6 ms·

The rebuilding is apparently going well, but this is hiding the fact that nobody seems to be doing any inquiry about why the fire wasn't stopped in time. As fa

by bambax 3y ago

The rebuilding is apparently going well, but this is hiding the fact that nobody seems to be doing any inquiry about why the fire wasn't stopped in time. As far as we know, the fire was an accident (not foul play) -- but an extremely preventable one. There were works in progress on the roof of the cathedral, so people were coming and going, some of them possibly smoking, electrical devices were being used, etc. And to monitor all this activity, there was only one guy, who had started on the job a couple of weeks earlier, who had received little to no training, and who didn't even know where the alarm was. The point was to "save on costs", that is, in order to save maybe 1,300 euros / month over three months, the people in charge caused 1 billion euros of damage and lost irreparable historical artefacts. There is a whole administrative department in France, whose sole responsibility is to make sure this kind of catastrophe never happens. At the very least, people should have been fired, from the site manager to the culture minister. Yet nobody's being investigated, let alone prosecuted or punished. Incredible.

soco 3y ago
"Save the costs" is the official religion of the MBA era we live in and no sacrifice is too big. Am I sarcastic? I can't tell.
- dr-detroit 3y ago
  Its a waste of money you could actually help people instead. When Victor Hugo published his novel The Hunchback of Notre Dame in 1831 nobody cared about Notre Dame. Anything of value had been stolen during the French Revolution and the Cathedral was in terrible repair.
- scottLobster 3y ago
  Yep, to the modern administrative class "don't shit where you eat" is laughably old fashioned. Modernity brings a new contest: who can shit where they eat the most for the longest? Last one to get cholera wins! And don't worry about the actual cholera infection, that's what taxpayer bailouts are for!
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    "where you eat" is too vague to be actionable policy the real profit is in boundary pushing. Just how close can you get the shit to the food? In this century we will find out.
  - soco 3y ago
    I have the feeling that the whole MBA study is for jury-rigging the system. And not as one would have expected to, you know, build things.
chrstphrknwtn 3y ago
> some of them possibly smoking I lived in Paris for a time, I would say it is guaranteed some were smoking.
- masfuerte 3y ago
  I was in CDG airport in the 90s, shortly after they introduced a smoking ban, and gasping for a fag. So I went over to a check-in desk and asked the woman where the nearest smoking area was. She gave me a Gallic shrug and gestured to indicate the entire airport.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    That was pretty normal behaviour across Europe right after those bans were invoked. Which happened decades ago, and has nothing to do with the Notre Dame fire.
canoebuilder 3y ago
>As far as we know, the fire was an accident “As far as we know” In the same sense of like “innocent until proven guilty” But is that the right lens to be looking through here? What is the rate of accidental church fires, let alone at somewhere that is such a treasured location as this? Then factor in, wasn’t there an ongoing spate of what were clearly church arson attacks going on at the time? Then factor in what you were describing of what seems to be an inexplicably lackadaisical approach of getting to the bottom of what occurred, giving the impression of some wanting above all else to divert attention from what one would think to be the most pertinent questions about what occurred. Then do the calculus of, okay, if it could be shown to be a clear cut case of being accidental why wouldn’t people in a position to do so, show that? That would have minimal, if any, political ramifications. Whereas the political ramifications of other possible causes of the fire would be much higher. It raises some questions doesn’t it? Why aren’t people in positions of influence on this matter and in political leadership doing what their office calls on them to do? And given what can be observed of their actions what is one to make of their intentions? Why aren’t they safe guarding and defending the nation’s culture and heritage? Why are they leaving it open and vulnerable to attack?
- EamonnMR 3y ago
  The rate of construction accidents is what you should look at, not church fires.
  - canoebuilder 3y ago
    Ok but the fact of there being some construction going on is somewhat ancillary to the whole point being made of the various factors observed and at play here that come together and raise some questions. I could have easily left the “what is the rate” part out, and the points made would have been just as strong or stronger. And yes there was some sort of maintenance/construction going on, and if that played a role in the fire one would think at some point in the intervening years between then and now someone would have shown how it played a role.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
goodSteveramos 3y ago
[flagged]
hackernewds 3y ago
Why is there a tendency for scapegoating necessary in these situations? It seems like a western cultural carnal temptation for personal justice porn
- canoebuilder 3y ago
  Something bad occurred. Let’s figure out what, why, and how, and make any necessary changes to make future occurrences of bad thing less likely. I don’t see how that is scapegoating.
  - burntwater 3y ago
    The OP is insisting on finding people to blame, and finding people to fire. That sounds like scapegoating to me.
- xp84 3y ago
  If I hired a babysitter and on their watch, one of my kids caught on fire, yes, I'd insist on attributing that to the person whose one job it was to ensure their safety, and at least not hiring them again. Is that scapegoating or common sense? Nobody's saying they should get the guillotine, but perhaps they shouldn't be in the business of managing fire safety at the Notre Dame since it's obviously not something they're good at. CV headline: "Oversaw safety at a national landmark -- Allowed only a single billion-dollar fire"
  - richk449 3y ago
    > If I hired a babysitter and on their watch, one of my kids caught on fire, yes, I'd insist on attributing that to the person whose one job it was to ensure their safety, and at least not hiring them again. Interesting that the responsibility stops there. What about the person that hired the obviously incompetent babysitter? They don’t appear to have sufficient judgement to be responsible for kids.
    - xp84 3y ago
      I fear you may have taken my simplified hypothetical too seriously. Nobody is suggesting one man or woman bears 100% of the responsibility for what happened at Notre Dame. Yes, it's multiple people. They should all face some consequences if only not being trusted to do those jobs.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
> The rebuilding is apparently going well, but this is hiding the fact that nobody seems to be doing any inquiry about why the fire wasn't stopped in time. Is this a true statement? I remember reading an extremely detailed play-by-play in one of the major papers a couple years ago that did a pretty good analysis of why a confluence of factors led to the fire. I don't know what the status is of any governmental, official investigation, but I at least saw some thorough investigative reporting from news organizations. I agree with the sibling comment that this feels a little like scapegoating. Like many disasters like this, it wasn't just one thing, but a confluence of lots of little innocuous things (e.g. new guy on the job, can't remember all the details but maybe there was a phone number change IIRC, etc.) that led to the fire. Not saying a thorough investigation isn't warranted, but pretending these types of things are completely preventable is also a mistake IMO. Edit: This is from a US government website, and I can't see all the details but it looks like someone did do a root cause analysis, https://www.govevents.com/details/37273/risk-management-case-study-the-fire-at-notre-dame-cathedral/ https://www.govevents.com/details/37273/risk-management-case... : In the days following the fire, questions began to arise about what could have caused the fire and, also about the nature and extent of the fire detection and protection systems. It turns out Notre Dame had one of the most sophisticated and elaborate fire safety systems ever designed, befitting a landmark of its stature. A team of experts had spent more than six years and untold funds developing the fire protection plan. Yet, when the system was put to a real test, it failed in spectacular fashion. How this could have happened, and what lessons can be learned from this tragic event with be discussed in detail.
- bambax 3y ago
  There was an inquiry about the direct causes of the fire, that concluded the initial "spark", so to speak, was indeed an accident. I agree with that. > Is this a true statement? Yes, I think it is, unless one can point to an inquiry, not about the fire itself, and how it started (which has been done), but about the chain of responsibilities of the people in charge of the construction site at the time of the fire. My point is, having just one guy with no training and no experience, monitor a landmark of this importance, during major works on the roof, is incredibly careless and unprofessional and should have consequences. But apparently it doesn't.
londons_explore 3y ago
It has burnt down and been rebuilt many times in it's history. Just like we are rebuilding with original stones and techniques, one should perhaps argue that it should also be rebuilt with its original fire resilience too - ie. Low. At this point, a fire once every hundred years or so is part of the culture, and to stop doing that is in a way destroying the character of the cathedral.
- red75prime 3y ago
  I can't say whether it's sarcasm or not.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    Perhaps it's somewhat pragmatic. Churches are built to last by the standards of the era, and they're funded by generational resources by people who want to make a legacy, but churches are still victims of disaster at the ordinary rate. Earthquakes seem to claim significant victims even to the present day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Cathedral_of_St._Mary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Cathedral_of_St._Mary The Christian view of fire is, of course, multi-faceted, as the Holy Spirit is a force for renewal, rebirth and purification. No parishioner wants their home burned down, of course, but at the end of the day, those are simply buildings, and they're replaceable, and every demolition is an opportunity to remake something new and wonderful.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
jltsiren 3y ago
Intact historical buildings and artifacts are rare, because something like this is the expected outcome. People are careless and incompetent, except by accident. Restoring a major historical building is always a one-off project. You follow the best practices, and the chance of a catastrophic outcome may be 10%, 1%, or 0.1%. You can't tell those scenarios apart in advance, because they all look very similar. Success is overwhelmingly likely. If a catastrophe occurs, the reason is often obvious in retrospect, and you will take that into account in the next project. But it clearly wasn't obvious in advance.
Zemtomo 3y ago
Are you even closely related to this topic at all? How would you know what and what not is going on in the background?

by bambax 3y ago

soco 3y ago

"Save the costs" is the official religion of the MBA era we live in and no sacrifice is too big. Am I sarcastic? I can't tell.

dr-detroit 3y ago
Its a waste of money you could actually help people instead. When Victor Hugo published his novel The Hunchback of Notre Dame in 1831 nobody cared about Notre Dame. Anything of value had been stolen during the French Revolution and the Cathedral was in terrible repair.
scottLobster 3y ago
Yep, to the modern administrative class "don't shit where you eat" is laughably old fashioned. Modernity brings a new contest: who can shit where they eat the most for the longest? Last one to get cholera wins! And don't worry about the actual cholera infection, that's what taxpayer bailouts are for!
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  "where you eat" is too vague to be actionable policy the real profit is in boundary pushing. Just how close can you get the shit to the food? In this century we will find out.
- soco 3y ago
  I have the feeling that the whole MBA study is for jury-rigging the system. And not as one would have expected to, you know, build things.

chrstphrknwtn 3y ago

> some of them possibly smoking I lived in Paris for a time, I would say it is guaranteed some were smoking.

masfuerte 3y ago
I was in CDG airport in the 90s, shortly after they introduced a smoking ban, and gasping for a fag. So I went over to a check-in desk and asked the woman where the nearest smoking area was. She gave me a Gallic shrug and gestured to indicate the entire airport.
- hef19898 3y ago
  That was pretty normal behaviour across Europe right after those bans were invoked. Which happened decades ago, and has nothing to do with the Notre Dame fire.

canoebuilder 3y ago

>As far as we know, the fire was an accident “As far as we know” In the same sense of like “innocent until proven guilty” But is that the right lens to be looking through here? What is the rate of accidental church fires, let alone at somewhere that is such a treasured location as this? Then factor in, wasn’t there an ongoing spate of what were clearly church arson attacks going on at the time? Then factor in what you were describing of what seems to be an inexplicably lackadaisical approach of getting to the bottom of what occurred, giving the impression of some wanting above all else to divert attention from what one would think to be the most pertinent questions about what occurred. Then do the calculus of, okay, if it could be shown to be a clear cut case of being accidental why wouldn’t people in a position to do so, show that? That would have minimal, if any, political ramifications. Whereas the political ramifications of other possible causes of the fire would be much higher. It raises some questions doesn’t it? Why aren’t people in positions of influence on this matter and in political leadership doing what their office calls on them to do? And given what can be observed of their actions what is one to make of their intentions? Why aren’t they safe guarding and defending the nation’s culture and heritage? Why are they leaving it open and vulnerable to attack?

EamonnMR 3y ago
The rate of construction accidents is what you should look at, not church fires.
- canoebuilder 3y ago
  Ok but the fact of there being some construction going on is somewhat ancillary to the whole point being made of the various factors observed and at play here that come together and raise some questions. I could have easily left the “what is the rate” part out, and the points made would have been just as strong or stronger. And yes there was some sort of maintenance/construction going on, and if that played a role in the fire one would think at some point in the intervening years between then and now someone would have shown how it played a role.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago

goodSteveramos 3y ago

[flagged]

hackernewds 3y ago

Why is there a tendency for scapegoating necessary in these situations? It seems like a western cultural carnal temptation for personal justice porn

canoebuilder 3y ago
Something bad occurred. Let’s figure out what, why, and how, and make any necessary changes to make future occurrences of bad thing less likely. I don’t see how that is scapegoating.
- burntwater 3y ago
  The OP is insisting on finding people to blame, and finding people to fire. That sounds like scapegoating to me.
xp84 3y ago
If I hired a babysitter and on their watch, one of my kids caught on fire, yes, I'd insist on attributing that to the person whose one job it was to ensure their safety, and at least not hiring them again. Is that scapegoating or common sense? Nobody's saying they should get the guillotine, but perhaps they shouldn't be in the business of managing fire safety at the Notre Dame since it's obviously not something they're good at. CV headline: "Oversaw safety at a national landmark -- Allowed only a single billion-dollar fire"
- richk449 3y ago
  > If I hired a babysitter and on their watch, one of my kids caught on fire, yes, I'd insist on attributing that to the person whose one job it was to ensure their safety, and at least not hiring them again. Interesting that the responsibility stops there. What about the person that hired the obviously incompetent babysitter? They don’t appear to have sufficient judgement to be responsible for kids.
  - xp84 3y ago
    I fear you may have taken my simplified hypothetical too seriously. Nobody is suggesting one man or woman bears 100% of the responsibility for what happened at Notre Dame. Yes, it's multiple people. They should all face some consequences if only not being trusted to do those jobs.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

> The rebuilding is apparently going well, but this is hiding the fact that nobody seems to be doing any inquiry about why the fire wasn't stopped in time. Is this a true statement? I remember reading an extremely detailed play-by-play in one of the major papers a couple years ago that did a pretty good analysis of why a confluence of factors led to the fire. I don't know what the status is of any governmental, official investigation, but I at least saw some thorough investigative reporting from news organizations. I agree with the sibling comment that this feels a little like scapegoating. Like many disasters like this, it wasn't just one thing, but a confluence of lots of little innocuous things (e.g. new guy on the job, can't remember all the details but maybe there was a phone number change IIRC, etc.) that led to the fire. Not saying a thorough investigation isn't warranted, but pretending these types of things are completely preventable is also a mistake IMO. Edit: This is from a US government website, and I can't see all the details but it looks like someone did do a root cause analysis, https://www.govevents.com/details/37273/risk-management-case-study-the-fire-at-notre-dame-cathedral/ https://www.govevents.com/details/37273/risk-management-case... : In the days following the fire, questions began to arise about what could have caused the fire and, also about the nature and extent of the fire detection and protection systems. It turns out Notre Dame had one of the most sophisticated and elaborate fire safety systems ever designed, befitting a landmark of its stature. A team of experts had spent more than six years and untold funds developing the fire protection plan. Yet, when the system was put to a real test, it failed in spectacular fashion. How this could have happened, and what lessons can be learned from this tragic event with be discussed in detail.

bambax 3y ago
There was an inquiry about the direct causes of the fire, that concluded the initial "spark", so to speak, was indeed an accident. I agree with that. > Is this a true statement? Yes, I think it is, unless one can point to an inquiry, not about the fire itself, and how it started (which has been done), but about the chain of responsibilities of the people in charge of the construction site at the time of the fire. My point is, having just one guy with no training and no experience, monitor a landmark of this importance, during major works on the roof, is incredibly careless and unprofessional and should have consequences. But apparently it doesn't.

londons_explore 3y ago

It has burnt down and been rebuilt many times in it's history. Just like we are rebuilding with original stones and techniques, one should perhaps argue that it should also be rebuilt with its original fire resilience too - ie. Low. At this point, a fire once every hundred years or so is part of the culture, and to stop doing that is in a way destroying the character of the cathedral.

red75prime 3y ago
I can't say whether it's sarcasm or not.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  Perhaps it's somewhat pragmatic. Churches are built to last by the standards of the era, and they're funded by generational resources by people who want to make a legacy, but churches are still victims of disaster at the ordinary rate. Earthquakes seem to claim significant victims even to the present day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Cathedral_of_St._Mary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Cathedral_of_St._Mary The Christian view of fire is, of course, multi-faceted, as the Holy Spirit is a force for renewal, rebirth and purification. No parishioner wants their home burned down, of course, but at the end of the day, those are simply buildings, and they're replaceable, and every demolition is an opportunity to remake something new and wonderful.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jltsiren 3y ago

Intact historical buildings and artifacts are rare, because something like this is the expected outcome. People are careless and incompetent, except by accident. Restoring a major historical building is always a one-off project. You follow the best practices, and the chance of a catastrophic outcome may be 10%, 1%, or 0.1%. You can't tell those scenarios apart in advance, because they all look very similar. Success is overwhelmingly likely. If a catastrophe occurs, the reason is often obvious in retrospect, and you will take that into account in the next project. But it clearly wasn't obvious in advance.

Zemtomo 3y ago

Are you even closely related to this topic at all? How would you know what and what not is going on in the background?