UKH

Is burning

. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47941794

How awful - looks terrible. One of Paris's iconic landmarks.

My thoughts exactly. A building that made a mark on me visiting Paris with my dad when I was a kid. I really hope they can save it.

They are not going to be able to put that out easily. 

A common theme with these horrendous fires is that they occur during renovation work. I think managers should wake up to this obvious risk. 

I know it's a heartbreaking tragedy an all, but I just saw the spire fall 'at freefall speed'.

Arson apparently, police have arrested a hunchback....

Sorry, gets coat.....

Does this mean The Bells, The Bells! (E7 6b) will need downgrading, given that it's likely to be a pile of rubble by now?

River on two sides, a good sprinkler system would seem the very least they needed. Sadly looks way too late for anything now. 

I remember on a seine boat tour (when I was a kid) we went past fire boats and being told they were there specifically in case of fire on il de paris - I'm guessing they've been "cost saved" at some point in the last 30 years.

A bit like Grenfell showed for LFB it's plainly obvious the Pompiers haven't really got the kit for a fire in a building that big it was frighteningly quick tho, so the best of kit may have been no use on 800yr old kindling

God does indeed move in mysterious ways...

It’s a bit of a step up from a burning bush on mt Sinai! Ffs!

That is an absolute tragedy.

I suspect the contractors' professional indemnity insurers are sweating....

  It looks dreadful. One of the world's iconic buildings.

I just hope to god it isn't arson.

id be surprised if the bell towers are saveable 

the problem will be if the bells fall

It looks like they're dousing the west end of the nave with thousands of gallons of water to try and isolate the western towers from the blaze ... so far, they seem to be succeeding ...

It's not just the building, it's the priceless art work inside, too.

Last went there in summer 2014, took my wife to Paris for a birthday treat - nothing to do with the final stage of Le Tour...

Do you think it would help if those praying for the cathedral to be saved also lit a candle?

T.

It sounds like the big stained glass rose windows have exploded with the heat. They were wonderful. Irreplaceable 

More info given by Macron.

Nobody killed which is great news, Over 500 firefighters involved. 1 seriously injured. Most of the artefacts were evacuated (in fact bbc just reported "all" but that sounds far too unrealistic). It looks now like they've saved the bell towers and the main structure.

The rebuild will be hard and expensive/slow, but they did it with Yorkminster, Windsor Castle etc.

Best hurry Brexit up then or we will be helping to foot the bill.

Oh do f*ck off. This is a tragedy for international heritage. Are you an utter, narrow-minded bloody philistine?

I would gladly help foot the bill. This could well become something of a catalyst for international support, particularly within Europe.

While I, on the other hand, will be glad to keep my hand firmly in my pocket - unless of course you can convince me that the Catholic church is on the brink of bankruptcy, in which case I might stretch to donating the steam off my piss.

That, broadly, is the essence of his charm.

Owned by the French State.

This is so much more than anything to do with the Catholic church. Most great cathedrals are far more than just places of Christian worship. Many of them were built on ancient pagan sites and are repositories of ancient wisdom, geometry, mathematics, astronomy etc. etc.  If you do not know this, or don't believe me, take a look at 'Chartres: Sacred Geometry, Sacred Space', by Gordon Strachan (2003). This shows that only about 10 per cent of the meaning and content of Chartres Cathedral is Christian. All the rest is pagan, or even essentially non-religious, though steeped in the mysticism of number, etc. They all about the 'other', the limits of human knowledge before science became systematised. The architecture itself being a thing of wonder, a riddle of near-impossible construction. And not an ego in sight, not a name anywhere inscribed into the stonework. People just creating something very great and beautiful for its own sake, (usually) for all time, or certainly for centuries.

Super - I’m sure the French state will be only too happy to foot the bill then 👍

PS. I've always said that one of the greatest tourist trips you can have in the UK is to visit Stonehenge and nearby Salisbury Cathedral on one day - probably in that order. Oh so different from each other, and yet with so much in common. At the end of the day, you somehow seem to have been looking at one and the same mysterious thing. The human mind pushing itself to the limits of its knowledge and beyond, and capturing the riddle/ multiple riddles in nothing more sophisticated than stone. Literally and truly mindboggling. (Unless your mind has been shut down.)

That has to take a prize for one of the most ironically amusing posts here for a very long time.

Gordon Strachan wrote a book about Chartres cathedral? He was a great footballer and a not bad manager but I wasn't aware of this hidden talent!!!!

The great and the good of French fashion have already donated over 100 million euros.  

Billionaire François-Henri Pinault, chairman and CEO of the Kering group that owns the Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent fashion brands, has already pledged €100m (£86m; $113m) towards rebuilding Notre-Dame, AFP news agency reports.

That would be a fitting epitaph for Notre Dame cathedral but hopefully it can be restored. I found Pillars of the earth by Ken Follet a great read into the skill and effort that went into the building of medieval gothic cathedrals. Although it's a novel it's historically and architecturally accurate. I think St Denis was the template to all gothic cathedrals built after the mid 12th Century.

Nice touch.

Looking at the damage I wonder how much it will cost to fully restore, 10, 50, 100, 500m Euros? And the time...Im sensing more than a decade...

Have the conspiracy theories started up yet?

where's Pefa ?

I took a few photos from the nearby Pont d’Austerlitz this morning on the way to work but that's too far away to really appreciate what happened. I guess it will be rebuilt /restored but I imagine that will take many years

Someone's been quick off the mark updating Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Paris

It's always struck me with roof fires that the problem is roofs are very flammable underneath and very waterproof on top, spraying water onto them from above is of limited use, they need to be drenched or inerted from inside/beneath the structure.

Sad to see such an iconic building burn.

jk

This article gives some interesting details about the possibilities for restoration and the history of the cathedral. It also made me feel slightly more hopeful about the whole tragic business:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/notre-dame-cathedral-will-never-be-...

York Minster's south transept only took 4 years and £2.25M (early 80s millions, still only ~£7M today) to repair, absolutely incredible really! Notre Dame looks worse but I suspect most of us will easily live to see a new roof and spire raised.

jk

300M Euro already raised by public donation. An incredibly important building even just from an architectural viewpoint.

Incorrect. 300 million euros  promised by two of Frances  biggest  fortunes: Arnault ( LVMH) and Pinault ( Kering - Gucci ). Peanuts for them, probably get huge tax advantages and great publicity for the luxury goods  they peddle.

President Macron has announced a National Subscription to pay for rebuilding this National Treasure .. Tax advantages of 90% .

A pity he couldn't do more for the homeless, especially as he promised in 2017 that there would be no more ' sans domicile fixe'  on the streets of Paris. Looks like begging in front of Notre Dame will be out of the question for quite a while. Yet again, most of the believing hypocrites wouldn't piss on homeless if they were on fire let alone give them a coin or two.

Yes. (I noticed an orange-faced idiot on Twitter was calling for tankers to drop water on the roof of course...)

The spire  ( wood  covered in lead ) was a relatively recent addition. Given that the finance for rebuilding is already promised perhaps the opportunity could be taken to redesign the spire, a way of marking this catastrophic event for future  generations ? 

Yes. Interesting that the spire, in particular, was a nineteenth century restoration rather than original along with some other parts. It has been made good before and can be made good again.

It's a blessing in disguise.

My understanding of medieval cathedrals comes from my fascination with Salisbury Cathedral in my Mum's home town, having traipsed around inside the roof and tower several times during my life.

Medieval cathedrals are absolute masterpieces of the art of lightweight stone construction with quite thin walls, extremely delicate windows and the spire constructed from very thin stone supported by a wooden armature. To prevent the weight of the lead roof from pushing the unbraced walls outwards the architects used the ubiquitous flying buttresses, which cleverly redirect the stresses downwards. In a fire the roof won't take long to burn right out leaving the bare walls standing, we've all visited ruined abbeys in Britain and wondered how the walls stand up. Rebuilding the roofs will take time and money but at least they will be able to install a sprinkler system for the roof timbers, same as they have at Salisbury. For decades Notre dame has been collapsing under the effects of wind and acid rain as the stonework is eroded away so the blessing is that insurance and central Government will now step in and serious money can be spent of a proper restoration of the exterior, not just patching like a British road. 

Historic buildings are at risk during restoration as we well know, the most recent example being Glasgow School of Art which went up a second time just as the building was full of paints and varnishes.

Maybe they will put a modern glass roof on like the pyramid outside the Louvre............

Incorrect. 300 million euros  promised by two of Frances  biggest  fortunes: Arnault ( LVMH) and Pinault ( Kering - Gucci ). 

Ahh. I understood they were members of the public.

 I have an external benefactor who funds my team to research around medical imaging and end-stage renal disease. For every £1M he puts in, we get a tax break from Gift Aid equivalent to 15% of the donation, which considering the work it pays for, is pretty good value to the taxpayer, compared to administering and funding programmes from the public purse. The tax break we get goes into employing more researchers, or conducting more patient studies.

Interestingly most of the dissolution ruins are only half standing. As I understand it this is because the roofs were weakened then finished off by burning so as to expand outward during collapse, pushing the walls down. Generally one wall falls first relieving the pressure on the other which remains to this day, not worth salvaging top down while it was available for the taking.

jk

Oh bloody hell. Did you have to? You'll start Shona off all over again with her freefall symmetrically crap...

You are a Russian agent and I claim my £5

Surely there must be some form of insurance in place for this sort of thing?

Interestingly, I've yet to see any sort of comment from the senior ranks of the Catholic church...

Sorry, I was differentiating between 'general public' and 'private individuals' with huge fortunes  and much to be gained from well publicised donations. 

In this case apparently a new roof on a national treasure.

jk

To be renamed le Cathédrale Notre-Arnault-Pinault-Total de Paris

Why not !

Todays mass is sponsored by.........................................

I take it you are discounting the work of the extensive Catholic charity networks in France, of course you have every right to do that, but I wouldn't / don't. Thanks for listening

I said most not all.  

Yes, that's right, you did. Thanks for your reply

In principle, anything is insurable. But the premiums demanded by underwriters might make it practically unfeasible.

I know of at least one nominally public building which is not insured for that reason.

I might be misremembering but I'm sure I've heard that government (maybe just military) buildings in the UK are not insured 

Sorry, yes, I should have qualified that a bit. I did think of exactly that when I wrote my post, but there's a world of difference between "modern" buildings that don't hold much in the way of historic importance and then there's Notre Dame.

I wonder whether the bloke that did Chesterfield at cut price is still available?

Agreed. However the example I know of here is a reasonably-celebrated historical building. It is simply 'too expensive' to practically insure it.

That was early 80's. From what I have seen of the costs to build things in the utility sector by the big boys in the civil engineering world I wouldn't be surprised if just the H&S alone costs more than 7 million for a task like this. 

One thing I find remarkable is how the scaffold withstood the fire. The company must feel very proud.

or not, depending on your aesthetic sensibilities

The cause of the fire has been confirmed, a contractor had burnt his cheese on toast. 

Du brie everywhere. 

No, I won't get my coat. 

Sounds like a case of in compte-ncy to me.

For very large organisations (e.g. the government) I would have thought 'self insurance' was the sensible policy. They have such a wide estate of buildings they can't all be destroyed in a single event. And so instead of paying an insurance company a large premium every year for coverage you just keep a contingency fund (or know that if necessary you could increase borrowing) to rebuild.
I don't know if that's how it works in practice but it would make sense...

It's a policy I follow for my personal belongings, such as mobile and laptop which I could replace if needed, but not house or car, which would be too much of a loss.

Yeah, a smooth move on Macrons part to let the public pay instead of the government having to foot the bill.

I heard that the intention is to rebuild the roof using the original designs rather than modern materials. I wonder if the oak will come from Fontainbleau Forest?

Apparently one of the biggest challenges is going to be the acute shortage of Master Craftsmen - masons, carpenters, plumbers who can work in lead etc. Many of the old medieval skills have now been lost, but it'd been suggested that these can now be replicated by using robots.

Maybot

The head priest (or whatever his title is) of Notre Dame was on the news last night. He could hardly get his words out. Unsurprisingly.

Sorry, don't understand?

As I understand it Oaks were planted at Versaille especially in-case the  Notre Dame needed a rebuild - pretty good planning

French oak silviculture is second to none. Go to Bellême forest in Normandy and weep at what we've forgotten about growing trees.

Talking of planning, following Glasgow Art School's second fire Parliament is even more at risk than either if what I understand is correct. Brace yourselves. Would there be the same outpouring of sympathy I wonder? Perhaps too much to hope the ERG would be there at the time...

Probably not but his relative lives around here, he built me a wall. I had concerns as he ‘eyeballs’ his plum whilst leaning 30 degrees to the left.

? Surely the public pays either way - tax or donation. More a fair way, let those who can donate, rather than tax all. For example why would an atheist in southern France, who might never see it nevermind value the purpose, consider this a worthwhile cause. And overly expensive folly.

Rebuilt a replica, in cheap and reliable modern materials and clad to appear old. A sort of IKEA furniture option - particle board with veneer. Thin slab facing on steel and concrete, oak boxing over structural steel. Build it to survive. Would this be any less real than a modern recreation.

Two hundred years ago would they have restored? No they would have replaced. Find a 200 year period in its history where it was not modified, altered, upgraded.

Yes, I saw him, too - I meant around the levelnof cardinal or even pope...

Sad indeed, but not our worry or problem. It’s a feckin building.

Extraordinary how a post on this tragedy brings out both the best and worst of UKC!

Care to expand on that (serious question)?

Your argument is full of holes but can be continued in the same vein. I think the Garden of Edam is relevant in this case

What a sterile little world you must live in. I pity you.

If you read the thread then you will surely see for yourself. It's pretty obvious don't you think?

The pope commented quite early on the night.

Traditionally built it stood for a thousand years. We're pulling down 'modern' buildings just 50-60 years after they were built because they're no durable or repairable. It's hard to tell sometimes what's a joke and what's supposed to be a joke.

A couple of years ago I visited a chateau that had once fallen into deep neglect, in the attic there was a mix of oak where it had survived exposure and moulded concrete frames where it hadn't. The concrete was failing, the 500 year old oak will last another 500 if the slates are maintained.

Times change.

It's largely intact, it needs a new roof, repair and conservation. Exactly which features are replaced, re-imagined and reworked will require much careful and respectful thought, it isn't a blank canvas onto which modern ideas should automatically be projected. With care a durable and harmonious whole which bears the distinctive marks of its makers as that before it did can and I'm sure be achieved. The burned roof in York is not like for like copy, it incorporates modern ideas and re-imaginings of original features and it's respectful of its setting, it works beautifully.

jk

A sign from God? Time to move on?

It would convert into an impressive indoor wall, centrally located too. 

I'm sure modern tools will find their place in speeding up and improving the process at every step but I doubt they'll meaningfully replace skilled hands. They'll draw in the crafts they need from across the continent as these great buildings always have. There is time to train new skilled workers, I suspect the clean-up, survey, stabilisation, design and engineering will take the better part of a couple of years.

jk

No, not really - I think it shows that UKC posters have different opinions, rather than "good" or "bad" ones (i.e. those you agree with v. ones you disagree with).

Honestly I couldn't really care about Notre Dame. Yes it's sad but we're destroying the world in so many other ways it seems childish that this is what we're focusing on.

Areas the size of Paris and its suburbs are being torn down every year in the tropical rain forests. Pretty much irreplaceable.  I don't think it's childish that people are reacting the way they are to the fire in Notre Dame but I do wish we humans would react with the same levels of horror and demonstrate the need to respond with urgent positive action towards the damage being done to the lungs of the earth. Pretty soon there will be nothing left to tear down.

Reporting now that 1 billion euros have been donated! Its brilliant that people feel this way about historical buildings of huge significance but this now seems too much to me. But what do I know? Cynical me now suspects it will now cost a billion euros to fix.

Very well said.

Ive just summoned up the courage to go and look. It is still standing there proud, like a great noble wounded beast.

Personally I've donated far more to forest 'salvation' through the World Land Trust than I have to Notre Dame (£0!).

Imagine what a billion could do...I wish the mega-tech billionaires would divert some / more of their philanthropy in that direction. Its not a case of animal / trees over humans as we depend on nature.

As someone with experience of restoring historic buildings, although obviously nothing of this scale or importance, it will be a lot more than €1bn!

Whilst I adore ancient buildings, especially ecclesiastical ones, I'm starting to feel a bit queasy about the money pledged so quickly to this cause.

Of course it should be restored to its former, if not better, glory but given the other world issues right now one building , no matter how iconic does not trump many other humanitarian/global causes.

Oh ffs, it's just a building which can be put back together again, not a beached and butchered blue whale, a viciously mutilated elephant or a starving polar bear!

That would be cool, but given how they became mega-tech billionaires in the first place the equivalent of me planting a little fruit tree in the garden by way of 'carbon offsetting' to assuage my guilt at flying to New Zealand for a holiday.

I think it's a mistake to see humanitarian/ world issues as completely unrelated to icons of culture/great works of art & architecture/cathedral. What links them is a complex system of human values. One can't really exist without the other. The latter may even help the former.

Ok. I asked for it....

Go on, please tell me how spending 300m- plus Euros (or however much) in charitable donations in one of the wealthiest locations on the planet on a building which is part of a 30b USD organisation (which has some pretty important questions to answer. I believe the Catholic church doesn'town the building but it could use a tiny fraction of its wealth to help) can aid in plastic reduction, child poverty elimination, climate change halting, deforestation elimination, malaria annihilation, etc etc.

I honestly believe that the building is part of the fabric of France as much a StPauls is to London/UK and as such be preserved but my original point was about how much and how quickly money came out of the woodwork. 

To put this in context, Comic Relief, which funds global projects in some of the worst possible situations, has raised 'just' c£1b over 30 years. 

Google seems to think just £20M raised for Grenfell survivors who had to watch their friends, neighbours and loved ones burn or choke to death.

Nobody died at Notre-Dame...

I got your point. 

Anyhow, I've said my bit. I don't want to discuss it because I'm bedridden at the moment and facing a scary sounding hip replacement on Friday (yes, over the BH), and I prefer to spend my time working on my latest book to take my mind off it. 

Fair enough.  I hope the hip procedure and recovery goes well for you.

Yes, well I deliberately expressed myself in emotive terms  to show a) that there are really people who care deeply about Notre Dame; and b) draw the  reaction of Brits who  couldn't care less and need to express their dissent in insensitive comments and vulgar terms of ffs.  I have absolutely no problem with those who argue sensibly that there are more pressing problems, as though the finance were fungible, but I see no congruence  between saving a world cultural heritage site and the utopian desire to fund the  needs of an exploding population whose ever growing needs can never be financed. 

Would that be the “exploding population” which is made more intolerable by the stance of the Catholic Church on contraception by any chance, the one who’s temple has been damaged? Anybody spotted any evidence of billions of euros being promised by the Vatican?

My mother in law was a new person after she had new hips. Not sure that was a good thing, but its an op that has really good results. Very best of luck with it

Thanks Toad, and Drunken B, for your encouragement.

All the best for the operation: take courage from Jon and Peter. And I look forward to some more musical exchanges with you when you are better. The Wanderer's fortunes wanders under my ageing hands. 

john