I was up on the rooftop three weeks ago.
What is more incredible is how untouched everything that was not directly touched by the fire is.
Inside the church itself, the wood, the chairs, the organs.. incredible condition.
There is massive consolidation work to do, but at least from what I saw, the news is better than you would probably believe.
The guys doing the consolidation are working "real time" on the structure, shoring up what is necessary as soon as they notice. Rapidly shifting priorities and tasks.
There were definitely parts that could easily collapse, bit again, compared to the rest of the structure, they appear to be minimal.
The overriding feeling I had was: Hats off to the firemen for the incredible restraint and foresight that they applied.
Hey, I remember your comments from the day of the fire. Your photos from the top of the spire are amazing. My father went to the rooftop probably at the same time as you, so he had the same conclusion; the structure is quickly being shored up and the teams know what they're doing.
I don't understand what report the article is reacting to, because Vannucci's study is three years old and I haven't heard anything concerning on that topic lately.
Oh and if you don't mind me asking, were you invited to the rooftop because you were involved in the spire study before? Or did you take part in the operations?
We had contacted the DRAC (governing body for patrimony and culture), but things were on lockdown because someone had leaked photos to the press, which had caused all sorts of chaos.
One of the managers of the consolidation companies is a close friend, so we were able to head up under their jurisdiction.
Again, the south and north towers are spotless inside, as is the nave (apart from the obvious 3 holes in the roof..).
The stained glass, even directly under the collapsed sections were intact (and being meticulously removed)
The wall sections on the shorter arms of the roof section were the most unstable parts, as the roof and beams are obviously gone. The North wall was already reinforced, and they were in the process of doing the same on the south wall.
One of the biggest challenges will be removing the scaffolding, which is melted, twisted and a general mess.
It was also incredible to see cooled lead flows from the mouths of the gargoyles.
Again, the resounding feeling from the visit and the workers was one of hope and relief.
I was able to take a few under strict "eyes only" conditions.
There had been photo leaks a few days prior of someone who had bluffed through the security and sold photos to the press.
The press were going through the same day I was there, there are surely similar / better images that mine online.
Why is there an issue with photos of a public structure being released to the public? Have the rights to professional photos of Notre Dame been sold to a private entity a la the Eiffel Tower?
The rights to the Eiffel Tower have never been sold to a private entity, but the private entity that designed the night lighting kept their rights on it (which is the default, if the city didn't specifically ask for the rights to be transferred in the contract).
I don't think that's a good situation, but it has nothing to do with selling rights to a private entity.
It would have completely destroyed the vaults, and everything inside.
The firemen had planned to let the roof burn - it would have been impossible to stop, and would have pulled resources from the more inport tasks, namely protecting the towers and keeping the inside temperatures below flash point.
The North Tower was particularly important: the bells are mounted on a wooden frame that is independent of the stonework - when they sound, the wooden structure absorbs the movement and weight changes, so the tower structure isn't stressed. If this structure burnt, the bells would have fallen, causing catastrophic damage to the tower and probably the structure itself.
As it stands, there were only three holes punched through the vault - which is incredible considering the weight and heat directly above them.
The firemen came under intense criticism during and immediately after the blaze, but the proof is most definitely in the result.
My parents were both involved in post-fire salvage operations at Notre-Dame and though I'm necessarily a bit biased towards their opinions, I wish we wouldn't share any self-branded expert's take on what went wrong or how things should be done. Some of the most qualified people in the country are working on the site and aren't being interviewed. As the article states, the man in charge of the restoration is an Architecte en chef des monuments historiques; preserving and restoring state-owned monuments is his job and he's accompanied by other architects of the same training. I fully agree with the author in that they should be the ones designing the reconstructed spire, not a worldwide art project as the president suggests. As far as the "independent report" about the stability of the building, it has not made the news here so far.
Yes. But I would not be at all surprised if large steel temporary shoring beams were soon placed inside to brace the columns against inward forces. Very common in California after earthquakes.[1]
This cathedral is the highest in France, but it had some design flaws, with part of the vault collapsing during the construction, and then, the huge spire collapsed during Ascension Day in 1573. It was never finished because of that.
This cathedral is also quite interesting because of this unfinished state as it permits to compare the old roman cathedral vs the new gothic cathedral, showing the huge increase in scale between the twos:
Yes, that was done in the days following the fire. But the article seems to put that in doubt, based on a report that I believe was written _prior_ to the incident.
I find it weird that there would be serious consideration for anything other than a durable clone of the original.
I'd faithfully copy the exterior, switching the material to something that will last. The obvious choice is a good-quality stainless steel to replace the wood, and a glassy substance (granite? porcelain?) to replace any limestone or marble. Another choice is phosphor bronze. Nickel is another option.
> I find it weird that there would be serious consideration for anything other than a durable clone of the original.
Why? The "original" (i.e. the thing that burned) was the result of numerous changes for functional and fashionable reasons over the century. The famous Viollet-lde-duc spire was a recent change only 150 years old. Life is change; cities and old buildings are palimpsests; to try to ape an earlier age is a form of cultural death.
The same is true of the Louvre which has grown and changed in use and shape for 900s years and few complain about that.
Regardless of what happens, the result will disappoint and even enrage many people. Either it will be an attemptt to be authentic, but won't be authentic enough for everyone, or it won't be and that will cause a different kind of outrage. And every change will be mourned by some as a "missed opportunity". C'est la vie!
Usually if someone vandalises an old painting, the gallery attempts to restore it to how it was before; the need for new, modern artworks is fulfilled by different paintings elsewhere in the gallery.
If someone slashes a Rembrandt, people would be aghast if you suggested Banksy stencil over the damage or Hirst submerge it in formaldehyde, no matter how modern and popular those artists may be.
Of course, there are various reasons one might argue the same rationale doesn't apply to buildings.
Interestingly a “restoration” of a damaged Rembrandt will typically not result in what the painter saw and oxidization and other degeneration will have changed the various paints in different ways over the centuries.
What is the appropriate repair point? Why should Violet-le-duc’s change be (or not be) privileged over more modern changes? The point of the building was to serve the people of a given time and it was adapted many times over the centuries to different usage models. Even the big plaza out front is relatively new (I have seen historical novels that anachronistically assumed the plaza to have been there, e.g. The Baroque Cycle).
This idea (replicate old structure in a new material) is not really a thing in building conservation. One reason for this is that the dimensions of structural elements are a function of the properties of the original material: it just doesn't make sense to replace a timber beam with a steel one of the same dimensions.
The presence of timber in a historic structure obviously makes it less durable and fire-resistant, but it is authentic, and that is something that is taken very seriously.
It's like an old recipe, an old painting, or an old piece of music. Nobody who is seriously engaged with those things believes in improving them by substituting modern high-tech elements in the course of recreating/restoring an original.
In the old recipe, we replace the margarine with butter. We always replace the passenger pigeon, typically with chicken, but there may be higher-quality substitutes.
If you want to paint in the style of Rembrandt, you can do that without deadly toxic vermilion.
Music by Mozart and Berlioz is not normally played on the serpent or ophicleide. We're even beginning the process of replacing the contrabassoon with the contraforte.
So likewise, if you want to replace a heavy roof that supports fire and insects and fungus, you would use materials without those problems. The steel replacement beam may be of the original dimensions if it is hollow, but that only makes sense for something externally visible. Unseen internal structure need not replicate the original.
Fire protection systems are "inauthentic" too, and weren't included for that reason, with the end result being that we lost a lot more authenticity from the fire than would have been lost just by including fire protection.
Anyway, the wood is inside the roof. It's not even visible unless you go up into the attic. Would it really be such a big deal to replace it with steel trusses?
There's a role for modern technology to play in preserving older technology. Sometimes you need to retrofit the old stuff with the modern in order to preserve as much as possible over the long run. That's the case here.
Of course fire prevention measures can and should be taken in old buildings. Installing unobtrusive systems with the goal of protecting an authentic structure is routine, as is finding any and all possible ways of mitigating fire hazards without changing the character of the building.
This is a totally separate issue from the bizarre hylomorphic idea of replacing limestone and marble with granite(?!) and porcelain.
Here's an example of unseen functional reinforcement of an historic roof with a modern steel truss: https://www.julianharraparchitects.co.uk/st-annes-limehouse. This is a case of pragmatism and economy. It's a long way from completely replacing the roof structure with a modern solution.
The idea that is going around of rebuilding the roof of Notre Dame with diamond/Kryptonite/carbon fiber as a way of trumpeting how advanced we are is annoying. The consensus these days about restoration is that it should be about making humble, minimally invasive, economical changes. Just put things back in order. Put in a sprinkler system. This is not an occasion for making a tacky gesture that will only reveal how mediocre 21st C architecture is in comparison to medieval Gothic.
That steel truss is not a long way from completely replacing the roof structure with a modern solution. If anything it is more a departure from the original, which stood alone without help. It's not even an option for Notre Dame, because there is no longer any original wood or lead that one might want to save.
For a truly authentic roof appearance, only the lead surface matters. Lead is actually an awful substance to use though. It had cracked, letting in water to rot the wood. Swapping out that metal for one that is lighter and more durable would be sensible. I don't think it would be sacrilege to pick a better metal. Suggestions: phosphor bronze, surgical stainless steel, nickel, titanium, titanium nitride, titanium aluminum nitride, gold leaf over aluminium oxynitride, Monel, Inconel, cupronickel. Some examples here: http://finemetalrooftech.com/products/metal-shingles/
Limestone gargoyles only last a century. They aren't even old! They disintegrate due to the water flowing through them. The other grotesques, such as the chimera, were also pretty well disintegrated. Limestone is fundamentally terrible for long-term durability. The stone chemically dissolves, causing statues to turn crumbly and look melted. Glassy materials are far superior. All desired colors are available, so matching the original color is possible. You can go natural (white granite, black granite, etc.) or artificial.
There is nothing tacky about building with durable materials. Tacky would be like my house, with stucco over styrofoam, a very common construction method in the USA. Granite is the good stuff. Limestone is junk, almost as bad as my stucco over styrofoam.
> It's like an old recipe, an old painting, or an old piece of music. Nobody who is seriously engaged with those things believes in improving them by substituting modern high-tech elements in the course of recreating/restoring an original.
Once knew a talented artist who painted in the style of the old masters and took pride in it. Substitution, or improvement, certainly exists in that school of thought, and in practice.
Evidently your understanding of "recreating/restoring an original" encompasses brand new creative works. That is not what is at issue here: Notre Dame is an original, irreplaceable structure.
This is gobbledygook. You say that the irreplaceable thing is gone and cannot be replaced, but also that somehow we now have an opportunity to modify it?
The cathedral is mostly intact. This is a repair job, just like a repair to an Old Master painting damaged by a vandal. A restorer wouldn't use the latest and greatest synthetic painting materials (acrylics or paints with synthetic binders) to repair an old master. They might use some new technology in the process, but they wouldn't treat the job as an opportunity to indulge their personal creative vanity and leave their mark on the painting. There is more than enough creativity and self-expression in the task of restoration.
What is arguably largely intact (though, per TFA, that's true superficially but not structurally) is the result of multiple changes over a long period for a variety of different reasons (often in the context of repairs, but the past repair efforts weren't with an attitude of “restore the original with no artistic changes”.)
> just like a repair to an Old Master painting damaged by a vandal.
Except it's not like an Old Master painting, as the pre-recent-damage condition was he result of many different artistic visions at many different times, unless you are comparing all the past innovation to the work of vandals, not just the recent damage.
I'm not sure why you've been downvoted for this. Notre Dame isn't just any old building, to carry on the art analogy it's in the same league as the Mona Lisa or Sunflowers etc.
Thankfully the French do have a very strong sense of tradition and cultural identity, something that's sadly being lost in most of the rest of the western world.
Nobody today would improve on the old. That wasn't always the case.
There is a lot of historical precedent for restorers "fixing" art. (Most often adding clothing to cover private areas). Since we now know the art by the "fixed version today there is the open question of if we remove the fix or not - either way we are destroying art.
It has lots of information about how buildings were built in the past.
That isn't to say the new bits can't obviously be new, I'm not sure old buildings have to be static, they've evolved over 100s of years, why not continue that tradition?
I find it weird that there’s serious consideration to rebuilding it as it was, trying to effectively erase the fire from the building’s historical record.
What’s present-day to us will become history to future generations.
> the man in charge of the restoration is an Architecte en chef des monuments historiques
That's the professional bureaucrat overseeing the work e.g. an architect who chose to do his career in the civil service and is suffisently adept at navigating it/old enough to have been promoted. That is not in itself particularly reassuring.
Where I agree with you is that France most likely has both access to good experts and the technical know-how and means necessary to secure such a building.
> fully agree with the author in that they should be the ones designing the reconstructed spire
I completely disagree. The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ?
Since we have to build something, let's at least build something reflecting our time. It will be old soon enough. A worldwide art project will surely bring a lot more new and bold ideas to the table.
> That's the professional bureaucrat overseeing the work e.g. an architect
I'm sorry but that's absolutely wrong. You don't become an Architecte en chef by promotion, it's a competitive exam that requires extensive knowledge of art history, ancient architecture and preservation/restoration techniques. Most architects with this title have businesses of their own, they're just specialized in restoration work rather than construction work, and they're assigned a number of territories to study and preserve their monuments (as long as they're state-owned). It's not, at all, about "navigating the civil service", and since they're architects, they're not overseeing any architects besides their own employees.
> I'm sorry but that's absolutely wrong. You don't become an Architecte en chef by promotion, it's a competitive exam
No, Architecte et urbaniste de l'État is an exam (like everything regarding the civil service in France). Architecte en chef very much is a promotion. It's the grade following Architecte de l'État and preceding Architecte générale.
> Most architects with this title have businesses of their own
No, they are all civil servants and work for a minister.
> navigating the civil service
Yes, being promoted is very much about getting old and navigating the civil service. Architecte et urbaniste de l'État very much is a managing position with all it implies when you are working for the state.
You're confusing with Architecte des bâtiments de France. ACMH is a competitive exam and the Wikipedia page [1] can clear that up. I know several people who took it. It's just become very rare, like one every four years. It's definitely not a promotion, and unrelated to the ABF position (which is a part of AUE). But it is equivalent to being a civil servant, except you can have an architecture business of your own.
>Since we have to build something, let's at least build something reflecting our time.
I don't buy this idea. The original design was so beautiful that it inspired pilgrims for hundreds of years to make a trek to see it. Modern architecture is bland, glass-and-metal, uninspired crap; shiny jewels with no staying power that will be torn down within a century to make room for something else, or brutalist monstrosities put here to punish us with their brooding ugliness.
The original design was so beautiful that it inspired pilgrims for hundreds
The original design is not the cathedral that stood there before the fire. People have been adding modern touches to the cathedral for centuries, why not continue that tradition?
The spire that collapsed had been inaugurated in 1859, so it's relatively recent compared to the age of the cathedral. I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject but dismissing modern architecture as a whole before we've even seen the first proposals doesn't seem very... constructive.
1) The spire rebuilt in 1859 by Viollet-Le-Duc didn't have XIXe century look, it was heavily inspired by the one of the Orleans cathedral
2) Even with that, Viollet-Le-Duc is somewhat criticized for it's restoration works as he generally chose what looked "nice" as opposed to historical accuracy or significance.
Rebuilding the spire in a modern style would be a mistake in my opinion, or at the very least, a huge risk of style disunity of the building, rebuilding in Gothic style maybe boring but it's safe.
As to which technics could be used, that's another matter. Notre-Dame would not be the first cathedral to be rebuilt using the technics of the day.
Reims was rebuilt using concret, and the result is actually quite beautiful:
Perhaps it would be better to build something that the original designers would build if they had our technology. https://www.designboom.com/architecture/vincent-callebaut-no... looks like a good direction to me (needs to use more coloured glass and mosaics).
> The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ?
AIUI, the spire itself actually dates back to the early 19th century - if so, rebuilding one in the same style would be quite appropriate. 19th c. was the peak in scale and ambition for these sorts of works, and we should take that as our reference. Brutalist 20th-c. or 21th-c. architecture might be "ambitious" in its own terms, but it would never fit the context of a Gothic cathedral.
>an architect who chose to do his career in the civil service and is suffisently adept at navigating it/old enough to have been promoted. That is not in itself particularly reassuring...
If you believe that's all it takes to be Architecte en chef des monuments historiques in a place like France, you just don't have a full appreciation for the importance France attaches to its history and culture.
> I completely disagree. The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ?
Like the German Reichstag modifications post-reunification, but there also was a very different modification in the 1960s, early 70s. Such projects can go both directions, even on the very same building.
Most of the "entries" that people are making for designs for the roof/spire replacement, and many of the posts on here, suggest that many people think that when you were looking up in the pre-fire Notre Dame, or any other church building of similar construction, what you were/are seeing is the underside of the roof.
It isn't!
What you are seeing is stone vaulting, essentially a great big three-dimensional arch, related to a hemispherical dome in somewhat the same way as a gothic arch is related to a Romanesque rounded arch. It may or may not be painted or plastered or frescoed (ND's wasn't, I think) but the actual "ceiling" of the church—and, crucially, the structural part of what's over your head—was/is stone. The roof in a modern building is often structurally keeping the tops of the walls at a fixed distance as well as holding itself up, but in a stone cathedral, the roof was an extra layer over the top of the stonework, primarily to shed rainwater.
All of which is to say, the loss of the wooden roof structure is a lot less threatening than the loss of (some of) the vaulting; and replacing the roof with glass or stained glass would be utterly invisible from inside the church, whose ceiling would still be the stone vaulting.
Yes, I think that's something that isn't always made clear. The roof is simply used to prevent water from falling on the stone vaults; when a fire destroyed the roof and timber frame in Reims during World War I, the vaults resisted and only collapsed later because of rainfall.
I think most people understand that the stone vaults are what is seen from the inside. At least most people who have given it a tiny bit of thought or looked at any pictures. Most, but not all, of the stone vaulting remains intact, although some of it may be weakened.
While they may comprise the bulk of the structure, I don't think it is correct to say suggest that the roof and roof supports (all that timber) is merely to keep the rain off. It plays a significant role in the structure as well. Sure, without an earthquake or strong wind the valuting is strong enough, but with the roof supports gone the building is substantially less able to stand up to extreme conditions.
As for replacing the roof with something else, it would have to be done where it contributes to the structure, not just sits on top. Glass can actually be structural, in fact. I like some of the new ideas, and don't think the ones I've seen are unfeasible, but they would simply (or not so simply) be done with a whole lot of regard for adding to the structure.
Gothic architecture is fascinating because they are not only aesthetically appealing, but also very advanced (at their time) in terms of engineering. Stones are heavy, but the pointed arches and flying buttresses make Gothic churches feel light and nimble. Advanced structural design also allows Gothic churches to have larger windows as the structure is no longer solely supported by the walls, inviting more natural light into the church which contributes aesthetically and spiritually.
For me, the above statement is the reason why I would prefer the roof and spite of Notre Dame to be reconstructed in a modern design that utilizes all the advancements in architecture. The Gothic churches were built using state-of-the-art technologies hundreds of years ago, and they deserve to be rebuilt with the state-of-the-art technologies we have nowadays. If the medieval French could, they would certainly build Notre Dame with steel and glass.
Only if the modern materials and design are done with the same eye toward longevity that marked the original designs. Part of the beauty of these ancient churches is psychological... they feel permanent and timeless in a changing world.
Modern materials, on the other hand, are designed for productivity, not permanence. They hit cost targets. They're cheap and effective and sometimes even elegant, but it's highly unusual for a modern building to be built in a way that reflects an expected lifespan of centuries or even millennia.
I think one thing that's proven beyond a doubt by now, once more by this fire, is that everything that man puts up is almost by definition not timeless, unless you make it out of large piles of stone such as the pyramids.
Truly timeless is a very difficult thing (see the work by the Long Now Foundation for more on that). But I don't think that detracts from the point that these cathedrals were designed to last forever, from the perspective of the designers - the Notre Dame is 856 years old. It took about a century just to build it. It was epic, and clearly, it still is.
Who builds a building like that today? Other than the Long Now's clock, who is really building things designed to last for centuries, millennia? That's my point. Even the most epic of modern architecture generally isn't thinking beyond a century or so. Hell, my house is over 100 years old. So modern materials thinking, in its usual box, is not really up to the task of re-roofing Notre Dame in the way it deserves.
That doesn't mean we can't do it, or we should just build another flammable wooden roof. But it does mean that we need to think about how it should be done, to protect and preserve the legacy of that historic triumph of the human spirit over time itself.
If you're worried about true timelessness... even the pyramids will die someday, eaten by the relentless desert sands. But we can maybe make something that lasts as long as human civilization itself, if we try.
Eh. I'm talking about things we intend to keep in their current structure. Getting all negative about trash is kinda boring, really.
Given a reasonable extension of existing technology, we could eliminate that trash eventually. Imagine, say, machines designed to find plastic trash in the ocean, powered by ocean currents/thermals, that decompose the trash into basic releasable organics like CO2 and water. Just takes the will to do it. And hopefully someday, that will will exist.
And cleaning up the wreckage of the Industrial Revolution for the sake of future generations would be a legacy we could be proud of.
I think concrete is elegant, myself. I suspect a lot of the Brutalist architecture that's considered horrid today will be re-evaluated much more positively in a couple of centuries. It was, in its way, a way of looking forward and trying to create something timeless, which is a lot more ambitious in terms of human spirit than the anonymous glass throwaways that dominate modern architecture.
It's easy to have opinions on things, but that doesn't mean these opinions have any substance.
If modern architects choose glass buildings maybe there is more to it than just our immediate reaction.
Stewart Brand said the three enemies of all buildings are time, money, and water. He renounced is own faith in geodesic domes because they introduce unnecessary seams, especially as they get older and settle - seams that leak water.
Look at a glass building. Count the seams. Ask how serious they are about architecture that lasts.
If the medieval French could, they would certainly build Notre Dame with steel and glass.
But they couldn't and so they built it with stone and misshapen bits of coloured glass. That's part of the achievement and of what makes it a monument. Otherwise the Luxor in Vegas would be an acceptable substitute for the giant piles of stones in Giza.
Yes!... except that if we let medieval French people have their say, they would raze everything to the ground and build something entirely new. That's what they did in the 11th century; the previous cathedral was at least 700 years old and they destroyed it without blinking.
For better or worse, we have developed a fondness for past artifacts that they totally lacked; it may make sense to build something modern on top of the old structure, but we need to save what can be saved.
The glass roof is not a bad idea. It would be very French to do that. Like the I. M. Pei pyramid at the Louvre. If it's done, it will be done competently. So many people are watching.
Please, no. I am sick and tired of this international-style glass and steel business. We have plenty of buildings painted from this rather dismal palette. I'd like to see Notre Dame restored using traditional materials.
Wouldn't that drastically increase the sun exposure on the internal elements and artifacts in the church? Sun damage is noticeable in just a few years, let alone on a time scale of centuries...
That would simply create a gigantic greenhouse that would require enormous energy inputs to keep it habitable during most of the year. Not the most eco-friendly solution.
I agree that the reconstruction needs to be of its own time and place, building in the spirit of the original, not the technology of the past. One of my favorite proposals for the restoration that embodies this approach is that of architect Vincent Callebaut: http://vincent.callebaut.org/zoom/projects/190503_tributeton...
(not op) I'm not necessarily saying they should but I also think it could be really cool looking and still hold to the spirit of the building if done well.
> After the Napoleonic Wars, Notre-Dame was in such a state of disrepair that Paris officials considered its demolition.
> The stone masonry of the cathedral's exterior had deteriorated in the 19th and 20th century due to increased air pollution in Paris, which accelerated erosion of decorations and discolored the stone. By the late 1980s, several gargoyles and turrets had also fallen off or become too loose to remain in place.
If i'm not mistaken, this is by design for Gothic buildings. I forget what the proper term is, but Gothic architecture exploits dynamic tension really thoroughly. The whole building is fighting against itself to destroy itself, and so remains balanced and static.
Take a component out, and the result is unstable.
Appropirately for a cathedral, the sermons practically write themselves.
Now I'm curious how, hundreds of years ago, engineers and architects determined what designs were viable.
Did they have quantitative data about materials' tensile strength, shear strength, etc.? If yes, what kind of math did they have for applying those data? If no, how did they safely design first-of-a-kind structures?
Even the ones still standing often aren't because of fantastic original engineering but because they are the ones people have cared to carefully maintain and to perform renovations on to compensate for original engineering flaws.
And sometimes simply by sheer mistake; the leaning tower of Pisa was supposed to be supported by the Corinthian columns and limestone internal blocks, but it turns out that its structure is actually supported significantly by the marble façade.
An example is the Hagia Sophia which had a lot of reinforcements added after the original design was found to be unstable. The building you see today is not how it was originally designed to look, not just because of the minarets.
Usually very old buildings (at least the ones that have survived) are extremely overbuilt, with solid walls many times thicker than what we would use today.
As I understand it, they tried to to make sure pretty much everything was under compression, and tested using scale models (which work well in that case).
Wood and rock have such dissimilar structural properties that scale models out of wood don't say anything useful about full sized buildings out of rock.
>On an unrelated note, a sibling post, though also summarizing the article, seems to be correct. How did it get killed within a minute of posting?
Yeah. I noticed that too. I assume that the algorithm weights the time between down-votes and it got a couple real quick or something. It wasn't like it was even an opinionated comment so that's still odd.
I recently heard it called as being in a state of equilibrium. Not sure if that's the one you were thinking of, but it was in the context of ancient construction techniques and describes the same thing.
Some of the vaulting did not survive (notably, the section that the spire crashed through, and I think one other). The vaulting is what pushes the walls out while the buttresses push them in. (To my understanding, the roof, by comparison was a lot less structural—knowing that fires happen all the time, the 13th century engineers designed a roof that would burn away without destroying the underlying stonework.)
If I am pushing against you pushing the other way, and one of us stops, the other falls forward. That's what happens with a buttress without the roof and internal arches pushing the other way. Not enough to push it instantly over, but give it time or a strong wind...
This English-language article gets a lot mixed-up, Cathédrale durable was the report, it's from 2016, it correctly predicted the danger of fire in the roof, it was largely ignored by the people that mattered in France, it contained the details about wind, Vannucci recently spoke with an Italian journalist and highlighted this plus provided some additional context: https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2019/05/20/news/paolo_vannu...
Does anyone know of a kit for building a gothic architecture building consisting of small stones with pre-cut geometry? Seems like it would be fun to put together - could you use it like a puzzle and assemble with no adhesive, throw the pieces back into the box when you're done?
Presumably could be manufactured from concrete in molds, so incremental cost could be quite low.
I've wanted Anker stones for years, ever since I read about them, for precisely just that purpose. At the moment I'm (sort of) scratching that itch building Gothic-esque buildings in Minecraft. But someday...
Pity Anker stones are still so rare and expensive.
> Whether the government now launches an architectural competition or decides to rely on the highly professional bodies in charge of French monuments (in particular, the Compagnie des Architects en Chef, to which Philippe Villeneuve, the architect in charge of Notre Dame, belongs), it should demand an integrated project for the entire structure and not allow the design and implementation processes to be fragmented.
It seems to me like the author is concerned about not "updating" the building (as was done several times in the past, like the 1860 spire). It's hard to separate those concerns about his attitude about preservation from the true needs of the project.
I was thinking jokingly that this is a chance to replace that old fashioned Gothic design with a nice Modern Brutalist one. Well sure enough, there is such a cathedral:
I like the interior of the first church more than the exterior. I feel that it manages to capture the spaciousness and lightness that you expect in a cathedral, though I wish it had more of the ornamentation that you see on the older cathedrals. I've always felt that minimalism was less valuable in architecture than in other mediums like print, because one's relationship with the medium is different. With print, you already have a lot of detail for the viewer parse (in the form of text) and the viewer wants to understand it quickly. Ornamentation gets in the way there, but with buildings, there is usually nothing to parse quickly and people have all the time in the world to slowly get used to it.
Churches are an even more relevant example because they traditionally served a didactic purpose all by themselves. The buildings and the art inscribed into them served as means of propogating the culture through the generations and people going to the same cathedral every week would be surrounded murals and statuary of all sorts. They don't have to take it in all at once, they have the rest of their lives to do that and so increased detail is better.
I think that is one of the unexpected failings of the more minimal modern styles of architecture, brutalism included. At first glance they are quite striking but as time passes, they seem bland, sterile, or merely impossing.
Are you being sincere? I find the end result of replacing all of the “old fashioned” architecture with “modern” designs leaves everything, no matter the city or country, looking sterile and the same.
As an aside, there is a cathedral built during the 90s in the modernist style in France. It is in Evry, just 40km south of Paris. I have visited it, it's actually pretty nice. It's very bright inside and accoustic is supposedly very good.
I suppose because it wasn't highly quantitative or firmly within the range of known physics, back then. But since "engineering" originally referred to the building, operation and repair of siege engines, in ancient Rome; I'm with you. It was just plain engineering.
A very old (DOS days) VRML navigable fly-through Notre Dame is somewhere on my hoarde of data. I wish it had been carried forward as a thing to self navigate. The same people did a virtual cluny I think.
If anyone has the data brought into the 21st C I'd love to re-fly the nave.
if humankind (best minds) is not able to build something better in every aspect today, we as a species are on the wrong trail and should change.
We already need to change a lot (carbon free and many other problem areas) and like the Apollo program was a challenge for engineering we could start an effort in the domains of architecture and arts (and maybe others) to build something better, spiritual etc. ...
There are plenty of examples of "better" modern cathedrals being built, some are even linked in this thread. But we shouldn't lose our sense of history.
Interestingly, Notre Dame's own Wikipedia entry states it was nationalized in 1789, with several laws passed since reaffirming it's status as owned by the state and (what I interpret to mean) loaned back to the Church.
Indeed I stand corrected. Interestingly, (most) ancient cathedral are owned by the state, while (most) other churches are owned by the cities.
I made a bit of research, and while the sources are somewhat contradictory - the article linked as a source by Wikipedia contradicts what is stated on Wikipedia! - my understanding is that you are correct:
- nationalized in 1789
- the Concordat (Napoleon, 1801) confirms the state ownership, and usage is granted to the Church
- a few laws in the 19th century states the state pays for the maintenance of the building
- law in 1905 confirms (again) state ownership, usage assigned to the Church
I was waiting for the inevitable "hur dur why are we spending money on this"
If it makes you feel any better the funds are probably going to come largely/entirely from private charity and the people behind know rebuilding notre dame makes fine business sense even if you have no sympathy for the church.
_%26_North_Transept.jpg){kind=link}
There is massive consolidation work to do, but at least from what I saw, the news is better than you would probably believe.
The guys doing the consolidation are working "real time" on the structure, shoring up what is necessary as soon as they notice. Rapidly shifting priorities and tasks.
There were definitely parts that could easily collapse, bit again, compared to the rest of the structure, they appear to be minimal.
The overriding feeling I had was: Hats off to the firemen for the incredible restraint and foresight that they applied.