Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 47

Thread: Notre Dame on fire now in Paris

  1. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    Today also 6yrs to the day since Boston marathon bombing.
    IMO, it still seems just a little to soon to speculate on the cause of this fire. France wont leave many stones unturned on something this terrible.
    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

    “If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.”

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Upland CA
    Posts
    5,548
    My thought is plumber sweating pipe or roofer with tar pot.
    Rick Potter

    DIY journeyman,
    FWW wannabe.
    AKA Village Idiot.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Okotoks AB
    Posts
    3,495
    Blog Entries
    1
    My thought at this point is that it was an unfortunate event that started a fire.

    This is a tragic loss.

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fitzgerald View Post
    It's truly a tragic loss to France and the world.


    it's a little early IMO to speculate that it's an act of terror.
    Yes, much more likely that it's a simple (but tragic) act of carelessness.

    I'm sure some forensic fire investigators will declare the cause of it before long.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Toronto Ontario
    Posts
    11,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    Anyone else thinking terrorist act?
    What I've heard is that it was probably caused by one of the workers involved in restoration............Rod.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    2,758
    It will be next to impossible to find engineers who will consider rebuilding without structural steel.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Lake Gaston, Henrico, NC
    Posts
    8,973
    There is no good reason to rebuild the structural part of the roof out of wood. There will be purists who call for it to be rebuilt exactly as it was, but as long as it looks exactly like it did, there would be no good reason to rebuild the roof structure out of wood. It would be hard to design something to burn any better than those wooden spires.

    I do Historic Preservation rebuilding for a living. You are preserving the history if every detail looks just like it always has. It's rare that we rebuild something, and not have to improve on the original structural details that have already proven to fail.

    You only are doing wrong if you change the way some historic structure looks to suit your own personal taste, and that includes the smallest of visible details. At that point, it simply becomes remodeling, and not Historic Preservation, although many like to convince themselves that it is.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Bedford, NH
    Posts
    1,286
    My wife, daughter & I were fortunate to have visited the Notre Dame a few years back. It was such a beautiful Catholic icon known throughout the world and such an inspiration for so many. So many lost invaluable treasures never to be replaced.

    For it to be rebuilt is wonderful, but will be a challenge if it's to be built only from wood. Wood these days used for construction are no longer available of the centuries old varieties. I agree with Tom, a difficult undertaking at best.

    A great loss indeed!
    Thoughts entering one's mind need not exit one's mouth!
    As I age my memory fades .... and that's a load off my mind!

    "We Live In The Land Of The Free, Only Because Of The Brave"
    “The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living."
    "
    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Winston Churchill

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    E TN, near Knoxville
    Posts
    12,298

    Restoration of historic structures

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom M King View Post
    ...
    I do Historic Preservation rebuilding for a living. You are preserving the history if every detail looks just like it always has. It's rare that we rebuild something, and not have to improve on the original structural details that have already proven to fail.

    You only are doing wrong if you change the way some historic structure looks to suit your own personal taste, and that includes the smallest of visible details. At that point, it simply becomes remodeling, and not Historic Preservation, although many like to convince themselves that it is.
    The question this subject always brings to mind is what is the "original" restore point target? Many old structures have been modified over time. In the case of the cathedral, should the building be restored at the time of the fire? Should it be as originally "completed" in the 13th centuries? Or perhaps as it has appeared during the lifetime of the oldest person living today?

    This entertaining debate is endless - some preservationists push to remove any recent remodeling which on the surface seems noble. But how recent is "recent"?

    I read somewhere that the big spire was added during a restoration/remodeling project sometime in the mid 1800s.


    __temp.jpg __temp2.jpg

    JKJ

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Lake Gaston, Henrico, NC
    Posts
    8,973
    I'll leave that discussion up to the French. It's an easy choice in my work, when the target is only a couple of hundred years back.

    I'm good either way on the spire. It's nice that it can be seen from a long ways away, but in my opinion, not necessary at all.

    I'm also good with any improvement in structural integrity, longevity, and safety, as long as it appears unchanged to the best eye.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Modesto, CA, USA
    Posts
    9,889
    I read the spire was taken off several hundred years ago because it moved around too much in the wind. It was rebuilt about 200 years ago. The removal was also helped along by bribes from scrap dealers.
    It was supposed to have spires on top of the two main towers that they have never been built. No reason to suppose the structure would actually be able to support the extra weight. These structures were not really designed but rather built by rules of thumb as to how much c stone could support. Not unknown for them to collapse during or shortly after construction.
    Ever wondered why that older Egyptian pyramid changes to a shallower slope halfway up? They noticed the angle was too steep and it would not support itself.
    Bill D.
    Last edited by Bill Dufour; 04-16-2019 at 9:41 AM.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    65,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Potter View Post
    My thought is plumber sweating pipe or roofer with tar pot.
    They were apparently working on the lead roof in the area where the fire was suspected of starting. Working with lead likely required working with fire, I would think... darn.
    --

    The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    SE PA - Central Bucks County
    Posts
    65,688
    Quote Originally Posted by John K Jordan View Post
    The question this subject always brings to mind is what is the "original" restore point target? Many old structures have been modified over time. In the case of the cathedral, should the building be restored at the time of the fire? Should it be as originally "completed" in the 13th centuries? Or perhaps as it has appeared during the lifetime of the oldest person living today?

    This entertaining debate is endless - some preservationists push to remove any recent remodeling which on the surface seems noble. But how recent is "recent"?

    I read somewhere that the big spire was added during a restoration/remodeling project sometime in the mid 1800s.


    __temp.jpg __temp2.jpg

    JKJ
    This extends to what materials they use for the restoration at this point. I think I mentioned earlier that supposedly something like 13,000 300-400 year old oak trees were used for the original wooden structures. I'm doubtful that they would replace like for like at this time, both for conservation reasons and for current safety considerations. I'm going to hazard a guess that things will go toward current code/materials but made to look like wood where wood was visible, either via faux means or by veneering. That alone would likely insure many, many, many centuries of life into the future for the restored site.
    --

    The most expensive tool is the one you buy "cheaply" and often...

  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Becker View Post
    This extends to what materials they use for the restoration at this point. I think I mentioned earlier that supposedly something like 13,000 300-400 year old oak trees were used for the original wooden structures. I'm doubtful that they would replace like for like at this time, both for conservation reasons and for current safety considerations. I'm going to hazard a guess that things will go toward current code/materials but made to look like wood where wood was visible, either via faux means or by veneering. That alone would likely insure many, many, many centuries of life into the future for the restored site.
    I learned today that Notre Dame is owned by the French State, but operated by the Catholic church. Both will have a voice in the restoration plans. It's safe to say that nobody in the world possesses more expertise in church restoration than the Vatican.
    I just heard on the news that the French authorities have evacuated several adjacent buildings due to the instability of the north end of the cathedral and potential collapse. I think they are erring to the side of caution, but still it gives you an idea of the extensive damage.

    Also heard that over $600MM has been pledged for restoration already by French corporations and billionaires. It doesn't look like access to resources will be a limitation on the restoration.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Highland MI
    Posts
    4,511
    Blog Entries
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Edwin Santos View Post
    Also heard that over $600MM has been pledged for restoration already by French corporations and billionaires. It doesn't look like access to resources will be a limitation on the restoration.
    France gave us the iconic Statue of Liberty, so a generous donation from our government to help rebuild would seem appropriate, but it seems the restoration costs are already covered? Good news is that the restoration should be able to bring fire safety up to more modern standards. In fact, when they are done, I suspect it will be one of the more fire resistant churches ever.

    BTW, speaking from a civil engineering prospective, those flying buttresses are incredible, both from an engineering requirement and an aesthetic viewpoint. And for those interested in building of the old cathedrals, a must read is Ken Follet's Pillars of the Earth.
    Last edited by Ole Anderson; 04-16-2019 at 12:44 PM.
    NOW you tell me...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •