4 ms·
That's really sad. What a shame cutting down 1k large old oaks for any building at all. It's not necessary these days. Of course they need some wood in publicly
by mcdonje 3y ago
That's really sad. What a shame cutting down 1k large old oaks for any building at all. It's not necessary these days. Of course they need some wood in publicly viewable areas, but this amount of not only wood but large old oak trees is excessive and concerning.
Is there any indication that they're improving the structure so it will be more fire proof? Or are they simply restoring it to the configuration that already failed?
- hackernewds 3y agoThe cutting down of 1000 year oaks is sad. Perhaps we can have the perspective that these trees lived fulfilling lives and the younger trees deserve centuries? And after all the Notre Dame is also a very historically significant building
- kelsolaar 3y agoThe cathedral has been up for hundreds of years, hard to qualify that as a failure.
- mcdonje 3y agoNot exactly in its most recent configuration that failed. The people in charge are so concerned about historical accuracy they need to cut down a thousand large oaks, but their predecessors weren't so concerned about historical accuracy when they retrofitted a medieval structure with the electrical wiring that ended up causing it to burn down.
- hef19898 3y agoLucky for Notre Dame, HN is not charge of reconstruction...
- kelsolaar 3y agoThe wiring that were installed in the oak structure, if they are the cause for a short that ultimately caused the fire, were contrary to regulation in the first place and were only meant to be installed temporarily. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_fire
- malartic 3y ago> Or are they simply restoring it to the configuration that already failed? 780 years is not that bad for a building. (or, more precisely, the roof frame) Macron & co had some idea for new things. They were all horrible. While I do think with good taste one could do some new things nicely ( e.g maybe a titanium-based roof instead of the lead one ), a restoration is the next best choice when proposed new things are crazy ugly/out-of-touch. Btw, in our age, and since at least the early middle-age in France and old Europe, the use of old, large trees is the main political reason to keep alive some old, large forest with old trees. For ordinary wood they do plantations of fast-growing stuff and cut at maybe 40y or so.
- mcdonje 3y agoThe only electrical fire vector they needed to worry about 780 years ago was lightning storms. I'm not proposing ugly or out of touch changes. Materials changes like titanium instead of lead are exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Not all of the oak will be in publicly viewable areas. I'm surprised and disappointed you don't keep forests around simply to benefit nature and humanity without needing a pretext of building construction.
- hef19898 3y agoTitanium is a, extremely expensive, alternative to steel and aluminium when strength and weight are an issue. I literally never heard anyone propose to replace lead with it...
- tokai 3y agoOak don't grow straight naturally, so all most all tall 1 meter thick oak trees were planted and are crops. If you don't cut some down now and replant there will be no tall 1 mete wide oak trees in 200 years time. Most European forests are cultural landscapes that are actively harvested and renewed.