13 ms·

Notre Dame is unstable: a strong wind could make the walls collapse, report says

319 points by rutenspitz 7y ago

hprotagonist 7y ago
If i'm not mistaken, this is by design for Gothic buildings. I forget what the proper term is, but Gothic architecture exploits dynamic tension really thoroughly. The whole building is fighting against itself to destroy itself, and so remains balanced and static. Take a component out, and the result is unstable. Appropirately for a cathedral, the sermons practically write themselves.
- ucaetano 7y ago
  Essentially, the flying buttresses are designed to hold the weight of the roof pushing outside. Without that weight, there isn't much to prevent the walls from caving in.
- cnasc 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_buttress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_buttress perhaps
  - village-idiot 7y ago
    That's part of it, but the buttresses are all intact, the wooden roof is the only structural component that did not survive the fire.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      If I am pushing against you pushing the other way, and one of us stops, the other falls forward. That's what happens with a buttress without the roof and internal arches pushing the other way. Not enough to push it instantly over, but give it time or a strong wind...
    - blahedo 7y ago
      Some of the vaulting did not survive (notably, the section that the spire crashed through, and I think one other). The vaulting is what pushes the walls out while the buttresses push them in. (To my understanding, the roof, by comparison was a lot less structural—knowing that fires happen all the time, the 13th century engineers designed a roof that would burn away without destroying the underlying stonework.)
- z2 7y ago
  The article has a good diagram of the roof that provides the counterbalancing force to be discharged through the walls and buttresses. On an unrelated note, a sibling post, though also summarizing the article, seems to be correct. How did it get killed within a minute of posting?
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >On an unrelated note, a sibling post, though also summarizing the article, seems to be correct. How did it get killed within a minute of posting? Yeah. I noticed that too. I assume that the algorithm weights the time between down-votes and it got a couple real quick or something. It wasn't like it was even an opinionated comment so that's still odd.
- 64738 7y ago
  I recently heard it called as being in a state of equilibrium. Not sure if that's the one you were thinking of, but it was in the context of ancient construction techniques and describes the same thing.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  Now I'm curious how, hundreds of years ago, engineers and architects determined what designs were viable. Did they have quantitative data about materials' tensile strength, shear strength, etc.? If yes, what kind of math did they have for applying those data? If no, how did they safely design first-of-a-kind structures?
  - vasco 7y ago
    Cut some pieces of wood and test out smaller scale models
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      Wood and rock have such dissimilar structural properties that scale models out of wood don't say anything useful about full sized buildings out of rock.
  - sonthonax 7y ago
    Usually very old buildings (at least the ones that have survived) are extremely overbuilt, with solid walls many times thicker than what we would use today.
    - hprotagonist 7y ago
      “safety factor: even more rock, please!”
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - skybrian 7y ago
    This is at least partially survivor bias. Sometimes they miscalculated and buildings fell down.
    - tssva 7y ago
      Even the ones still standing often aren't because of fantastic original engineering but because they are the ones people have cared to carefully maintain and to perform renovations on to compensate for original engineering flaws.
jhallenworld 7y ago
I was thinking jokingly that this is a chance to replace that old fashioned Gothic design with a nice Modern Brutalist one. Well sure enough, there is such a cathedral: https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/brutalist-clifton-cathedral-bristol-purcell-renovation https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/brutalist-clifton-cat... oh, and another: it looks like a nuclear power station: https://www.e-architect.co.uk/liverpool/liverpool-catholic-cathedral https://www.e-architect.co.uk/liverpool/liverpool-catholic-c...
- jamiek88 7y ago
  There’s also ‘Paddy’s Wigwam’ as we used to call it, not very nicely I now see as an adult, as kids. Liverpool famously has two cathedrals very close to each other, within a mile, Church of England and Catholic Church. Nice pic link below shows both together with further individual pictures further down that page. https://images.app.goo.gl/vy5ZJ43FBx9Y1S5A7 https://images.app.goo.gl/vy5ZJ43FBx9Y1S5A7
  - glaurung_ 7y ago
    Something about this reminds me of the Witch-King of Angmar.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    aka the cooling tower. The Anglican cathedral, started in 1904 was finished later, in 1978 - was very much of the classical mould inside and out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Cathedral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Cathedral
- ra1n85 7y ago
  Are you being sincere? I find the end result of replacing all of the “old fashioned” architecture with “modern” designs leaves everything, no matter the city or country, looking sterile and the same.
  - User23 7y ago
    I believe that’s the point.
llamathrowaway 7y ago
Gothic architecture is fascinating because they are not only aesthetically appealing, but also very advanced (at their time) in terms of engineering. Stones are heavy, but the pointed arches and flying buttresses make Gothic churches feel light and nimble. Advanced structural design also allows Gothic churches to have larger windows as the structure is no longer solely supported by the walls, inviting more natural light into the church which contributes aesthetically and spiritually. For me, the above statement is the reason why I would prefer the roof and spite of Notre Dame to be reconstructed in a modern design that utilizes all the advancements in architecture. The Gothic churches were built using state-of-the-art technologies hundreds of years ago, and they deserve to be rebuilt with the state-of-the-art technologies we have nowadays. If the medieval French could, they would certainly build Notre Dame with steel and glass.
- beat 7y ago
  Only if the modern materials and design are done with the same eye toward longevity that marked the original designs. Part of the beauty of these ancient churches is psychological... they feel permanent and timeless in a changing world. Modern materials, on the other hand, are designed for productivity, not permanence. They hit cost targets. They're cheap and effective and sometimes even elegant, but it's highly unusual for a modern building to be built in a way that reflects an expected lifespan of centuries or even millennia.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    > timeless I think one thing that's proven beyond a doubt by now, once more by this fire, is that everything that man puts up is almost by definition not timeless, unless you make it out of large piles of stone such as the pyramids.
    - beat 7y ago
      Truly timeless is a very difficult thing (see the work by the Long Now Foundation for more on that). But I don't think that detracts from the point that these cathedrals were designed to last forever, from the perspective of the designers - the Notre Dame is 856 years old. It took about a century just to build it. It was epic, and clearly, it still is. Who builds a building like that today? Other than the Long Now's clock, who is really building things designed to last for centuries, millennia? That's my point. Even the most epic of modern architecture generally isn't thinking beyond a century or so. Hell, my house is over 100 years old. So modern materials thinking, in its usual box, is not really up to the task of re-roofing Notre Dame in the way it deserves. That doesn't mean we can't do it, or we should just build another flammable wooden roof. But it does mean that we need to think about how it should be done, to protect and preserve the legacy of that historic triumph of the human spirit over time itself. If you're worried about true timelessness... even the pyramids will die someday, eaten by the relentless desert sands. But we can maybe make something that lasts as long as human civilization itself, if we try.
Kyrio 7y ago
My parents were both involved in post-fire salvage operations at Notre-Dame and though I'm necessarily a bit biased towards their opinions, I wish we wouldn't share any self-branded expert's take on what went wrong or how things should be done. Some of the most qualified people in the country are working on the site and aren't being interviewed. As the article states, the man in charge of the restoration is an Architecte en chef des monuments historiques; preserving and restoring state-owned monuments is his job and he's accompanied by other architects of the same training. I fully agree with the author in that they should be the ones designing the reconstructed spire, not a worldwide art project as the president suggests. As far as the "independent report" about the stability of the building, it has not made the news here so far.
- brmgb 7y ago
  > the man in charge of the restoration is an Architecte en chef des monuments historiques That's the professional bureaucrat overseeing the work e.g. an architect who chose to do his career in the civil service and is suffisently adept at navigating it/old enough to have been promoted. That is not in itself particularly reassuring. Where I agree with you is that France most likely has both access to good experts and the technical know-how and means necessary to secure such a building. > fully agree with the author in that they should be the ones designing the reconstructed spire I completely disagree. The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ? Since we have to build something, let's at least build something reflecting our time. It will be old soon enough. A worldwide art project will surely bring a lot more new and bold ideas to the table.
  - 0815test 7y ago
    > The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ? AIUI, the spire itself actually dates back to the early 19th century - if so, rebuilding one in the same style would be quite appropriate. 19th c. was the peak in scale and ambition for these sorts of works, and we should take that as our reference. Brutalist 20th-c. or 21th-c. architecture might be "ambitious" in its own terms, but it would never fit the context of a Gothic cathedral.
volkisch 7y ago
Turn it into a mosque or something useful lol.
dopeypopey 7y ago
Instead of spending more money on Notre Dame, just demolish the damn building and re-allocate all of the reconstruction funds collected thus far to "rebuilding the lives" of all those who have been abused by the pervert priests.
- alistairSH 7y ago
  Notre Dame doesn't belong to the Catholic Church. It's been owned by the French state since 1789.
  - jordache 7y ago
    the symbol is its association with the catholic church, as opposed to a government owned real estate.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      Great. Let’s just tear things down because the mob has the wrong idea in their head. What could go wrong? Also, the Catholic Church is a 2000 years old organization. There’s a lot more to it than the sex abuse scandals.
  - throwaway744678 7y ago
    Since 1905 [1], though philosophically this law indeed takes its roots in the French revolution. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_French_law_on_the_Separation_of_the_Churches_and_the_State https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_French_law_on_the_Separ...
    - alistairSH 7y ago
      Interestingly, Notre Dame's own Wikipedia entry states it was nationalized in 1789, with several laws passed since reaffirming it's status as owned by the state and (what I interpret to mean) loaned back to the Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Paris#Ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Paris#Ownership
blahedo 7y ago
Most of the "entries" that people are making for designs for the roof/spire replacement, and many of the posts on here, suggest that many people think that when you were looking up in the pre-fire Notre Dame, or any other church building of similar construction, what you were/are seeing is the underside of the roof. It isn't! What you are seeing is stone vaulting, essentially a great big three-dimensional arch, related to a hemispherical dome in somewhat the same way as a gothic arch is related to a Romanesque rounded arch. It may or may not be painted or plastered or frescoed (ND's wasn't, I think) but the actual "ceiling" of the church—and, crucially, the structural part of what's over your head—was/is stone. The roof in a modern building is often structurally keeping the tops of the walls at a fixed distance as well as holding itself up, but in a stone cathedral, the roof was an extra layer over the top of the stonework, primarily to shed rainwater. All of which is to say, the loss of the wooden roof structure is a lot less threatening than the loss of (some of) the vaulting; and replacing the roof with glass or stained glass would be utterly invisible from inside the church, whose ceiling would still be the stone vaulting.
- Kyrio 7y ago
  Yes, I think that's something that isn't always made clear. The roof is simply used to prevent water from falling on the stone vaults; when a fire destroyed the roof and timber frame in Reims during World War I, the vaults resisted and only collapsed later because of rainfall.
- robbrown451 7y ago
  I think most people understand that the stone vaults are what is seen from the inside. At least most people who have given it a tiny bit of thought or looked at any pictures. Most, but not all, of the stone vaulting remains intact, although some of it may be weakened. While they may comprise the bulk of the structure, I don't think it is correct to say suggest that the roof and roof supports (all that timber) is merely to keep the rain off. It plays a significant role in the structure as well. Sure, without an earthquake or strong wind the valuting is strong enough, but with the roof supports gone the building is substantially less able to stand up to extreme conditions. As for replacing the roof with something else, it would have to be done where it contributes to the structure, not just sits on top. Glass can actually be structural, in fact. I like some of the new ideas, and don't think the ones I've seen are unfeasible, but they would simply (or not so simply) be done with a whole lot of regard for adding to the structure.
tide_ad 7y ago
If these churches weren't churches they would have been condemned for not being up to code. Lets put our nation's most prized and irreplaceable artifacts in it!
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  Sure, if you ignore all the non-church historic buildings all over Europe massively outnumber them.
  - tide_ad 7y ago
    > if you ignore naturally
idlewords 7y ago
I'm reserving judgement until I can hear Elon Musk's take on how to save the cathedral, and whether the chief architect on the project is a pedo.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Donald Trump beat him to it.
- dopeypopey 7y ago
  Nice!
olaf 7y ago
if humankind (best minds) is not able to build something better in every aspect today, we as a species are on the wrong trail and should change. We already need to change a lot (carbon free and many other problem areas) and like the Apollo program was a challenge for engineering we could start an effort in the domains of architecture and arts (and maybe others) to build something better, spiritual etc. ...
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  Why not just leave the cathedral as it was and build a whole new cathedral if people really want some modern masterpiece?
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  There are plenty of examples of "better" modern cathedrals being built, some are even linked in this thread. But we shouldn't lose our sense of history.
kweks 7y ago
I was up on the rooftop three weeks ago. What is more incredible is how untouched everything that was not directly touched by the fire is. Inside the church itself, the wood, the chairs, the organs.. incredible condition. There is massive consolidation work to do, but at least from what I saw, the news is better than you would probably believe. The guys doing the consolidation are working "real time" on the structure, shoring up what is necessary as soon as they notice. Rapidly shifting priorities and tasks. There were definitely parts that could easily collapse, bit again, compared to the rest of the structure, they appear to be minimal. The overriding feeling I had was: Hats off to the firemen for the incredible restraint and foresight that they applied.
- papito 7y ago
  They didn't listen to a fire expert Donald J Trump? He had some good ideas. Church fires are easy to put out!
- Kyrio 7y ago
  Hey, I remember your comments from the day of the fire. Your photos from the top of the spire are amazing. My father went to the rooftop probably at the same time as you, so he had the same conclusion; the structure is quickly being shored up and the teams know what they're doing. I don't understand what report the article is reacting to, because Vannucci's study is three years old and I haven't heard anything concerning on that topic lately. Oh and if you don't mind me asking, were you invited to the rooftop because you were involved in the spire study before? Or did you take part in the operations?
  - kweks 7y ago
    We had contacted the DRAC (governing body for patrimony and culture), but things were on lockdown because someone had leaked photos to the press, which had caused all sorts of chaos. One of the managers of the consolidation companies is a close friend, so we were able to head up under their jurisdiction. Again, the south and north towers are spotless inside, as is the nave (apart from the obvious 3 holes in the roof..). The stained glass, even directly under the collapsed sections were intact (and being meticulously removed) The wall sections on the shorter arms of the roof section were the most unstable parts, as the roof and beams are obviously gone. The North wall was already reinforced, and they were in the process of doing the same on the south wall. One of the biggest challenges will be removing the scaffolding, which is melted, twisted and a general mess. It was also incredible to see cooled lead flows from the mouths of the gargoyles. Again, the resounding feeling from the visit and the workers was one of hope and relief.
cwkoss 7y ago
Does anyone know of a kit for building a gothic architecture building consisting of small stones with pre-cut geometry? Seems like it would be fun to put together - could you use it like a puzzle and assemble with no adhesive, throw the pieces back into the box when you're done? Presumably could be manufactured from concrete in molds, so incremental cost could be quite low.
- Someone 7y ago
  “Anker stones” (http://www.ankerstein.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=18 http://www.ankerstein.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=v..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_Stone_Blocks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_Stone_Blocks) aren’t quite that, but also are better in the sense that you can build different buildings with them. For example gothic architecture, see for example https://www.ankerwiki.de/Neue-Modelle-bis-Kasten-34/Kasten-NF-34-plus/Gotische-Kirche/ https://www.ankerwiki.de/Neue-Modelle-bis-Kasten-34/Kasten-N... or https://www.nikhef.nl/~i56/Anker.html https://www.nikhef.nl/~i56/Anker.html (front of Chartres cathedral, gothic villa)
- johncalvinyoung 7y ago
  I've wanted Anker stones for years, ever since I read about them, for precisely just that purpose. At the moment I'm (sort of) scratching that itch building Gothic-esque buildings in Minecraft. But someday... Pity Anker stones are still so rare and expensive.
MagicPropmaker 7y ago
> Whether the government now launches an architectural competition or decides to rely on the highly professional bodies in charge of French monuments (in particular, the Compagnie des Architects en Chef, to which Philippe Villeneuve, the architect in charge of Notre Dame, belongs), it should demand an integrated project for the entire structure and not allow the design and implementation processes to be fragmented. It seems to me like the author is concerned about not "updating" the building (as was done several times in the past, like the 1860 spire). It's hard to separate those concerns about his attitude about preservation from the true needs of the project.
mzs 7y ago
This English-language article gets a lot mixed-up, Cathédrale durable was the report, it's from 2016, it correctly predicted the danger of fire in the roof, it was largely ignored by the people that mattered in France, it contained the details about wind, Vannucci recently spoke with an Italian journalist and highlighted this plus provided some additional context: https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2019/05/20/news/paolo_vannucci_notre-dame_non_e_ancora_salva_secondo_i_miei_calcoli_i_rischi_di_un_collasso_al_livello_della_volta_sono_a-226710639 https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2019/05/20/news/paolo_vannu...
jkingsbery 7y ago
> The current approach to its restoration fails to take account of the interconnected structural “engineering” of Gothic architecture Why is engineering in scare quotes?
- Nomentatus 7y ago
  I suppose because it wasn't highly quantitative or firmly within the range of known physics, back then. But since "engineering" originally referred to the building, operation and repair of siege engines, in ancient Rome; I'm with you. It was just plain engineering.
ggm 7y ago
A very old (DOS days) VRML navigable fly-through Notre Dame is somewhere on my hoarde of data. I wish it had been carried forward as a thing to self navigate. The same people did a virtual cluny I think. If anyone has the data brought into the 21st C I'd love to re-fly the nave.
brookside 7y ago
Really, sir. A strong breeze...
jimijazz 7y ago
Let it fall!
doggydogs94 7y ago
Just tear it down. Norte Dame is just a French government building.
vectorEQ 7y ago
i'm sure 600+million collected can help to stabilise it... or where did that money go? ....

319 points by rutenspitz 7y ago

If i'm not mistaken, this is by design for Gothic buildings. I forget what the proper term is, but Gothic architecture exploits dynamic tension really thoroughly. The whole building is fighting against itself to destroy itself, and so remains balanced and static. Take a component out, and the result is unstable. Appropirately for a cathedral, the sermons practically write themselves.

ucaetano 7y ago
Essentially, the flying buttresses are designed to hold the weight of the roof pushing outside. Without that weight, there isn't much to prevent the walls from caving in.
cnasc 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_buttress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_buttress perhaps
- village-idiot 7y ago
  That's part of it, but the buttresses are all intact, the wooden roof is the only structural component that did not survive the fire.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    If I am pushing against you pushing the other way, and one of us stops, the other falls forward. That's what happens with a buttress without the roof and internal arches pushing the other way. Not enough to push it instantly over, but give it time or a strong wind...
  - blahedo 7y ago
    Some of the vaulting did not survive (notably, the section that the spire crashed through, and I think one other). The vaulting is what pushes the walls out while the buttresses push them in. (To my understanding, the roof, by comparison was a lot less structural—knowing that fires happen all the time, the 13th century engineers designed a roof that would burn away without destroying the underlying stonework.)
z2 7y ago
The article has a good diagram of the roof that provides the counterbalancing force to be discharged through the walls and buttresses. On an unrelated note, a sibling post, though also summarizing the article, seems to be correct. How did it get killed within a minute of posting?
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >On an unrelated note, a sibling post, though also summarizing the article, seems to be correct. How did it get killed within a minute of posting? Yeah. I noticed that too. I assume that the algorithm weights the time between down-votes and it got a couple real quick or something. It wasn't like it was even an opinionated comment so that's still odd.
64738 7y ago
I recently heard it called as being in a state of equilibrium. Not sure if that's the one you were thinking of, but it was in the context of ancient construction techniques and describes the same thing.
DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
Now I'm curious how, hundreds of years ago, engineers and architects determined what designs were viable. Did they have quantitative data about materials' tensile strength, shear strength, etc.? If yes, what kind of math did they have for applying those data? If no, how did they safely design first-of-a-kind structures?
- vasco 7y ago
  Cut some pieces of wood and test out smaller scale models
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Wood and rock have such dissimilar structural properties that scale models out of wood don't say anything useful about full sized buildings out of rock.
- sonthonax 7y ago
  Usually very old buildings (at least the ones that have survived) are extremely overbuilt, with solid walls many times thicker than what we would use today.
  - hprotagonist 7y ago
    “safety factor: even more rock, please!”
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- skybrian 7y ago
  This is at least partially survivor bias. Sometimes they miscalculated and buildings fell down.
  - tssva 7y ago
    Even the ones still standing often aren't because of fantastic original engineering but because they are the ones people have cared to carefully maintain and to perform renovations on to compensate for original engineering flaws.

jhallenworld 7y ago

I was thinking jokingly that this is a chance to replace that old fashioned Gothic design with a nice Modern Brutalist one. Well sure enough, there is such a cathedral: https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/brutalist-clifton-cathedral-bristol-purcell-renovation https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/brutalist-clifton-cat... oh, and another: it looks like a nuclear power station: https://www.e-architect.co.uk/liverpool/liverpool-catholic-cathedral https://www.e-architect.co.uk/liverpool/liverpool-catholic-c...

jamiek88 7y ago
There’s also ‘Paddy’s Wigwam’ as we used to call it, not very nicely I now see as an adult, as kids. Liverpool famously has two cathedrals very close to each other, within a mile, Church of England and Catholic Church. Nice pic link below shows both together with further individual pictures further down that page. https://images.app.goo.gl/vy5ZJ43FBx9Y1S5A7 https://images.app.goo.gl/vy5ZJ43FBx9Y1S5A7
- glaurung_ 7y ago
  Something about this reminds me of the Witch-King of Angmar.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  aka the cooling tower. The Anglican cathedral, started in 1904 was finished later, in 1978 - was very much of the classical mould inside and out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Cathedral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Cathedral
ra1n85 7y ago
Are you being sincere? I find the end result of replacing all of the “old fashioned” architecture with “modern” designs leaves everything, no matter the city or country, looking sterile and the same.
- User23 7y ago
  I believe that’s the point.

llamathrowaway 7y ago

Gothic architecture is fascinating because they are not only aesthetically appealing, but also very advanced (at their time) in terms of engineering. Stones are heavy, but the pointed arches and flying buttresses make Gothic churches feel light and nimble. Advanced structural design also allows Gothic churches to have larger windows as the structure is no longer solely supported by the walls, inviting more natural light into the church which contributes aesthetically and spiritually. For me, the above statement is the reason why I would prefer the roof and spite of Notre Dame to be reconstructed in a modern design that utilizes all the advancements in architecture. The Gothic churches were built using state-of-the-art technologies hundreds of years ago, and they deserve to be rebuilt with the state-of-the-art technologies we have nowadays. If the medieval French could, they would certainly build Notre Dame with steel and glass.

beat 7y ago
Only if the modern materials and design are done with the same eye toward longevity that marked the original designs. Part of the beauty of these ancient churches is psychological... they feel permanent and timeless in a changing world. Modern materials, on the other hand, are designed for productivity, not permanence. They hit cost targets. They're cheap and effective and sometimes even elegant, but it's highly unusual for a modern building to be built in a way that reflects an expected lifespan of centuries or even millennia.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > timeless I think one thing that's proven beyond a doubt by now, once more by this fire, is that everything that man puts up is almost by definition not timeless, unless you make it out of large piles of stone such as the pyramids.
  - beat 7y ago
    Truly timeless is a very difficult thing (see the work by the Long Now Foundation for more on that). But I don't think that detracts from the point that these cathedrals were designed to last forever, from the perspective of the designers - the Notre Dame is 856 years old. It took about a century just to build it. It was epic, and clearly, it still is. Who builds a building like that today? Other than the Long Now's clock, who is really building things designed to last for centuries, millennia? That's my point. Even the most epic of modern architecture generally isn't thinking beyond a century or so. Hell, my house is over 100 years old. So modern materials thinking, in its usual box, is not really up to the task of re-roofing Notre Dame in the way it deserves. That doesn't mean we can't do it, or we should just build another flammable wooden roof. But it does mean that we need to think about how it should be done, to protect and preserve the legacy of that historic triumph of the human spirit over time itself. If you're worried about true timelessness... even the pyramids will die someday, eaten by the relentless desert sands. But we can maybe make something that lasts as long as human civilization itself, if we try.

Kyrio 7y ago

My parents were both involved in post-fire salvage operations at Notre-Dame and though I'm necessarily a bit biased towards their opinions, I wish we wouldn't share any self-branded expert's take on what went wrong or how things should be done. Some of the most qualified people in the country are working on the site and aren't being interviewed. As the article states, the man in charge of the restoration is an Architecte en chef des monuments historiques; preserving and restoring state-owned monuments is his job and he's accompanied by other architects of the same training. I fully agree with the author in that they should be the ones designing the reconstructed spire, not a worldwide art project as the president suggests. As far as the "independent report" about the stability of the building, it has not made the news here so far.

brmgb 7y ago
> the man in charge of the restoration is an Architecte en chef des monuments historiques That's the professional bureaucrat overseeing the work e.g. an architect who chose to do his career in the civil service and is suffisently adept at navigating it/old enough to have been promoted. That is not in itself particularly reassuring. Where I agree with you is that France most likely has both access to good experts and the technical know-how and means necessary to secure such a building. > fully agree with the author in that they should be the ones designing the reconstructed spire I completely disagree. The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ? Since we have to build something, let's at least build something reflecting our time. It will be old soon enough. A worldwide art project will surely bring a lot more new and bold ideas to the table.
- 0815test 7y ago
  > The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ? AIUI, the spire itself actually dates back to the early 19th century - if so, rebuilding one in the same style would be quite appropriate. 19th c. was the peak in scale and ambition for these sorts of works, and we should take that as our reference. Brutalist 20th-c. or 21th-c. architecture might be "ambitious" in its own terms, but it would never fit the context of a Gothic cathedral.

volkisch 7y ago

Turn it into a mosque or something useful lol.

dopeypopey 7y ago

Instead of spending more money on Notre Dame, just demolish the damn building and re-allocate all of the reconstruction funds collected thus far to "rebuilding the lives" of all those who have been abused by the pervert priests.

alistairSH 7y ago
Notre Dame doesn't belong to the Catholic Church. It's been owned by the French state since 1789.
- jordache 7y ago
  the symbol is its association with the catholic church, as opposed to a government owned real estate.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    Great. Let’s just tear things down because the mob has the wrong idea in their head. What could go wrong? Also, the Catholic Church is a 2000 years old organization. There’s a lot more to it than the sex abuse scandals.
- throwaway744678 7y ago
  Since 1905 [1], though philosophically this law indeed takes its roots in the French revolution. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_French_law_on_the_Separation_of_the_Churches_and_the_State https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_French_law_on_the_Separ...
  - alistairSH 7y ago
    Interestingly, Notre Dame's own Wikipedia entry states it was nationalized in 1789, with several laws passed since reaffirming it's status as owned by the state and (what I interpret to mean) loaned back to the Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Paris#Ownership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Paris#Ownership

blahedo 7y ago

Most of the "entries" that people are making for designs for the roof/spire replacement, and many of the posts on here, suggest that many people think that when you were looking up in the pre-fire Notre Dame, or any other church building of similar construction, what you were/are seeing is the underside of the roof. It isn't! What you are seeing is stone vaulting, essentially a great big three-dimensional arch, related to a hemispherical dome in somewhat the same way as a gothic arch is related to a Romanesque rounded arch. It may or may not be painted or plastered or frescoed (ND's wasn't, I think) but the actual "ceiling" of the church—and, crucially, the structural part of what's over your head—was/is stone. The roof in a modern building is often structurally keeping the tops of the walls at a fixed distance as well as holding itself up, but in a stone cathedral, the roof was an extra layer over the top of the stonework, primarily to shed rainwater. All of which is to say, the loss of the wooden roof structure is a lot less threatening than the loss of (some of) the vaulting; and replacing the roof with glass or stained glass would be utterly invisible from inside the church, whose ceiling would still be the stone vaulting.

Kyrio 7y ago
Yes, I think that's something that isn't always made clear. The roof is simply used to prevent water from falling on the stone vaults; when a fire destroyed the roof and timber frame in Reims during World War I, the vaults resisted and only collapsed later because of rainfall.
robbrown451 7y ago
I think most people understand that the stone vaults are what is seen from the inside. At least most people who have given it a tiny bit of thought or looked at any pictures. Most, but not all, of the stone vaulting remains intact, although some of it may be weakened. While they may comprise the bulk of the structure, I don't think it is correct to say suggest that the roof and roof supports (all that timber) is merely to keep the rain off. It plays a significant role in the structure as well. Sure, without an earthquake or strong wind the valuting is strong enough, but with the roof supports gone the building is substantially less able to stand up to extreme conditions. As for replacing the roof with something else, it would have to be done where it contributes to the structure, not just sits on top. Glass can actually be structural, in fact. I like some of the new ideas, and don't think the ones I've seen are unfeasible, but they would simply (or not so simply) be done with a whole lot of regard for adding to the structure.

tide_ad 7y ago

If these churches weren't churches they would have been condemned for not being up to code. Lets put our nation's most prized and irreplaceable artifacts in it!

SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
Sure, if you ignore all the non-church historic buildings all over Europe massively outnumber them.
- tide_ad 7y ago
  > if you ignore naturally

idlewords 7y ago

I'm reserving judgement until I can hear Elon Musk's take on how to save the cathedral, and whether the chief architect on the project is a pedo.

jacquesm 7y ago
Donald Trump beat him to it.
dopeypopey 7y ago
Nice!

olaf 7y ago

if humankind (best minds) is not able to build something better in every aspect today, we as a species are on the wrong trail and should change. We already need to change a lot (carbon free and many other problem areas) and like the Apollo program was a challenge for engineering we could start an effort in the domains of architecture and arts (and maybe others) to build something better, spiritual etc. ...

toasterlovin 7y ago
Why not just leave the cathedral as it was and build a whole new cathedral if people really want some modern masterpiece?
SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
There are plenty of examples of "better" modern cathedrals being built, some are even linked in this thread. But we shouldn't lose our sense of history.

kweks 7y ago

I was up on the rooftop three weeks ago. What is more incredible is how untouched everything that was not directly touched by the fire is. Inside the church itself, the wood, the chairs, the organs.. incredible condition. There is massive consolidation work to do, but at least from what I saw, the news is better than you would probably believe. The guys doing the consolidation are working "real time" on the structure, shoring up what is necessary as soon as they notice. Rapidly shifting priorities and tasks. There were definitely parts that could easily collapse, bit again, compared to the rest of the structure, they appear to be minimal. The overriding feeling I had was: Hats off to the firemen for the incredible restraint and foresight that they applied.

papito 7y ago
They didn't listen to a fire expert Donald J Trump? He had some good ideas. Church fires are easy to put out!
Kyrio 7y ago
Hey, I remember your comments from the day of the fire. Your photos from the top of the spire are amazing. My father went to the rooftop probably at the same time as you, so he had the same conclusion; the structure is quickly being shored up and the teams know what they're doing. I don't understand what report the article is reacting to, because Vannucci's study is three years old and I haven't heard anything concerning on that topic lately. Oh and if you don't mind me asking, were you invited to the rooftop because you were involved in the spire study before? Or did you take part in the operations?
- kweks 7y ago
  We had contacted the DRAC (governing body for patrimony and culture), but things were on lockdown because someone had leaked photos to the press, which had caused all sorts of chaos. One of the managers of the consolidation companies is a close friend, so we were able to head up under their jurisdiction. Again, the south and north towers are spotless inside, as is the nave (apart from the obvious 3 holes in the roof..). The stained glass, even directly under the collapsed sections were intact (and being meticulously removed) The wall sections on the shorter arms of the roof section were the most unstable parts, as the roof and beams are obviously gone. The North wall was already reinforced, and they were in the process of doing the same on the south wall. One of the biggest challenges will be removing the scaffolding, which is melted, twisted and a general mess. It was also incredible to see cooled lead flows from the mouths of the gargoyles. Again, the resounding feeling from the visit and the workers was one of hope and relief.

cwkoss 7y ago

Does anyone know of a kit for building a gothic architecture building consisting of small stones with pre-cut geometry? Seems like it would be fun to put together - could you use it like a puzzle and assemble with no adhesive, throw the pieces back into the box when you're done? Presumably could be manufactured from concrete in molds, so incremental cost could be quite low.

Someone 7y ago
“Anker stones” (http://www.ankerstein.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=18 http://www.ankerstein.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=v..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_Stone_Blocks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_Stone_Blocks) aren’t quite that, but also are better in the sense that you can build different buildings with them. For example gothic architecture, see for example https://www.ankerwiki.de/Neue-Modelle-bis-Kasten-34/Kasten-NF-34-plus/Gotische-Kirche/ https://www.ankerwiki.de/Neue-Modelle-bis-Kasten-34/Kasten-N... or https://www.nikhef.nl/~i56/Anker.html https://www.nikhef.nl/~i56/Anker.html (front of Chartres cathedral, gothic villa)
johncalvinyoung 7y ago
I've wanted Anker stones for years, ever since I read about them, for precisely just that purpose. At the moment I'm (sort of) scratching that itch building Gothic-esque buildings in Minecraft. But someday... Pity Anker stones are still so rare and expensive.

MagicPropmaker 7y ago

> Whether the government now launches an architectural competition or decides to rely on the highly professional bodies in charge of French monuments (in particular, the Compagnie des Architects en Chef, to which Philippe Villeneuve, the architect in charge of Notre Dame, belongs), it should demand an integrated project for the entire structure and not allow the design and implementation processes to be fragmented. It seems to me like the author is concerned about not "updating" the building (as was done several times in the past, like the 1860 spire). It's hard to separate those concerns about his attitude about preservation from the true needs of the project.

mzs 7y ago

This English-language article gets a lot mixed-up, Cathédrale durable was the report, it's from 2016, it correctly predicted the danger of fire in the roof, it was largely ignored by the people that mattered in France, it contained the details about wind, Vannucci recently spoke with an Italian journalist and highlighted this plus provided some additional context: https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2019/05/20/news/paolo_vannucci_notre-dame_non_e_ancora_salva_secondo_i_miei_calcoli_i_rischi_di_un_collasso_al_livello_della_volta_sono_a-226710639 https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2019/05/20/news/paolo_vannu...

jkingsbery 7y ago

> The current approach to its restoration fails to take account of the interconnected structural “engineering” of Gothic architecture Why is engineering in scare quotes?

Nomentatus 7y ago
I suppose because it wasn't highly quantitative or firmly within the range of known physics, back then. But since "engineering" originally referred to the building, operation and repair of siege engines, in ancient Rome; I'm with you. It was just plain engineering.

ggm 7y ago

A very old (DOS days) VRML navigable fly-through Notre Dame is somewhere on my hoarde of data. I wish it had been carried forward as a thing to self navigate. The same people did a virtual cluny I think. If anyone has the data brought into the 21st C I'd love to re-fly the nave.

brookside 7y ago

Really, sir. A strong breeze...

jimijazz 7y ago

Let it fall!

doggydogs94 7y ago

Just tear it down. Norte Dame is just a French government building.

vectorEQ 7y ago

i'm sure 600+million collected can help to stabilise it... or where did that money go? ....