Notre Dame
Comments
-
rjsterry wrote:Robert88 wrote:rjsterry wrote:briantrumpet wrote:
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.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.
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.
I didn't suggest they should not use green oak, just that they need to understand its properties in a complex construction. It is perfectly possible to work seasoned oak with good tools including tools from long ago. It does not ruin them! Apart from its stability it is a great deal lighter, having dried out. Green Oak however is readily available and can be worked more quickly with edge tools.
Unfortunately the supply of oak is going to take a hit from this sad loss. Luckily for me I have quite a stack of the stuff.0 -
Oh dear! The french want to rebuild it 'more beautiful'.
.....
Glass pyramid on each of two towers.
Rose windows replaced with images of Asterisk, CdG and Gérard Depardieu.
All the gargoyles painted Blue/White/Red
The pews and lights to be hung on the outside walls.
A new spire constructed as an homage to Napoleon's p3n1s.
French architects! Nooooooooooo!Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
Truly aged Oak is unworkable. I've tried to stick nails, pins and even screws into a 300+ year old oak beam. Impossible! It's like steel it's so hard. Although I doubt they'll find enough 300 year old oak for that to be an issue.
Macron has said it will be built better than eve. So they'll be putting a modern twist on it somehow I guess. I like the idea of rebuilding with it representing its user's views in today's age.0 -
Maybe we can send over some of Nigel's bus money, to help with the rebuild.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
I'd suspect that might be partly French architects getting all poetic with their language - I do a French Facebook Page, and they do seem to like to effervesce and outdo each other in their effusion... "trop, trop beau!" and "absolument incroyable!", where the British would just say "nice photo, mate".Mr Goo wrote:Oh dear! The french want to rebuild it 'more beautiful'.
.....
Glass pyramid on each of two towers.
Rose windows replaced with images of Asterisk, CdG and Gérard Depardieu.
All the gargoyles painted Blue/White/Red
The pews and lights to be hung on the outside walls.
A new spire constructed as an homage to Napoleon's p3n1s.
French architects! Nooooooooooo!0 -
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?
In architectural terms - Notre Dame by a mile (or several). I suppose in terms of National Cultural icons it is less clear though anyone with a bit of class who visits Paris will at least get as far as entrance queue before giving up whilst the same can't be said of WIndsor.
In numeric terms, Windsor Castle apparently clocks up about 1.3m visits per year, Notre Dame 13 million (as tourists rather than worshippers).
In terms of age, you'd probably do well to visit Windsor and see anything that looks anything like it did before the 18th century at least on the outside.Faster than a tent.......0 -
That's no different from any other thousand year old building that has been continually inhabited/used. Notre Dame was heavily restored in the 19th century, too. The spire that was lost dates from then.Rolf F wrote: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?
In architectural terms - Notre Dame by a mile (or several). I suppose in terms of National Cultural icons it is less clear though anyone with a bit of class who visits Paris will at least get as far as entrance queue before giving up whilst the same can't be said of WIndsor.
In numeric terms, Windsor Castle apparently clocks up about 1.3m visits per year, Notre Dame 13 million (as tourists rather than worshippers).
In terms of age, you'd probably do well to visit Windsor and see anything that looks anything like it did before the 18th century at least on the outside.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
There's a couple of Russian spire enthusiasts regretting their decision to visit the UK rather than France last year.0
-
One of my oldest friends lives in Paris, his wife(who is no supporter of Macron) said after his “we’re going to rebuild Notre Dame in five years and it’s going to be more beautiful than ever” remark said, say that back in Donald Trump’s voice and add “believe me” at the end and you wouldn’t be able to spot the difference
Good point!0 -
Macron - “we’re going to rebuild Notre Dame in five years and it’s going to be more beautiful than ever”
Meanwhile in Barcelona...
0 -
-
They've only been at that one 130-odd years. Macron's claim is sounding pretty Trump-esque - and that's without taking into account that the workers will probably be on strike half the time.Step83 wrote:Macron - “we’re going to rebuild Notre Dame in five years and it’s going to be more beautiful than ever”
Meanwhile in Barcelona..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
mamil314 wrote:
Yep - god made sure the firefighters were ok. Didn't mind the cathedral burning though...0 -
There's a theory going around that God is English and didn't approve of Macron's shortening of the Article 50 extension.Imposter wrote:mamil314 wrote:
Yep - god made sure the firefighters were ok. Didn't mind the cathedral burning though..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
They've only been at that one 130-odd years.Step83 wrote:Macron - “we’re going to rebuild Notre Dame in five years and it’s going to be more beautiful than ever”
Meanwhile in Barcelona...
You know it’s a cathedral right? They take chuffing ages to be built.
If you’ve ever been inside, the sagrada famigla is really quite stunning, even if it’s not to taste. It’s other worldly. Never seen anything like it.
I’m not at all religious but I absolutely love a cathedral and have gone quite out of my way at times to visit them. Absolutely love a good one. Bit of thing for me.
Quite a few cathedrals have had terrible damage in one way or other. Occupational hazard of being around for a very long time. They get rebuilt a little differently every time as a result of the contemporary context; avoiding the same thing occurring or different materials and techniques that are available etc etc.
FWIW whenever it happens there is also often a debate on whether to stick to what was there before or modernise it.
Some things don’t change.
As long as they recreate the level of wonder notre dame had, it’ll be fine.0 -
Exactly my point about Macron being over-optimistic and a bit Trumpesque.Rick Chasey wrote:Stevo 666 wrote:
They've only been at that one 130-odd years.Step83 wrote:Macron - “we’re going to rebuild Notre Dame in five years and it’s going to be more beautiful than ever”
Meanwhile in Barcelona...
You know it’s a cathedral right? They take chuffing ages to be built.
If you’ve ever been inside, the sagrada famigla is really quite stunning, even if it’s not to taste. It’s other worldly. Never seen anything like it.
Yep, been to the Sagrada a couple of times (we love Barcelona) - great, but it will be even better when they finally finish it."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
if its like my work place theyll claim its completed long before it is, and probably multiple times, so if its even vaguely close to being just safe to re-open to the public just before the Olympics theyll announce "Mission Accomplie", and claim the rest of it is more renovation to do post Olympics0
-
rjsterry wrote:
That's no different from any other thousand year old building that has been continually inhabited/used. Notre Dame was heavily restored in the 19th century, too. The spire that was lost dates from then.Rolf F wrote: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?
In architectural terms - Notre Dame by a mile (or several). I suppose in terms of National Cultural icons it is less clear though anyone with a bit of class who visits Paris will at least get as far as entrance queue before giving up whilst the same can't be said of WIndsor.
In numeric terms, Windsor Castle apparently clocks up about 1.3m visits per year, Notre Dame 13 million (as tourists rather than worshippers).
In terms of age, you'd probably do well to visit Windsor and see anything that looks anything like it did before the 18th century at least on the outside.
So from that I infer that you can't tell the difference between these two....
There is a difference if you look closely enough - same applies to Notre Dame and Windsor......Faster than a tent.......0 -
One expert on Notre Dame said on radio that you'd be hard pressed to find and stone dating from when it read built. I think he was exaggerating but it's probably no more authentic medieval than Windsor.rjsterry wrote:
That's no different from any other thousand year old building that has been continually inhabited/used. Notre Dame was heavily restored in the 19th century, too. The spire that was lost dates from then.Rolf F wrote: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?
In architectural terms - Notre Dame by a mile (or several). I suppose in terms of National Cultural icons it is less clear though anyone with a bit of class who visits Paris will at least get as far as entrance queue before giving up whilst the same can't be said of WIndsor.
In numeric terms, Windsor Castle apparently clocks up about 1.3m visits per year, Notre Dame 13 million (as tourists rather than worshippers).
In terms of age, you'd probably do well to visit Windsor and see anything that looks anything like it did before the 18th century at least on the outside.
I do think it is culturally more important than Windsor. Historically you could say there's other cathedrals more authentic with more of their original construction though.
It's state owned and is kind of used as a centre of French culture. Whatever had happened in Paris they celebrated, declared it out ring the bells for it at ND. I haven't explained that well but I'm not quite sure the UK has an equivalent.0 -
Rolf F wrote:rjsterry wrote:
That's no different from any other thousand year old building that has been continually inhabited/used. Notre Dame was heavily restored in the 19th century, too. The spire that was lost dates from then.Rolf F wrote: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?
In architectural terms - Notre Dame by a mile (or several). I suppose in terms of National Cultural icons it is less clear though anyone with a bit of class who visits Paris will at least get as far as entrance queue before giving up whilst the same can't be said of WIndsor.
In numeric terms, Windsor Castle apparently clocks up about 1.3m visits per year, Notre Dame 13 million (as tourists rather than worshippers).
In terms of age, you'd probably do well to visit Windsor and see anything that looks anything like it did before the 18th century at least on the outside.
So from that I infer that you can't tell the difference between these two....
There is a difference if you look closely enough - same applies to Notre Dame and Windsor......
Next time you're in Windsor, look harder. St George's Chapel is 15th century and difficult to miss. 1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:
One expert on Notre Dame said on radio that you'd be hard pressed to find and stone dating from when it read built. I think he was exaggerating but it's probably no more authentic medieval than Windsor.rjsterry wrote:
That's no different from any other thousand year old building that has been continually inhabited/used. Notre Dame was heavily restored in the 19th century, too. The spire that was lost dates from then.Rolf F wrote: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?
In architectural terms - Notre Dame by a mile (or several). I suppose in terms of National Cultural icons it is less clear though anyone with a bit of class who visits Paris will at least get as far as entrance queue before giving up whilst the same can't be said of WIndsor.
In numeric terms, Windsor Castle apparently clocks up about 1.3m visits per year, Notre Dame 13 million (as tourists rather than worshippers).
In terms of age, you'd probably do well to visit Windsor and see anything that looks anything like it did before the 18th century at least on the outside.
I do think it is culturally more important than Windsor. Historically you could say there's other cathedrals more authentic with more of their original construction though.
It's state owned and is kind of used as a centre of French culture. Whatever had happened in Paris they celebrated, declared it out ring the bells for it at ND. I haven't explained that well but I'm not quite sure the UK has an equivalent.
We didn't have Victor Hugo to invent some mythology, but St Paul's plays a similar role.
I do find the cult of 'authenticity' and the idea that age is of value in itself to be missing the point. The interesting thing about Windsor or Westminster Abbey is that they have been adapted and altered continuously for a thousand years. 'Restoring' Windsor Castle to a wooden palisade would be perverse.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
St Paul's was rebuilt by Wren after the original was burnt in 1666.
Wren was a great man. After the destruction of so much of the city he produced a plan whereby it could be rebuilt more on a modern grid pattern. If he had been allowed to go ahead London would be a better city today. Instead they just stuck to the medieval pattern.
Medieval cathedrals also represent the work of the best and brightest of their day. Hopefully the restoration of Notre Dame will reflect that.0 -
Robert88 wrote:After the destruction of so much of the city he produced a plan whereby it could be rebuilt more on a modern grid pattern. If he had been allowed to go ahead London would be a better city today. Instead they just stuck to the medieval pattern.
Can you enlighten as to why London would have been a better city today if the grid pattern he proposed had been built? Different yes, better...?0 -
rjsterry wrote:Rolf F wrote:rjsterry wrote:
That's no different from any other thousand year old building that has been continually inhabited/used. Notre Dame was heavily restored in the 19th century, too. The spire that was lost dates from then.Rolf F wrote: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?
In architectural terms - Notre Dame by a mile (or several). I suppose in terms of National Cultural icons it is less clear though anyone with a bit of class who visits Paris will at least get as far as entrance queue before giving up whilst the same can't be said of WIndsor.
In numeric terms, Windsor Castle apparently clocks up about 1.3m visits per year, Notre Dame 13 million (as tourists rather than worshippers).
In terms of age, you'd probably do well to visit Windsor and see anything that looks anything like it did before the 18th century at least on the outside.
So from that I infer that you can't tell the difference between these two....
There is a difference if you look closely enough - same applies to Notre Dame and Windsor......
Next time you're in Windsor, look harder. St George's Chapel is 15th century and difficult to miss.
You know it took my bloody ages to find to straightforward jpg links to a silly 70s custom car and a sensitively restored and tweaked equivalent and 50% of them don't show up!
Yes, good point re St Georges - that is sort of an equivalent to Notre Dame but just a component of the confection that is Windsor Castle.One expert on Notre Dame said on radio that you'd be hard pressed to find and stone dating from when it read built. I think he was exaggerating but it's probably no more authentic medieval than Windsor.
I find that hard to believe at least as far as the interior is concerned - the exterior veneer is ultimately a service item like a car paint job. You can refinish it well or really badly (see Chester Cathedral). You might find that most of the exterior stone is probably post medieval (depending on what it is made of) but, aside from where the design has been deliberately altered, the original masons would probably not notice the difference. With Windsor the original masons would be saying "WTF" a lot.rjsterry wrote:I do find the cult of 'authenticity' and the idea that age is of value in itself to be missing the point. The interesting thing about Windsor or Westminster Abbey is that they have been adapted and altered continuously for a thousand years. 'Restoring' Windsor Castle to a wooden palisade would be perverse.
It's not about silliness such as restoring Windsor to what it was when it was built - just the fact that as a medieval castle, it is a pretty crap example. Mostly it is a sort of 18th and 19th century barn conversion on a grand scale and for what it is it is perfectly OK - it's a bit neither one thing nor the other and not really in the best of taste but it has uniqueness in its favour.
Notre Dame is just a very fine example of a French Gothic cathedral (and those are pretty impressive things - the vault heights in particular are often of a significantly greater scale than UK cathedrals) though, in architectural terms, there are nicer examples IMO.
Incidentally, I found it pretty idiotic how the tabloids were making a fuss about the aerial shots showing it burning in the shape of a cross. Well, it would do, it's a building shaped like a cross - cathedrals generally are. What shape should it burn in? A spiral?Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:rjsterry wrote:Rolf F wrote:rjsterry wrote:
That's no different from any other thousand year old building that has been continually inhabited/used. Notre Dame was heavily restored in the 19th century, too. The spire that was lost dates from then.Rolf F wrote: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?
In architectural terms - Notre Dame by a mile (or several). I suppose in terms of National Cultural icons it is less clear though anyone with a bit of class who visits Paris will at least get as far as entrance queue before giving up whilst the same can't be said of WIndsor.
In numeric terms, Windsor Castle apparently clocks up about 1.3m visits per year, Notre Dame 13 million (as tourists rather than worshippers).
In terms of age, you'd probably do well to visit Windsor and see anything that looks anything like it did before the 18th century at least on the outside.
So from that I infer that you can't tell the difference between these two....
There is a difference if you look closely enough - same applies to Notre Dame and Windsor......
Next time you're in Windsor, look harder. St George's Chapel is 15th century and difficult to miss.
You know it took my bloody ages to find to straightforward jpg links to a silly 70s custom car and a sensitively restored and tweaked equivalent and 50% of them don't show up!
Yes, good point re St Georges - that is sort of an equivalent to Notre Dame but just a component of the confection that is Windsor Castle.One expert on Notre Dame said on radio that you'd be hard pressed to find and stone dating from when it read built. I think he was exaggerating but it's probably no more authentic medieval than Windsor.
I find that hard to believe at least as far as the interior is concerned - the exterior veneer is ultimately a service item like a car paint job. You can refinish it well or really badly (see Chester Cathedral). You might find that most of the exterior stone is probably post medieval (depending on what it is made of) but, aside from where the design has been deliberately altered, the original masons would probably not notice the difference. With Windsor the original masons would be saying "WTF" a lot.rjsterry wrote:I do find the cult of 'authenticity' and the idea that age is of value in itself to be missing the point. The interesting thing about Windsor or Westminster Abbey is that they have been adapted and altered continuously for a thousand years. 'Restoring' Windsor Castle to a wooden palisade would be perverse.
It's not about silliness such as restoring Windsor to what it was when it was built - just the fact that as a medieval castle, it is a pretty crap example. Mostly it is a sort of 18th and 19th century barn conversion on a grand scale and for what it is it is perfectly OK - it's a bit neither one thing nor the other and not really in the best of taste but it has uniqueness in its favour.
Notre Dame is just a very fine example of a French Gothic cathedral (and those are pretty impressive things - the vault heights in particular are often of a significantly greater scale than UK cathedrals) though, in architectural terms, there are nicer examples IMO.
Incidentally, I found it pretty idiotic how the tabloids were making a fuss about the aerial shots showing it burning in the shape of a cross. Well, it would do, it's a building shaped like a cross - cathedrals generally are. What shape should it burn in? A spiral?
Oh, so that's what you're getting at.
Of course Windsor isn't an example of an unaltered medieval castle, but it's a great example of a royal palace continuously inhabited up to the present. The great examples of unaltered castles tend to be ruined.
Talking of taste, do you think that the French should take the opportunity to restore the original medieval colour scheme to the interior or stick with the bare stone?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Lots of historic places and buildings have been damaged by fire, it's an interesting mark on their timeline when people go to the visitor centre in 300 years time.
Also, we are actors in history, not just observers. I'd be in favour of a tasteful and non-replica rebuild provided it is sympathetic to the existing structure.Ben6899 wrote: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...
I can't imagine how expensive it would be but I'm sure they will find it. Engineered timber is quite a big thing though0 -
Steel and titanium would be my preference. Let's modernise and improve. I think that's what is usually done to ND in the past so why not make it using the best modern materials and methods?0
-
Tangled Metal wrote:Steel and titanium would be my preference. Let's modernise and improve. I think that's what is usually done to ND in the past so why not make it using the best modern materials and methods?
Modern engineered timber products, hooray for wood0
