Notre Dame what changes in the rebuild?

[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.


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.



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.

SEI_62857220-e1555488217736.jpg

[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.