Notre Dame what changes in the rebuild?

[Tom Bender]

So let's assume that Notre Dame will be rebuilt and sorta' similar to the original, what do we guess will be different? I can start;

1. It will have sprinklers added at least to the attic

2. It will not be lit by candles

3. Modern construction safety and environmental practices will be used

4. Modern cranes will be used

5.

[Jim Becker]

I believe they will use modern materials (IE Steel) for the roof structure, both for code/safety reasons, but also because there are no trees left in quantity that would be large enough to replace the ~13,000 oak trees that were harvested at about 300-400 years old for the original structure. Steel would also provide a positive means for them to tie the roof structure to the stone structure stronger than what was previously in place, IMHO. I suspect they will use wood where it "shows" but a large part of the original roof structure wasn't actually visible based on photos I've seen. Where wood needs to appear, it will likely be "cladding" rather than structural. And yes, modern fire protection would make sense, too. The real bottom line here...there is a ton of work that's going to have to happen for this restoration and it will be a miracle if they can pull it off in the short 3 or so year time frame that has been bantered about. Just cleaning up the mess from the fire is going to take meticulous work to insure salvageable and undamaged elements are preserved during the rebuilding.

[Julie Moriarty]

When I saw the fire and all the scaffolding I was reminded of a fire on one of the jobs I worked on. I was sitting in the lower level of what was to become a 9 story office building having lunch with a few other electricians when one of the guys on our crew came in and asked with a stone face, "Are you just going to sit there eating lunch while the building burns down?" The guy across the table gave me that look. We both knew this guy was constantly trying to get a rise out of you. But then he insisted. Finally we went outside to see what he was talking and OMG! There was a huge blaze on the top floor with black smoke billowing out. Windows that made up the screen wall were getting so hot they bowed out and fell to the ground. And there was guys trapped up there.

Everyone made it out without injury but what the Fire Department determined was someone was cutting metal studs with a chop saw before lunch. Sparks made their way into a stack of foam insulation and it was flammable. Halfway through lunch it ignited but there was no one nearby to put it out.

I heard workers at the church had just left before the fire started. Could have been the same kind of thing.

[Lee DeRaud]

The real bottom line here...there is a ton of work that's going to have to happen for this restoration and it will be a miracle if they can pull it off in the short 3 or so year time frame that has been bantered about. Just cleaning up the mess from the fire is going to take meticulous work to insure salvageable and undamaged elements are preserved during the rebuilding.Three years?!? I suspect any schedule that isn't measured in decades is unrealistic. The water damage on the lower levels will probably take much longer to deal with than the fire damage up top. Just drying it out properly is going to take a long time.
https://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-notre-dame-fire-rebuild-science-engineering-20190417-story.html

[Frank Pratt]

Three years?!? I suspect any schedule that isn't measured in decades is unrealistic. The water damage on the lower levels will probably take much longer to deal with than the fire damage up top. Just drying it out properly is going to take a long time.
https://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-notre-dame-fire-rebuild-science-engineering-20190417-story.html

I agree. I honestly can't see this being done in less than a decade. I was heavily involved in restoration of an historic building that had suffered several 'modernization' renovations over the decades. The actual construction schedule was 3 years, but took closer to 5. And this was a tiny project compared to the Notre Dame. I think the budget was somewhere around 20 - 30 million.

[Larry Frank]

I think the actual rebuild will be reasonably quick. However, there will be a long time to evaluate the structure and a long time arguing about architecture and materials to use.

[Pat Barry]

Pretty sure they won't have a lead roof this time around.

[Doug Dawson]

I believe they will use modern materials (IE Steel) for the roof structure, both for code/safety reasons, but also because there are no trees left in quantity that would be large enough to replace the ~13,000 oak trees that were harvested at about 300-400 years old for the original structure. Steel would also provide a positive means for them to tie the roof structure to the stone structure stronger than what was previously in place, IMHO. I suspect they will use wood where it "shows" but a large part of the original roof structure wasn't actually visible based on photos I've seen. Where wood needs to appear, it will likely be "cladding" rather than structural. And yes, modern fire protection would make sense, too. The real bottom line here...there is a ton of work that's going to have to happen for this restoration and it will be a miracle if they can pull it off in the short 3 or so year time frame that has been bantered about. Just cleaning up the mess from the fire is going to take meticulous work to insure salvageable and undamaged elements are preserved during the rebuilding.

There was an interesting article in the New York Times the other day, quoting a fire control expert stating that the building would have been condemned by modern standards. Unless they wanted to create another fire trap, it would seem obvious that the people in charge would put in a metal-structural roof with whatever fire breaks can be included. No sense in recreating the problems of the past. With some sensitivity, it would look the same.

[Bill Dufour]

What the attic looked like:

http://www.notredamedeparis.fr/en/la-cathedrale/architecture/la-charpente/

[Bill Dufour]

What the rebuild will look like. Go down about 1/3 of the way to see how the replaced Chartres cathedral roof after a fire in 1836. Used iron, probably riveted. Looks similar to a wooden canoe.
Bill D

https://www.abelard.org/france/cathedral_buttressing_chartres.php

[Ole Anderson]

What the attic looked like:

http://www.notredamedeparis.fr/en/la-cathedrale/architecture/la-charpente/

Now that is a very cool photo, showing beams hundreds of years old over the masonry domes.

[Edwin Santos]

Sharing one architect's vision for a re-built Notre Dame Cathedral: https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/france-notre-dame-green-scli-intl/index.html
(https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/france-notre-dame-green-scli-intl/index.html)
I hope you find it as exciting as I did. The thermal buffer zone concept is very doable. It's widely publicized that the Mall of America has no central heating despite being in Minneapolis, by use of passive solar energy.
Might not be everyone's cup of tea, but at the very least you have to marvel at the innovative thinking.

I'm really looking forward to seeing other designs come forward.

It's also interesting how architects and other artists of all types can be ahead of their time. For example in Paris, the I.M. Pei glass pyramid entry to the Louvre was absolutely reviled at first. Now it is pretty much universally regarded as a masterpiece.

Enjoy,
Edwin

[Mel Fulks]

I do not like it. That roller coaster curve at the bottom of the spire is asspire-- irrational. A design that weakens verticality
is never good.

[Mel Fulks]

My own design features a USA idea from a few decades back. Large parking lot. Each space will have a speaker that
hooks over car window. Great for over sleepers and those who failed to pick up their clothes from the cleaners.

[Edwin Santos]

My own design features a USA idea from a few decades back. Large parking lot. Each space will have a speaker that
hooks over car window. Great for over sleepers and those who failed to pick up their clothes from the cleaners.

Sorry, I read this three times, and I still don't get it. Could you explain?

[Mel Fulks]

It's just a Mel allusion to real church services that were held in drive-in movie lots. I first saw it in a 1950s
"Popular" Magazine. Haven't seen anything about them since the 1960s.

[Jim Becker]

I like that conceptual "green" design.

[Joe Mioux]

It's a roman catholic cathedral, not an amusement park.

[Patrick Walsh]

I say put it back exactly the way it was regardless of it being a fire trap or destined to burn again.

My opinion Is some things are worth preserving and retaining in their original form.

Jims point about the trees is probably valid but..

No sprinklers, nothing just a exact replica.

I know it won’t happen but that would be my opinion. If they do it in three years it will be nothing more than a pre fab trailer. I say decades is what it would really take and should imop.

I’m all for minimalist modern design and eco friendly materials with regard to utility consumption. If I was to build a new house it would be Uber contemporary and incorporate materials and design all the way from the buildings placement to the sun. But you know we’re talking about a beautiful historic building here not my house, a building we’re people go with the sole intent of making or spending money yada yada..

[Tom M King]

If they don't put it back to look like it did, that's remodeling, not preservation. If that's what they want, that's fine. Just don't call it preservation. I don't care if the roof structure goes back as steel, instead of wood, since only the few that went in the attic saw the wood anyway, but it should look the same from the outside. This is really the sort of thing I do for a living, and I have this discussion all the time.

As far as the wooden spire, if you needed an entry into a fire building contest, it would be hard to beat that design. I'm surprised a lightning strike hasn't taken it out before.

Preserving history, and changing any detail just because you like the way it looks better, are two different things. I see people changing things on old buildings all the time, and calling it preservation. Yes, they may be preserving the building, but they are not preserving history.

Remodeling Notre Dame would be a travesty.

[Tom M King]

As an example of a roof structure that can't be seen, we built these trusses, piece by piece, in a 165 year old attic. The 20 foot long 3x3 rafters were not only sagging severely, but some were losing the fight, and splitting. That roof was in danger of collapse. It would be rare that anyone would go into that attic. If we had not "helped" the structure, the whole building would probably have been lost. On the outside, it now looks like it did originally, only without the severe roof sag.
http://historic-house-restoration.com/sitebuilder/images/CIMG2142_1280x960_-469x362.jpg (http://historic-house-restoration.com/images/CIMG2142_1280x960_.jpg)

Here is another example of a structural change that is not visible from the outside, or even inside the rooms, but should add longevity. In the 28 window sash in this 1898 house, that I built reproduction sash for, every mortise, and tenon joint where muntins meet glazing bars in the field of the windows, had broken except for one. They had taken all the wood from inside the mortises on the glazing bars.

I changed the design to leave 1/8" of wood between the mortises, and used a smaller tenon (not so thick) on the muntins. I don't know if it will work, but it should be a lot stronger. Someone else will find out in another 200 years, because I used the exact same type of wood, and every other detail of the sash construction matches the originals.

http://historic-house-restoration.com/sitebuilder/images/windows4_012-500x387.jpg (http://historic-house-restoration.com/images/windows4_012.JPG)

This is really my argument for changing the roof structure of Notre Dame to something that won't burn again in another eight hundred years.

[lowell holmes]

The World lost a treasured landmark. It makes me sad.

[Tom M King]

It's not lost yet-just suffered a major set-back.

[Edwin Santos]

The World lost a treasured landmark. It makes me sad.

Lowell,
Indeed the landmark has taken a significant amount of damage but it's not gone so the world hasn't lost it.

Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I think the opportunity exists for it to be restored to be improved yet true to the original. For example there now exists building technology that will allow for greater introduction of natural light from up high that never existed before. That one thing by itself can be a very powerful feature in a spiritual building. I think some very interesting proposals are going to come forward, and it does not look like access to funds will be an obstacle.

409653

[Mel Fulks]

And the spire was a late remodel thing that was always controversial.

[Doug Dawson]

And the spire was a late remodel thing that was always controversial.

Let's face it, it looked ridiculous. "You have a tiny spire!" with a chicken on top. Who thought of that. Somebody was laughing all the way to the grave. Sacre!

[Patrick Walsh]

I guess I’m just a purist. I pretty much side on “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”

I understand the common beliefs at this point is probably with advances in building materials it would be broken to reproduce what was.

Let’s just leave it at I don’t agree with that logic..

[Edwin Santos]

I guess I’m just a purist. I pretty much side on “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it”

I understand the common beliefs at this point is probably with advances in building materials it would be broken to reproduce what was.

Let’s just leave it at I don’t agree with that logic..

If Pope Julius II had shared your purist opinion, St. Peter's Basilica as we know it today would not exist, and instead it would have remained as it was originally built in the 4th century under Constantine. Technically it functioned just fine, but he thought they could do better and made a gutsy decision to demolish and replace it with a bold new scheme. Amid quite a bit of controversy, he and his successor popes hired a series of modern architects, one of whom was Michelangelo.

I hear your opinion loud and clear, but I think it is undeniable that very little of the world's great architecture was designed with a backward looking, or even a let's-keep-the-status-quo philosophy.

However I do share a bit of your attitude in the sense that I hope for a way to respect the existing design in the course of enhancing it. I don't think anyone is suggesting the entire Notre Dame Cathedral structure should be thrown out the window and replaced from scratch with something entirely new (even though that's exactly what Pope Julius II did with St. Peter's)

One thing's for sure, nobody in a decision making capacity for the project is soliciting either of our opinions!

[Tom M King]

There are always "purists" in these discussions. That's why I included my two examples. What would a purist do with breaking rafters that were badly undersized to start with? Also, on the window sash stuctural change, would it be best to build the reproductions taking all the wood between, and behind the muntin intersection mortises? Of the groups that I was dealing with, who owned these museum houses, not one person suggested to do anything differently that what I presented as seen in the pictures.

Other examples are replacement Cypress shingles. If the originals were 21 inches long, with 7 inches of exposure, for the same labor cost, would you rather I make, and install the replacements at 28 inches long, with a 4 layer overlap, or stick with the same 3 times overlap at 21 inches long. The cost of materials is a small percentage of the job either way.

Now for installing these shingles, would you rather I use a nailer, and stainless fasteners, or pay something more than double (maybe even triple or some other factor) the labor cost for us to use hand forged nails. We can make the nails too, if you want. Labor cost per hour is the same (no estimates, or deadlines), regardless of what we do. None of the fasteners will ever be seen until the roof needs to be replaced in 150 years, or hopefully more. I know that cost is no concern at all on Notre Dame, but these are some of the same types of thought processes about how much is it worth to be a complete purist in this business.

In the case of the attic structure in Notre Dame, how much Primary forest is it worth dropping to rebuild the structure just like it was, of which the chance of it burning again in 800 years is not zero, no matter what?

I don't intend this as an argument, but just presenting this one view, that I call realistic, which I deal with at least once a month on other structures. I always suggest that no efforts are cut to make something look like it would have, but I haven't worked on an old building yet that didn't need a little help on the structural part.

[Patrick Walsh]

Ok point taken.

If it where my home and we were talking structure inadequacies vrs preservation yes I’d do the best I could to address both factors.

My maybe single minded view I think is motivated and or driven by two things. Working in the various trenches of residential construction where rarely is cost not the the primary concern even for those with very deep pockets. But also by the sheer fact that I can’t explain without repeating something said to me today I was driving around enjoying a day off with my mother.

I live in New England just outside Boston in close proximity to some very historic areas. Regardless of these historic areas there are homes of various ages dating back to the founding of our country all the way through to today. As we were driving talking about I don’t know what mom made the comment “ you know it’s really obvious the old hoses from the all these new houses going up all over the place”. To add more perspective she was not just referencing the actual historic landmark homes dating back hundreds of years. Her point was new homes just are not built anything like a home once was until you get into the upper reaches of the uber custom home market. In my area that means spending staring honestly at like the 3 million dollar price point.

You know so my purist vision is mostly driven by the fact that generally speaking even most craftspeople and tradesman today homeowners and and developers alike could give a rats ass about craftsmanship so long as the $$$ is rolling in. I’m sure this is no different than 100 years ago. I’m just saying that most everything has no so much become dumbed down in our society but that the knowledge base is shifting towards other skilled trades vrs the ones that are still required to some extent to build anything of a high quality.

I’m rambling now and some of what I say many will say does not add up and can easily be debunked or argued. Tom I don’t think you and I have to argue nor do I feel you are trying to. I’m pretty sure you and I both probably share much of a similar ethic with regard to the topic than not. Maybe not identical but probably more alike than not alike.

There are always "purists" in these discussions. That's why I included my two examples. What would a purist do with breaking rafters that were badly undersized to start with? Also, on the window sash stuctural change, would it be best to build the reproductions taking all the wood between, and behind the muntin intersection mortises? Of the groups that I was dealing with, who owned these museum houses, not one person suggested to do anything differently that what I presented as seen in the pictures.

Other examples are replacement Cypress shingles. If the originals were 21 inches long, with 7 inches of exposure, for the same labor cost, would you rather I make, and install the replacements at 28 inches long, with a 4 layer overlap, or stick with the same 3 times overlap at 21 inches long. The cost of materials is a small percentage of the job either way.

Now for installing these shingles, would you rather I use a nailer, and stainless fasteners, or pay something more than double (maybe even triple or some other factor) the labor cost for us to use hand forged nails. We can make the nails too, if you want. Labor cost per hour is the same (no estimates, or deadlines), regardless of what we do. None of the fasteners will ever be seen until the roof needs to be replaced in 150 years, or hopefully more. I know that cost is no concern at all on Notre Dame, but these are some of the same types of thought processes about how much is it worth to be a complete purist in this business.

In the case of the attic structure in Notre Dame, how much Primary forest is it worth dropping to rebuild the structure just like it was, of which the chance of it burning again in 800 years is not zero, no matter what?

I don't intend this as an argument, but just presenting this one view, that I call realistic, which I deal with at least once a month on other structures. I always suggest that no efforts are cut to make something look like it would have, but I haven't worked on an old building yet that didn't need a little help on the structural part.

[Edwin Santos]

You know so my purist vision is mostly driven by the fact that generally speaking even most craftspeople and tradesman today homeowners and and developers alike could give a rats ass about craftsmanship so long as the $$$ is rolling in.

I've often thought about the point you are making and wondered if the craftsmanship we see in world monuments is there because of deeper motivations than a simple paycheck. I'm talking about motivations like spiritual devotion, commitment to the emperor or republic (patriotism you might say). I also wonder whether there was a time when pride in a trade and a sense of belonging to that trade inspired a standard of craftsmanship that might have become diluted once tradesmen started thinking about themselves only. Standards and a tradition of quality might be one of the good things that came out of trade unions and guilds the way they existed once upon a time.

Sorry for drifting off topic, but I guess we're in the off topic forum so maybe it's okay? Interesting discussion though.

[lowell holmes]

I'm sure you are correct. Who will cause the the repair and how will it be paid for. Maybe a fund appeal should be started.

[Brian Elfert]

It is entirely possibly to install a modern roof structure on Notre Dame that looks 99% the same as the structure prior to the fire except to those allowed up into the attic. My understanding is there is a false ceiling that hides all the roof timbers.

Have they started to remove all the scaffolding yet? I assume it is all scrap metal at this point due to heat from the fire.

[Frederick Skelly]

I can see both sides of this. I like the shape and "texture" of the design Edwin posted. There is one element I strongly disagree with: turning a Cathedral into a farm and farmer's market. I think that some level of respect and reverance is still appropriate even if the french people choose to remodel rather than preserve.

At the same time, this is Notre Dame, not just any old building. It's a world heritage site because of its architecture and its history. I don't think subsequent generations HAVE TO stay with what their forefathers built. But this building is 700 years old and is still magnificent. To me, significant changes warrant very careful consideration.

I really enjoyed reading Tom's thoughts, as one who makes these trades regularly.

At the end of the day, the french will decide what makes sense to them. Like them or not, they are a people proud of their history. I'm betting they'll ultimately move in the sort of direction Tom showed in his pictures and preserve rather than remodel.

Fred

[Jim Becker]

I'm sure you are correct. Who will cause the the repair and how will it be paid for. Maybe a fund appeal should be started.
That happened immediately with funding from both the French government and a large number of private parties. Money is not likely going to be a major issue with this one...

[Joe Mioux]

Notre Dame Cathedral is owned by the Roman Catholic Church/Archdiocese of Paris, not the French government, correct? Why would the Archbishop of the diocese, all those Cardinals and or Pope Francis allow the cathedral to be turned into some generic commercial secular tourist attraction? It was consecrated to the Virgin Mary. Just because a fire occurred doesn't change that fact.

I assume the catholic church leaders will decide how best to rebuild it.

[Edwin Santos]

I'm sure you are correct. Who will cause the the repair and how will it be paid for. Maybe a fund appeal should be started.


That happened immediately with funding from both the French government and a large number of private parties. Money is not likely going to be a major issue with this one...

Last update I saw was in late April and at that point, the total amount committed was well over $1 billion USD. Those were all voluntary donations without anyone "asking".

[Edwin Santos]

Notre Dame Cathedral is owned by the Roman Catholic Church/Archdiocese of Paris, not the French government, correct? Why would the Archbishop of the diocese, all those Cardinals and or Pope Francis allow the cathedral to be turned into some generic commercial secular tourist attraction? It was consecrated to the Virgin Mary. Just because a fire occurred doesn't change that fact.

I assume the catholic church leaders will decide how best to rebuild it.


Wrong. Notre Dame Cathedral is owned by the French state which has granted exclusive use of it to the Archdiocese. It is expected that both will have a say in how it will be repaired and rebuilt.
If there was a disagreement between the two parties, my bet would be that the buck stops with the French government. A lot of this stems from a 1905 law that separated church and state in France which basically resulted in the state taking ownership of church properties and granting exclusive perpetual use rights back to the church.

This said, I wouldn't worry too much. The French government is as hung up on tradition as anyone, and I would be surprised to see them advocate for anything generically commercial. However, anyone who has been to Notre Dame, especially in the summer, would agree that it is as much a tourist attraction as anything else. There are always throngs of tourists there. I'm talking thousands of people.

[Doug Dawson]

Wrong. Notre Dame Cathedral is owned by the French state which has granted exclusive use of it to the Archdiocese. It is expected that both will have a say in how it will be repaired and rebuilt.
If there was a disagreement between the two parties, my bet would be that the buck stops with the French government. A lot of this stems from a 1905 law that separated church and state in France which basically resulted in the state taking ownership of church properties and granting exclusive perpetual use rights back to the church.

This said, I wouldn't worry too much. The French government is as hung up on tradition as anyone, and I would be surprised to see them advocate for anything generically commercial. However, anyone who has been to Notre Dame, especially in the summer, would agree that it is as much a tourist attraction as anything else. There are always throngs of tourists there. I'm talking thousands of people.

France is a secular state, that is nominally catholic. The public alarm over the fire was based more on the assault (by fire) on a cultural icon than on a religious icon.

BTW, I thought the aforementioned glass roof was utterly brilliant.

[Jeff Bartley]

This is very worth a read:

https://news.cnrs.fr/opinions/the-framework-of-notre-dame-putting-an-end-to-stereotypes?fbclid=IwAR2VxyOR5aFEfdkrPgRaeXjwPcRk6 7X8dXOEkPIDFZjJ7jYivcQm94srjQk

Dispels some of the misinformation and gives excellent reasoning to support the traditional rebuild.

[Rick Potter]

I assume the old timber beams that remain will be recycled, and much of the wood devoted to building 'special' projects, and sold to builders of collectibles. Items like the Resolute desk at the White House, or boardroom tables, down to small crosses for tourists.

[Tom M King]

This gives the best look at what it was like, and what happened, that I have seen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-az4sugAxI