4 ms·
> 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) Mac
by 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...