Notre Dame Cathedral is on fire

[Jub]

I suspect that the people cheering about the interior have never had to deal with soot and water damage - the basic stone still stands, but there is still an enormous amount of clean-up to do.

It's still better than major structural damage which might have resulted in the main structure of the church having to be demolished and rebuilt. If this were just a dime-a-dozen modern structure knocking it down and rebuilding anew might be preferable to the required restoration but in this case, I think we can all agree that anything that can be repaired/restored instead of replaced is a significant victory.

[Broomstick]

One of the concerns is that the stone structure was already showing signs of damage after nearly a millennium standing, with some of the stone cracked and crumbling. The heat and water and cooling will not have helped any of that. Parts of the stone vault have fallen and will need to be repaired. There is a lot of work to be done on just the basic structure, which is now open to the elements.

[Jub]

Yeah, there will need to be serious risk assessments done before deciding on how to start repairing/rebuilding this ancient structure. I hope they can keep it as it is without the need for intrusive bracing or demolition and rebuilding from scratch. I think that even if it takes more time and effort keeping as much original structure as possible will be a positive thing.

[Gandalf]

It's a shame that people aren't this fussed about ongoing destruction of similarly old (or older) artefacts owned by the Indigenous peoples of the world.

[Jub]

I was thinking along those lines myself earlier in the day though not about indigenous sites in general.

The lose of Notre Dame is tragic due to historical and cultural significance but what about the art and fabulous structures lost due to lack of opportunity for would-be artists and architecs? Which modern sites should we set aside for preservation? Which ancient ones should receive more funding for restoration and preservation? Should destroyed site's be rebuilt even if they aren't as famous and profitable as Notre Dame?

In answer to the last question, I think that artifacts should be returned and funding made available to preserve and restore indigenous art and sites of importance. Even if it's expensive I think it's more than owed.

[aerius]

I suspect that the people cheering about the interior have never had to deal with soot and water damage - the basic stone still stands, but there is still an enormous amount of clean-up to do.

Speaking of cleanup, there were probably around a few hundred tons of pure lead on the roof of the building. All that lead just got melted in the fire and is now splattered over the entire site. Can you say HazMat zone?

[Khaat]

Nah, the lead went up in that lovely yellow smoke. The hazmat zone also extends down-wind a few dozen miles....

[Zaune]

Yeesh. Maybe it might be worth using copper sheeting instead this time around? It's more heat-resistant, less toxic and it goes a nice pale green with weathering.

[Sky Captain]

It certainly will be rebuilt. One tower and roof is gone, but from what I read it is not a structural element, mostly to keep rain out. Load bearing stone structure still stands, likely there is significant heat and water damage and hole where the tower fell. Some part of it possibly will have to be demolished and built new, but as long as any new construction visible to public looks and feels authentic then it is fine. Burned wooden roof support structure over the stone ceiling could easily be replaced with modern one made from laminated fire resistant wooden beams or use steel or maybe aluminum if weight is a concern, attic is not visible to public anyway so who cares if externally original looking roof is supported on metal instead of wooden beams. Given that the old roof was lead it is questionable if the new one will be same material anyway.

I bet ten years and Notre Dame Cathedral will look like new. Most of the internal artwork appears to be not damaged too much or stored offsite because of ongoing renovation so hopefuly not huge looses there.

[Elheru Aran]

It certainly will be rebuilt. One tower and roof is gone, but from what I read it is not a structural element, mostly to keep rain out. Load bearing stone structure still stands, likely there is significant heat and water damage and hole where the tower fell. Some part of it possibly will have to be demolished and built new, but as long as any new construction visible to public looks and feels authentic then it is fine. Burned wooden roof support structure over the stone ceiling could easily be replaced with modern one made from laminated fire resistant wooden beams or use steel or maybe aluminum if weight is a concern, attic is not visible to public anyway so who cares if externally original looking roof is supported on metal instead of wooden beams. Given that the old roof was lead it is questionable if the new one will be same material anyway.

I bet ten years and Notre Dame Cathedral will look like new. Most of the internal artwork appears to be not damaged too much or stored offsite because of ongoing renovation so hopefuly not huge looses there.

A quick comment on the restoration/rebuilding. While I have no doubt that a good bit of it will be modernized for safety reasons if nothing else, for purposes of historic conservation I would expect them to try to stick to original methods and materials as much as possible. Certainly eliminate lead roofing, perhaps with copper or steel coloured to match the old lead roof-- but the roof framing, as far as possible, will quite possibly still be timber framed, although it's an open question whether it'll be hand cut or CNC milled. It being visible to the public is one thing, as is safety of course, but the original roof frame was extraordinary and a real achievement in woodworking. It doesn't come up much in modern discourse, but the French have a long tradition of woodworking and this would be a point of pride for them, I think.

[Broomstick]

Yeesh. Maybe it might be worth using copper sheeting instead this time around? It's more heat-resistant, less toxic and it goes a nice pale green with weathering.

At the time it went up the lead cladding was state of the art, and since it was still intact there was no reason to replace it. Lead in place is less toxic than lead being cut up, turning to dust, hauled around, etc.

Anything you use for roofing is going to have issues, but now that the original roof is entirely gone now is a good time to consider alternatives.

[Broomstick]

.... if weight is a concern...

Given the original was lead no, I don't think alternatives would present a weight problem. Especially if you use something like aluminium.

[Straha]

It's a shame that people aren't this fussed about ongoing destruction of similarly old (or older) artefacts owned by the Indigenous peoples of the world.

I had the thought yesterday about how this event, the loss and reconstruction of Notre Dame, is perhaps a quintessentially French experience. The building sits on the site of a burned temple, two destroyed churches, and has itself been sacked, vandalized, and remade multiple times. The spire is a 19th century reconstruction of something that was removed in the late 18th century. Just about every aspect of the building has been remade, and it was not too long ago a temple to atheistic reason and not a cathedral. It's understandable to be sad at the destruction, but to mourn in the way some people are strikes me as profoundly at odds with history and the role the Cathedral has held in France.

Meanwhile, the Louvre just down the river is chock full of parts of buildings that have been horrifically vandalized and ripped out of their culture for Parisian's viewing pleasure. Credit where it's due, Macron has said that French probably should return its stolen colonial treasures and is starting to do it, but it's dragging its fucking heels to do so. One wonders if they'll give them back with a cut of the profits they made for their museums?

[The Romulan Republic]

It certainly will be rebuilt. One tower and roof is gone, but from what I read it is not a structural element, mostly to keep rain out. Load bearing stone structure still stands, likely there is significant heat and water damage and hole where the tower fell. Some part of it possibly will have to be demolished and built new, but as long as any new construction visible to public looks and feels authentic then it is fine. Burned wooden roof support structure over the stone ceiling could easily be replaced with modern one made from laminated fire resistant wooden beams or use steel or maybe aluminum if weight is a concern, attic is not visible to public anyway so who cares if externally original looking roof is supported on metal instead of wooden beams. Given that the old roof was lead it is questionable if the new one will be same material anyway.

I bet ten years and Notre Dame Cathedral will look like new. Most of the internal artwork appears to be not damaged too much or stored offsite because of ongoing renovation so hopefuly not huge looses there.

Macron has pledged to have it restored in five years, and has called on the rest of the world for assistance.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/notre-dam ... -1.5099563

Hundreds of millions of Euros have already been pledged for its reconstruction, although most of that seems to have come from a few wealthy individuals/companies:

French President Emmanuel Macron has committed to rebuilding Notre-Dame Cathedral within five years, just a day after a fire gutted the cathedral.

"We will rebuild Notre-Dame even more beautifully and I want it to be completed in five years. We can do it," Macron said Tuesday in a television address to the nation.

"It is up to us to change this disaster into an opportunity to come together, having deeply reflected on what we have been and what we have to be and become better than we are. It is up to us to find the thread of our national project."

Firefighters in Paris declared success Tuesday morning in a more than 12-hour battle to extinguish an inferno that engulfed the iconic Notre-Dame Cathedral on Monday evening.

However, French Interior Minister Christophe Castaner said there are still some risks that may endanger the structure.

The two 69-metre bell towers remained intact but the cathedral's spire and roof were destroyed in the fire.

Castaner told reporters Tuesday after a brief visit to the cathedral that it is "under permanent surveillance because it can still budge."

He added that state employees will need to wait 48 hours before being able to safely enter the cathedral and take care of the artworks that are still there. Some were too big to be transferred.

"We will be standing at [Notre-Dame's] bedside," Castaner said.

Images broadcast Tuesday by French news channel BFM TV showed several pieces of wooden furniture, including chairs and benches, seemingly intact, but there is a gaping hole in the nave's roof, with a pile of burnt debris lying underneath. Many tiles and columns were spared from the worst of the fire.

The French Bishops Conference said that the bells of all cathedrals across the country will ring on Wednesday at 6:50 p.m. local time (12:50 p.m. ET), the time when the fire started Monday.

The Bishops Conference said Tuesday in a statement that this will show the solidarity of all dioceses toward Paris and that the fire at Notre-Dame Cathedral "is a shock that affects far beyond just the Catholics of our country."

Authorities believe the fire started accidentally, possibly as a result of restoration work at the global architectural treasure that survived almost 900 years of tumultuous French history but was devastated in the blaze on the second day of Holy Week.

Paris prosecutor Rémy Heitz said there's no evidence of arson and he expects the investigation will be "long and complex."

Heitz said an initial fire alert was sounded at 6:20 p.m. Monday but no fire was found. The second alert was sounded at 6:43 p.m., and fire was discovered on the roof.

He said Tuesday that 50 investigators were working on the probe. He said they will be interviewing workers from five companies who had been hired to work on renovations to the cathedral's roof, which was being repaired before the fire and which is where the flames first broke out.

Investigators have already questioned nearly 30 people so far, said a Paris police official, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to comment on an ongoing probe.

Watch as firefighters inspect the damage inside Notre-Dame:

News that the fire was probably accidental has done nothing to ease the national mourning for the symbol of national pride immortalized in Victor Hugo's 1831 novel The Hunchback of Notre-Dame.

Artworks that were removed from the cathedral during the blaze will be transferred to the Louvre Museum, according to France's culture minister.

The artifacts — which include relics such as the crown of thorns believed in the Christian faith to have been worn by Jesus Christ when he was crucified, and French king St. Louis's 13th-century tunic — were first moved to the city town hall, Franck Riester told reporters.

As well, Paris's deputy mayor said Notre-Dame's organ, among the world's biggest and most famous, remains intact after the fire. The impressive organ dates to the 1730s and was constructed by François Thierry. It boasts an estimated 8,000 pipes.

Emmanuel Gregoire told BFM TV Tuesday that a plan to protect Notre-Dame's treasures was rapidly and successfully activated. Gregoire also described "enormous relief" at the salvaging of pieces such as the purported crown of Christ.

Laurent Prades, Notre-Dame's heritage director, told The Associated Press that only one piece of architecture inside the sacred building was damaged. The high altar, which was installed in 1989, was hit and harmed by the cathedral's spire when it came crashing down in the flames.

"We have been able to salvage all the rest," said Prades, who witnessed the recovery first-hand overnight.

Among the most famous elements inside the cathedral, the three large stained-glass rose windows have not been destroyed, Prades said, though they may have been damaged by the heat and will be assessed by an expert.

In appealing for help to rebuild the cathedral, Macron described it as "a part of us" and appealed for help to do so.

As the country woke up in collective sadness, its richest businessman, Bernard Arnault, and his luxury goods group LVMH, answered this call with a pledge of €200 million (more than $300 million Cdn).

A statement said the Arnault family were "in solidarity with this national tragedy, and join in the reconstruction of this extraordinary cathedral, a symbol of France, of its heritage and togetherness."

Businessman François-Henri Pinault and his billionaire father François Pinault also said they were immediately giving €100 million (more than $150 million Cdn) from their company, Artemis, to help finance repairs.

François-Henri Pinault said in a statement, "This tragedy impacts all French people" and "everyone wants to restore life as quickly as possible to this jewel of our heritage."

French businessman François-Henri Pinault, left, is pictured beside his wife, actor Salma Hayek. Pinault said he and his billionaire father were giving 100 million euro (more than $150 million Cdn) to help finance repairs to Notre-Dame. (Danny Moloshok/Reuters)
Patrick Pouyanne, chief executive officer of French oil and gas company Total, said the multinational will make a contribution of €100 million to the reconstruction efforts.

French luxury and cosmetics group L'Oreal, along with the Bettencourt Meyers family and the Bettencourt Schueller foundation, said they would donate €200 million in total for repairs.

Smoke rises around the altar in front of the cross inside Notre-Dame Cathedral on Tuesday. (Philippe Wojazer/Reuters)
Show next image (2 of 18)Hide captionToggle Fullscreen1 of 18
Bouygues construction group CEO Martin Bouygues said he and his brother Olivier would donate €10 million (more than $15 million Cdn).

The 12th-century church was home to relics, stained glass and other works of art of incalculable value, and is a leading tourist attraction.

Pope Francis said on Tuesday that he shared the sadness of the French people mourning the devastation and hoped it would be restored to remain a symbol of the faith of their forebears.

Francis phoned Macron to express his solidarity over the fire at Notre Dame, hours after the Vatican culture minister offered art experts who could advise on reconstruction efforts.The Vatican's culture minister said the Holy See is willing to offer technical restoration know-how to help rebuild and restore the devastated cathedral.

'Notre-Dame is our history': Why the centuries-old cathedral means so much to France
"This disaster seriously damaged a historic building. But I realize that it has also affected a national symbol dear to the hearts of Parisians and French in the diversity of their convictions," Francis said in a message to the archbishop of Paris, Michel Aupetit.

The Queen also sent Macron a message of commiseration.

Some of the saved treasures from Notre-Dame Cathedral are being stored in a room at Paris's city hall. (Benoit Tessier/Reuters)
"Prince Philip and I have been deeply saddened to see the images of the fire which has engulfed Notre-Dame Cathedral," her message said.

"I extend my sincere admiration to the emergency services who have risked their lives to try to save this important national monument. My thoughts and prayers are with those who worship at the cathedral and all of France at this difficult time."

Elizabeth's oldest son, Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, said he too was "utterly heartbroken" to learn of the fire.

The devastation was a blow to all of Europe, and all Europe will contribute to its rebuilding, leaders of the European Union declared on Tuesday at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France.

"Europe has been wounded. France has been wounded. Paris has been wounded," European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told lawmakers, promising EU "solidarity."

These images show the exterior of Notre-Dame Cathedral before, top, and after the fire that engulfed the iconic church on Monday.
EU chief Donald Tusk called on the bloc's member countries to help France rebuild, saying the site in Paris is a symbol of what binds Europe together.

Tusk, who chairs summits of EU national leaders, told lawmakers Tuesday that the blaze reminds Europeans of "how much we can lose."

'It's absolutely heartbreaking': Canadians mourn as Notre-Dame Cathedral burns
"At stake here is something more than just material help," Tusk said. "The burning of the Notre-Dame Cathedral has again made us aware that we are bound by something more important and more profound than treaties."

Parliament President Antonio Tajani invited EU lawmakers to contribute their day's salary to help finance reconstruction.

Meanwhile, Macron's European election campaign was suspended for now following the fire, said French politician Nathalie Loiseau, who is spearheading the campaign.

Macron will hold a cabinet meeting Wednesday dedicated to the aftermath of the fire. The French presidency said a morning session will be followed by one in the afternoon focusing on the national fundraising campaign and the reconstruction work.

No evidence of arson, which is a relief. My big fear was that it would turn out to be a politically-motivated fire, which would likely destroy the effort by European politicians to use this moment to unite Europe (although one must note the irony in trying to promote European unity around an explicitly Catholic symbol).

Macron seems to be rising to the occassion. More cynically, this is an easy PR win for him- a way to show himself as a leader and get the country behind him in a feel-good moment of unity.

It's a shame that people aren't this fussed about ongoing destruction of similarly old (or older) artefacts owned by the Indigenous peoples of the world.

I had the thought yesterday about how this event, the loss and reconstruction of Notre Dame, is perhaps a quintessentially French experience. The building sits on the site of a burned temple, two destroyed churches, and has itself been sacked, vandalized, and remade multiple times. The spire is a 19th century reconstruction of something that was removed in the late 18th century. Just about every aspect of the building has been remade, and it was not too long ago a temple to atheistic reason and not a cathedral. It's understandable to be sad at the destruction, but to mourn in the way some people are strikes me as profoundly at odds with history and the role the Cathedral has held in France.

If anything, that varried history gives it greater meaning, and broader relevance to Europe and the world as a whole, not just Catholics.

Meanwhile, the Louvre just down the river is chock full of parts of buildings that have been horrifically vandalized and ripped out of their culture for Parisian's viewing pleasure. Credit where it's due, Macron has said that French probably should return its stolen colonial treasures and is starting to do it, but it's dragging its fucking heels to do so. One wonders if they'll give them back with a cut of the profits they made for their museums?

Important, certainly, though not really relevant to the question of Notre Dame. France ought to return anything stolen (ideally with compensation), or negotiate its fair purchase/loan if the country of origin is willing.

[Straha]

If anything, that varried history gives it greater meaning, and broader relevance to Europe and the world as a whole, not just Catholics.

Sure? My argument is less "This doesn't have meaning" and more "The destruction and reconstruction fits into the broader narrative of the Cathedral and should not be seen as a catastrophic event."

Important, certainly, though not really relevant to the question of Notre Dame. France ought to return anything stolen (ideally with compensation), or negotiate its fair purchase/loan if the country of origin is willing.

It's very relevant to how we're discussing Notre Dame. The way this loss is being legitimated as a trans-cultural tragedy worthy of nations banding together and billionaires giving up their wealth without hesitation or question, meanwhile far more heart-wrenching loss isn't just ignored but spectacularized for benefit by those very same people mourning this, is pretty telling as to who and what we value (and don't value) as a society.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sure? My argument is less "This doesn't have meaning" and more "The destruction and reconstruction fits into the broader narrative of the Cathedral and should not be seen as a catastrophic event."

Catastrophic because some things of artistic and historical value were irreparably destroyed. Just not a total catastrophe.

It's very relevant to how we're discussing Notre Dame. The way this loss is being legitimated as a trans-cultural tragedy worthy of nations banding together and billionaires giving up their wealth without hesitation or question, meanwhile far more heart-wrenching loss isn't just ignored but spectacularized for benefit by those very same people mourning this.

There's a double-standard on some peoples' parts, yes. But I don't feel that that should detract from the importance of preserving Notre Dame. Just focus more attention on the importance of preserving and restoring other things as well.

Edit: Also, I can get behind anything that'll make billionaires give up a good chunk of their (generally ill-gotten) gains. One can argue over whether this is the best use of their money, as opposed to, say, improving infrastructure or providing better health care, but anything that reinforces the charitable impulse while taking money horded by one person and using it for something that will benefit everyone, can only be a good thing.

[Broomstick]

If millionaires are giving up millions at least in the case of restoring Notre Dame that money will go into pockets of the people hired to do the work, and otherwise be put back into the actual economy rather than being squirreled away or diverted into the sort of investments that profit only the wealthy.

[The Romulan Republic]

Indeed. And it will be spent restoring a cultural and historical treasure, a part of our shared heritage, which will also bring in millions of tourist dollars to the French economy, directly and indirectly providing more jobs.

[Ziggy Stardust]

These forums also seem like a weird place for making that argument in particular, given how many threads we have had over the past few years explicitly discussing the catastrophic destruction of artifacts in other parts of the world (e.g. the Buddhas of Bamyan) and also the necessity for returning art stolen during the colonial periods to the original countries. Like, these forums are literally full of evidence that people don't necessarily hold this double-standard and that there are many people who are champions of many cultural heritages that aren't necessarily their own. Yes, media coverage is disproportionate, but human psychology will ALWAYS attach more meaning to things more closely related to you than others. It's possible to be sad about Notre Dame and also be sad about all of these other things.

[Straha]

Catastrophic because some things of artistic and historical value were irreparably destroyed. Just not a total catastrophe.

Sure... but that's true of any ephemera? Catastrophe in this sense usually implies the loss of something so unique it can never be returned/restored. Everything seemingly lost in this fire is a restoration, and in many cases a restoration of a restoration. Its loss is certainly mournable but it's transient and, more importantly, the cultural touchstone is not lost.

There's a double-standard on some peoples' parts, yes. But I don't feel that that should detract from the importance of preserving Notre Dame. Just focus more attention on the importance of preserving and restoring other things as well.

It's not just a double standard. It's a question as to what we mark as worthy of loss. Right now, people in London (and Theresa May) are bemoaning this, while in town stolen chunks of the Parthenon are still hanging out in the British Museum because "Finders Keepers". When we mark something like this as a cultural loss while not just avoiding comment on but having major institutions justify why the loss of colonized people's history is a good thing we are perpetuating some pretty heinous shit.

To put this differently, nobody would seriously defend the idea that we should just let Notre Dame remain a burned out husk as a marker to what it once was (except, maybe, this board circa 2005 at the height of its anti-religious phase). Yet that's what these same groups rallying together to save Notre Dame say should be done for dozens of countries/cultures across the world on a daily basis. To not point out the way that colonial legacies shape our discourse regarding this tragedy isn't just abetting an ongoing harm against its victims but gives up one of the only chances where losses like this are front and center in the popular consciousness.

[Patroklos]

One of the concerns is that the stone structure was already showing signs of damage after nearly a millennium standing, with some of the stone cracked and crumbling. The heat and water and cooling will not have helped any of that. Parts of the stone vault have fallen and will need to be repaired. There is a lot of work to be done on just the basic structure, which is now open to the elements.

At the same time this provides an opportunity for strengthening that would not be available if balancing with maintaining a pristine historical stays vice restoring it to that status after the fact. Assuming the assessments of the remains find it can be strengthened. Steal can be hidden pretty effectively. The new roof doesn’t even have to be structurally linked to the remaining exterior walls, that lack of load greatly aiding their preservation.

Another thing to remember is that on a site like this all that wreckage is essentially a giant archeological site now. If will be combed through meticulously to see what can be saved, and the wreckage and exposed remaining structure examined to find revealed secrets. This by itself could take years.

Then when the start the renovations and possible modernizations, there will inevitably be partial demolitions and foundation excavations, each instance again being an archeological dig. The process will be slow and deliberate.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Which orifice Emmanuel Macron pulled that five-year figure from, I'm not quite sure because it's far too soon to say; as ITV news has pointed out it's impossible to know because there hasn't been time to make an accurate damage assessment. I wish I could say I doubt anyone will take that claim seriously, but it's bound to bite him in the ass down the line.

Notre Dame fire: How have other historic structures been rebuilt?

I'd like to think those responsible for restoring/rebuilding would incorporate measures to make sure this sort of thing cannot happen again, what kinds of fire protection can realistically be added as part of the restoration? I can think of several reasons why fire sprinklers might not necessarily be practical in such a building.

[Gandalf]

I was thinking along those lines myself earlier in the day though not about indigenous sites in general.

In Australia, Indigenous sites (sacred and not) are regularly bulldozed in the name of some profitable venture or another. Many are older than 800 years. I suspect similar happens (or at least happened) in other colonised lands. So when I see this symbol of French culture burning, part of me does note that now it looks like what they used to do to other people's sacred buildings.

[Jub]

In Australia, Indigenous sites (sacred and not) are regularly bulldozed in the name of some profitable venture or another. Many are older than 800 years. I suspect similar happens (or at least happened) in other colonised lands. So when I see this symbol of French culture burning, part of me does note that now it looks like what they used to do to other people's sacred buildings.

Yeah, Australia managing to be worse than Canada and the US at dealing with their indigenous rights is sad, more so as the bar to clear isn't especially high.

[Gandalf]

Yeah, Australia managing to be worse than Canada and the US at dealing with their indigenous rights is sad, more so as the bar to clear isn't especially high.

Indeed. I learned at uni that the British Empire after losing the thirteen colonies went through a cultural moment like when the US lost in Vietnam. Because Native Americans had played a role in the British defeat, subsequent policies towards native peoples were... harsher in order to prevent another humiliating loss. This subsequently informed Australian policies towards Indigenous Australians. But this is a bit off topic, so I'll leave it there.