Ah, so you loved the design presented to the competition? And would have loved the building if it had been built as originally designed?
Last edited:
Perhaps it was an earlier report I read but ironically ir said that they DIDN't have an electric alarm and sprinkler system, so as to prevent any electric sparking. My understanding was that the fire was caused by the construction equipment, not sure if it was electrical problems with the equipment.. Kind of damned if you do Damned if you don't. (again ironic for a church- that was a very funny comment by gpauk IMHO.) Many sprinkler systems don't use electricity at all to trigger, so wouldn't cause sparks. OTOH sometime they trigger accidentally, and that alone would probably have destroyed a lot of stuff. In some scenarios, things like the organ, alter, relics could have been more damaged by water than the fire.
Very large timbers usually take a long time to start burning. And buildings with large timbers are considered "somewhat fireproof" in the building codes. Not saying that they were right in this case obviously! Probably the roof timbers burned so quickly because they were very old and dry and the metal roof probably trapped the heat very effectively.
As far as budget, as has also been discussed there are literally hundreds of historic buildings in France that need maintenance. And Italy and many other countries. That sort of restoration work is very expensive, and politics is indeed an issue when you start to hear complaints that that sort of money should be spent to help the "regular families" not exotic art projects and restorations. OTOH Notre Dame was a "cash cow" if you consider how many tourists come to see it among other treasures in Paris.
It shouldn't take anywhere near the time it took to construct the building originally to repair it. The stone walls, columns and arches which are the major part of the construction (carving stone is hard, plus much decorative carving.. ) are apparently not (very?) damaged. The spire was built in the 1800's as has been mentioned and certainly didn't take hundreds of years to build! I'm not an expert on this sort of construction, but it appear the majority of the work was the roof beams and roof, and also the "ceiling" that was between the roof structure and the open spaces below. That was damaged by falling timbers I believe, and I'm not sure what it was made if- certainly had carved stone, but maybe some plaster too? I'm sure that will be quite the project , but not like starting from scratch.
One argument that might be reasonable would be to completely restore all aspects of the building, for instance the stained glass rose windows which were apparently undamaged, might need to be restored in some way just due to age, and it might be the logical time to do such a thing. And that would be much much more expensive. Even if all the restoration is done by hand, modern scaffolding, cranes, transportation etc. will be much more efficient than construction 800 years ago.
I think probably the point ToS was making is that rushing to decide what to do because of political expediency, is often a huge mistake.
I can't agree more!
Very large timbers usually take a long time to start burning. And buildings with large timbers are considered "somewhat fireproof" in the building codes. Not saying that they were right in this case obviously! Probably the roof timbers burned so quickly because they were very old and dry and the metal roof probably trapped the heat very effectively.
As far as budget, as has also been discussed there are literally hundreds of historic buildings in France that need maintenance. And Italy and many other countries. That sort of restoration work is very expensive, and politics is indeed an issue when you start to hear complaints that that sort of money should be spent to help the "regular families" not exotic art projects and restorations. OTOH Notre Dame was a "cash cow" if you consider how many tourists come to see it among other treasures in Paris.
It shouldn't take anywhere near the time it took to construct the building originally to repair it. The stone walls, columns and arches which are the major part of the construction (carving stone is hard, plus much decorative carving.. ) are apparently not (very?) damaged. The spire was built in the 1800's as has been mentioned and certainly didn't take hundreds of years to build! I'm not an expert on this sort of construction, but it appear the majority of the work was the roof beams and roof, and also the "ceiling" that was between the roof structure and the open spaces below. That was damaged by falling timbers I believe, and I'm not sure what it was made if- certainly had carved stone, but maybe some plaster too? I'm sure that will be quite the project , but not like starting from scratch.
One argument that might be reasonable would be to completely restore all aspects of the building, for instance the stained glass rose windows which were apparently undamaged, might need to be restored in some way just due to age, and it might be the logical time to do such a thing. And that would be much much more expensive. Even if all the restoration is done by hand, modern scaffolding, cranes, transportation etc. will be much more efficient than construction 800 years ago.
I think probably the point ToS was making is that rushing to decide what to do because of political expediency, is often a huge mistake.
I can't agree more!
Last edited:
All the sprinkler systems I have seen in the USA use a fuseable link made of a bismuth alloy. it has a very low melting point. The fusing of the link opens a water valve activating the sprinkler system. Once one fails, the drop in pressure as the sprinkler starts triggers the rest to operate as well. Very simple, very reliable.
Yup, that’s what I was talking about. Very reliable unless someone turns off the supply valve for the system. But there are two kinds of reliable. That it will go off when you want and not when you don’t. Water damage is a thing, and one does read about that happening. Although one great thing about the place is again, that it is made of rocks, so pretty pretty hard to damage in some ways. The “furnishings” and interior materials are more vulnerable. I was most concerned about the windows.
Last edited:
Ah! I always wondered about that. The individual mechanisms are clearly visible; I catch myself studying them while waiting in line at restaurants etc.
Until now, I'd always assumed the only ones that went off were those in the immediate vicinity of the heat source, and the TV/movie scenes where they all let loose was just for dramatic effect. Turns out those scenes are accurate after all, eh?
Sorry, you do not know what you are talking about.
The rock structure of a gothic cathedral highly depends of the stone compression property.
Fire and water damage at the above side of archs is dramatic because that is where the stones are hard working compression wise to give the arch strength.
Stone weakness there, means the arch is lost.
This damage has not been evaluated yet and will take time to dry.
Rather than speculating, it is time to study the marvel of cathedral stone building and understand centuries of crafting and engineering.
yes good points, I nm no expert on gothic construction. My point is that people are assuming that the building will need to be entirely reconstructed. So we agree that it is too early to say. Of course things like flying buttresses are exposed to "water damage" often and survive. So is it confirmed by you that being wet weakens stone in compression?
Last edited:
One thing I saw mentioned is that there was an accumulation of dust in the roof area, which could have acted as a fire starter.
Regular cleaning of those spaces is considered a fire prevention measure.
Jan
That could be the case. In things such as "grain elevators" as we call them in the U.S.-Those tall tubular buildings that store grain, dust from the grain will not only accelerate a fire, it will cause large explosions. This is because the vegetable matter is flammable, but the dust has so much surface area, that it's extremely flammable to the point of exploding! It seems that the degree of flammability would depend on what the dust was composed of.
Last edited:
Any dust on top of the ceiling is most likely to be coal soot dating back to when raw coal was burned for heating.
When fixing up an old house in UK I found two inches of coal soot on top of the upstairs ceilings.
It is like laser printer or photocopier toner.
When fixing up an old house in UK I found two inches of coal soot on top of the upstairs ceilings.
It is like laser printer or photocopier toner.
The dust found in the Notre Dame ceiling space will most certainly have be made up of coal or candle soot, but also particles of human skin, clothing and hair, plus airborn deposits of pollen and vegative matter wafted in from outside. Quite a heady mix that would have burnt very hot and fast under a leaded roof on a warm sunny day. Because the fire services got to work almost immediately, it would have meant that spraying water onto fire heated stonework was kept at an absolute minimum without extensive damage caused by thermal cracking from escaping steam. It all depends upon the geological composition of the stonework, so fingers crossed.
We don't know the extent of this damage - yet, but my own experience of making things by hand is it usually takes twice the cost and three times as long, and Macron's guesstimate of fives years is woefully off the mark. You can only have a finite number of workers on site at any one time, they only have two hands each, those hands get tired, and there is a limit to what can be done with powered tools in a handcrafted environment.
It is going to take several years to assess the damage before the restoration proper can begin, and a billion Euros will not make the process any quicker.
ToS
We don't know the extent of this damage - yet, but my own experience of making things by hand is it usually takes twice the cost and three times as long, and Macron's guesstimate of fives years is woefully off the mark. You can only have a finite number of workers on site at any one time, they only have two hands each, those hands get tired, and there is a limit to what can be done with powered tools in a handcrafted environment.
It is going to take several years to assess the damage before the restoration proper can begin, and a billion Euros will not make the process any quicker.
ToS
Last edited:
There will be some candle soot however it is surrounded by buildings that had open hearth fires for many years.
The soot just found its way into the roof space and settled over the years.
The soot may have provided some limited insulation for the ceilings during the fire.
The soot just found its way into the roof space and settled over the years.
The soot may have provided some limited insulation for the ceilings during the fire.
So that's what's on top of my wardrobe! 😱
Attachments
The Hidden Challenge of the Restoration of Notre-Dame
by Thierry Meyssan
The Hidden Challenge of the Restoration of Notre-Dame, by Thierry Meyssan
by Thierry Meyssan
The Hidden Challenge of the Restoration of Notre-Dame, by Thierry Meyssan
I take away this quote:
"Another decision was made: to stifle any debate on the causes of the fire in order to avoid a judicial inquiry disturbing this beautiful arrangement."
I didn't love it and wouldn't have been as critical of it if it was built as originally envisioned.