the end!

PhotoNic69 wrote:

So sad to see such a lovely and historic building burn like that.

Two things for sure - it's going to take a very long time and cost an extraordinary amount of money. I doubt that there are many/enough craftsmen left to carry out the intricate woodwork required. Also sourcing the right timbers to restore it is a huge issue. That is one big roof structure requiring massive wooden beams.

If it took 200 years to build then if it was this country it would take 500 years to repair! I'm sure the French will do it quicker - until the workers go on strike over summat.

I doubt if the roof timbers can be replicated since they would have been done entirely by hand, pit saw and adze. It's likely there people in third world countries who have such skills in a different 'style'. The stonework too will be damaged, good opportunity for stonemasons, a rare skill.

But the Germans rebuilt the Frauenkirche and some of the Polish rebuilding is superb.

Ben6899

Try getting your hands on timber of anything like decent quality, nowadays. Never mind the immense amounts required to faithfully restore Notre Dame's roof structure.

It's that time when I wish I owned a composites manufacturing company...

rolf_f

PhotoNic69 wrote:

So sad to see such a lovely and historic building burn like that.

Two things for sure - it's going to take a very long time and cost an extraordinary amount of money. I doubt that there are many/enough craftsmen left to carry out the intricate woodwork required. Also sourcing the right timbers to restore it is a huge issue. That is one big roof structure requiring massive wooden beams.

If it took 200 years to build then if it was this country it would take 500 years to repair! I'm sure the French will do it quicker - until the workers go on strike over summat.

It took four years to repair the South transept of York Minster after the 1984 fire so I suspect we won't need to wait 500 years for Notre Dame to be repaired. Somewhere in the 10 -20 year timescale I suspect is likely.

briantrumpet

Rolf F wrote:

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

oxoman wrote:

I'd hate to be the contractors insurance company paying out for the rebuilding. OUCH. Yes it's a shame but it can be rebuilt. Hopefully the people injured will be ok.

Given the number of major fires started during refurbishment work I'm surprised regulation isn't much tighter.

Yes, Cutty Sark. I was there just weeks before it went up. I couldn't help notice the plethora of electric cabling stapled to wooden beams. I won't kid myself into thinking that I had a feeling that this can't be a good thing. It just struck me at the time.

And Glasgow School of Art. Twice.

And the Royal Clarence Hotel in Exeter - that was refurb in an adjacent building, and again it was the network of timber in the old buildings that almost turned it into the Great Fire of Exeter a couple of years ago. As it was, the fire brigade were going into adjacent buildings and finding wood-filled cavities that nobody really knew were there.

robert88

And of course there was Mr & Mrs Windsor's:

a curtain was ignited by a spotlight pressed up against it

We have LED bulbs now.

rolf_f

briantrumpet wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

oxoman wrote:

I'd hate to be the contractors insurance company paying out for the rebuilding. OUCH. Yes it's a shame but it can be rebuilt. Hopefully the people injured will be ok.

Given the number of major fires started during refurbishment work I'm surprised regulation isn't much tighter.

Yes, Cutty Sark. I was there just weeks before it went up. I couldn't help notice the plethora of electric cabling stapled to wooden beams. I won't kid myself into thinking that I had a feeling that this can't be a good thing. It just struck me at the time.

And Glasgow School of Art. Twice.

And the Royal Clarence Hotel in Exeter - that was refurb in an adjacent building, and again it was the network of timber in the old buildings that almost turned it into the Great Fire of Exeter a couple of years ago. As it was, the fire brigade were going into adjacent buildings and finding wood-filled cavities that nobody really knew were there.

Not sure why I forgot that. I stayed there a short while before the fire - in what I think was the only room that wasn't completely destroyed.

EDIT - actually, Notre Dame isn't looking so bad now. Most of the nave and transept vaulting seems to be intact. If structurally OK it could be a far less time consuming repair than it first looked.

mouth

I was genuine;y quite upset when I caught this on BBC News last night. I remember visiting when I was 7 or 8 - 30 years ago now - and wondering why people bothered with the Eiffel Tower instead. I went to Disney in December and we toyed with the idea of visiting the city centre to see some stuff, and I really wish we had now.

A lady who I work with lived and worked in Paris for a couple of years in her late teens and lived pretty much in the shadows of the Cathedral. When I saw (and unfortunately broke the news to) her she was distraught. Went on to tell us that when she was over there she, as a Catholic, sought a lot of solace there when alone from home. An outsider would have believed that she'd just found out someone close to her had died.

Thankfully, and perhaps miraculously, nobody perished in the incident.

rjsterry

briantrumpet wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

oxoman wrote:

I'd hate to be the contractors insurance company paying out for the rebuilding. OUCH. Yes it's a shame but it can be rebuilt. Hopefully the people injured will be ok.

Given the number of major fires started during refurbishment work I'm surprised regulation isn't much tighter.

Yes, Cutty Sark. I was there just weeks before it went up. I couldn't help notice the plethora of electric cabling stapled to wooden beams. I won't kid myself into thinking that I had a feeling that this can't be a good thing. It just struck me at the time.

And Glasgow School of Art. Twice.

And the Royal Clarence Hotel in Exeter - that was refurb in an adjacent building, and again it was the network of timber in the old buildings that almost turned it into the Great Fire of Exeter a couple of years ago. As it was, the fire brigade were going into adjacent buildings and finding wood-filled cavities that nobody really knew were there.

The first Mac fire was not maintenance related, but there was a large National Trust property gutted by fire during repair work.The problem is not the wood. It's the higher risk environment that maintenance work involves and the fact that compartmentation will probably be compromised by the works.

Not sure why people think the timber structure will be difficult to replace. Green oak framing is alive and well as an industry (if something of a luxury) and most of the timber is French. Cathedrals are under a continuous state of maintenance so there will be the skilled tradesmen available. It's just a question of money and how close to the original you want to be.

tailwindhome

......

awavey

Rolf F wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I'd like them to modernise rather than just rebuild as was even if rebuilding as was is possible. Keep what can be saved of course.

Why? Concrete and glass? Uglify it? Look at Coventry cathedral. An ugly badly made eyesore. At least the original Cathedral was really just a big parish church but France does not need that sort of philistine solution.

As it happens, my first visit to Notre Dame was probably my worst experience of very many Cathedral/greater church visits. Shuffling through amid a virtual crush of people. Second time much better. Joined the queue before opening. Then the heavens opened and the queue dispersed. We were happy to wait five minutes more in the rain and enjoy the impressive interior when largely empty.

This is its problem - it is an immensely popular attraction. I suppose wrecking it by a thoughtless rebuild would be one solution to that problem.

but its popular because its an iconic building that every knows about in Paris, though personally I wasnt that enamoured by it as a cathedral when I visited as it seemed incredibly dark inside & had quite an oppressive feel to the place, certainly when you visit on your own, as yes you just get stuck in this shuffling crush & mass of people,which makes it very difficult to take the place in and very claustrophobic which seems crazy given how big it is, I think I was happy just to get out of it & ticked off the bucket list, but then you cant stand around too long in front of it admiring it either because you got pestered by street sellers,though maybe not as bad as up at Sacre Coeur.

absolutely was saddened though to see it damaged by fire like that and I hope they reconstruct it as best they can, but I doubt Ill be queuing up in 20 years to go take a look again.

robert88

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

oxoman wrote:

I'd hate to be the contractors insurance company paying out for the rebuilding. OUCH. Yes it's a shame but it can be rebuilt. Hopefully the people injured will be ok.

Given the number of major fires started during refurbishment work I'm surprised regulation isn't much tighter.

Yes, Cutty Sark. I was there just weeks before it went up. I couldn't help notice the plethora of electric cabling stapled to wooden beams. I won't kid myself into thinking that I had a feeling that this can't be a good thing. It just struck me at the time.

And Glasgow School of Art. Twice.

And the Royal Clarence Hotel in Exeter - that was refurb in an adjacent building, and again it was the network of timber in the old buildings that almost turned it into the Great Fire of Exeter a couple of years ago. As it was, the fire brigade were going into adjacent buildings and finding wood-filled cavities that nobody really knew were there.

The first Mac fire was not maintenance related, but there was a large National Trust property gutted by fire during repair work.The problem is not the wood. It's the higher risk environment that maintenance work involves and the fact that compartmentation will probably be compromised by the works.

Not sure why people think the timber structure will be difficult to replace. Green oak framing is alive and well as an industry (if something of a luxury) and most of the timber is French. Cathedrals are under a continuous state of maintenance so there will be the skilled tradesmen available. It's just a question of money and how close to the original you want to be.

It will be difficult to replicate the timbers in the way they were originally constructed because they were made by craftsman whose main tool was the adze. Saws were crude and a luxury. Despite the lack of modern tools they could make a precise pegged mortise and tenon joint with great accuracy but each joint was unique - no mass production! Even if there are people with those skills it's slow and very hard labour. Adzed timbers can't be faked. (I am reasonably competent at simple adze work, I have razor sharp German implement)

Huge roofs like Notre Dame will need very complex structures. Green Oak moves until it seasons - who now can deal with that characteristic?

I am looking forward to seeing how they tackle it.

rjsterry

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

oxoman wrote:

I'd hate to be the contractors insurance company paying out for the rebuilding. OUCH. Yes it's a shame but it can be rebuilt. Hopefully the people injured will be ok.

Given the number of major fires started during refurbishment work I'm surprised regulation isn't much tighter.

Yes, Cutty Sark. I was there just weeks before it went up. I couldn't help notice the plethora of electric cabling stapled to wooden beams. I won't kid myself into thinking that I had a feeling that this can't be a good thing. It just struck me at the time.

And Glasgow School of Art. Twice.

And the Royal Clarence Hotel in Exeter - that was refurb in an adjacent building, and again it was the network of timber in the old buildings that almost turned it into the Great Fire of Exeter a couple of years ago. As it was, the fire brigade were going into adjacent buildings and finding wood-filled cavities that nobody really knew were there.

The first Mac fire was not maintenance related, but there was a large National Trust property gutted by fire during repair work.The problem is not the wood. It's the higher risk environment that maintenance work involves and the fact that compartmentation will probably be compromised by the works.

Not sure why people think the timber structure will be difficult to replace. Green oak framing is alive and well as an industry (if something of a luxury) and most of the timber is French. Cathedrals are under a continuous state of maintenance so there will be the skilled tradesmen available. It's just a question of money and how close to the original you want to be.

It will be difficult to replicate the timbers in the way they were originally constructed because they were made by craftsman whose main tool was the adze. Saws were crude and a luxury. Despite the lack of modern tools they could make a precise pegged mortise and tenon joint with great accuracy but each joint was unique - no mass production! Even if there are people with those skills it's slow and very hard labour. Adzed timbers can't be faked. (I am reasonably competent at simple adze work, I have razor sharp German implement)

Huge roofs like Notre Dame will need very complex structures. Green Oak moves until it seasons - who now can deal with that characteristic?

I am looking forward to seeing how they tackle it.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would work seasoned oak for structural framing; it would ruin your tools (especially if you aren't using modern steel) and from my understanding most medieval carpentry used green timber. I'm reasonably familiar with oak framing, having designed and overseen the construction of a house with a green oak frame, I've also visited the framing yard where they made the frame. Yes, they used some modern tools, but a great deal would be familiar to a medieval carpenter. You couldn't have got a fag paper in the joints when the frame went up.

tangled_metal

There's a lot of governments around Europe offering help. Did they do the same for the Windsor Castle fire? 949 year old castle 850 year old Cathedral. Which is more important?

More relevant is the overlooked fact that notre Dame was modernised in the 19th century. That's when he woodwork was most likely dated from. When they thoroughly updated it back then a lot of the cathedral got replaced apparently. Or that's what an expert on its history said on the radio this afternoon.

Apparently every so often France imposes its current view on what's important on notre dame when they renovate it. The expert on the radio said there needs to be a decision on how they want to rebuild it. Authentically or modernise it? What is authentic? 19th century version or medieval version? Do they actually know what the medieval version was like? The expert didn't seem to.

The good news is that the French government is meeting to decide on designating it as a national treasure (or some such legal status). This means that it'll get 95% of any money raised to rebuild instead of being taxed. Isn't that good news?

Apparently a billion euros have been raised so far. Well offers to bthe value of a billion euros. Let's hope it really does happen.

green_mark

Tangled Metal wrote:

Apparently a billion euros have been raised so far. Well offers to bthe value of a billion euros. Let's hope it really does happen.

Given that York Minster cost under £3m to repair in 1984 money, and Windsor Castle took £37m to repair in 1992 money, I'm thinking a billion euros is overkill.

mouth

Tangled Metal wrote:

There's a lot of governments around Europe offering help. Did they do the same for the Windsor Castle fire? 949 year old castle 850 year old Cathedral. Which is more important?

Windsor Castle is owned by a private individual though. I understand that Notre Dame is a Government facility. Either way, that's what insurance is supposed to be for. Nobody should need to be donating anything, truth be told.

pblakeney

Listening to the radio yesterday when an expert in church restoration was interviewed and two facts were evident.
1. No church is insured fully as the costs are prohibitive.
2. The skills to recreate medieval churches are not available.

Two observations.
1. A sizeable percentage of people don’t believe experts.
2. We are becoming technologically dependent and skill short.