3 ms·
> Mr. Prunet added that sprinklers were not added because they would “drown the whole structure.” Waiting for the fire department to show up and start spraying
by mr_crankypants 7y ago
> Mr. Prunet added that sprinklers were not added because they would “drown the whole structure.”
Waiting for the fire department to show up and start spraying the structure with high-pressure hoses in order to contain a fire that got much larger in the intervening time because it wasn't being mitigated by a sprinkler system, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have damaged the structure at all.
Hindsight really is 20/20.
It's also interesting that fire mitigation measures were discarded in the interest of historic preservation. The charpente being a part of the building that basically nobody ever sees, the question arises, "preserving it for who?" Or had the preservation become an end in and of itself?
- greyhair 7y agoAnd the roof was not part of the original structure, it had been completely rebuilt, yes a long time ago, but still completely rebuilt. My guess is that if they had access to modern materials at the time, they would have opted for that. Also, the tall spire was added (historically) fairly recently. It was not an original part of the roof that burned. So apparently, earlier people were not "afraid" of altering it.
- bleuarff 7y agoThat was a bonus in addition to the restauration works that took place mid-19th century.