Out of curiosity, I asked a firefighter today if aerial tankers could be used. He said that it would be a helicopter with a bucket rather than a water bomber and while it could be useful, he would not have used it in the circumstances at Norte Dame, unless it was literally the only thing he could do.
A friend of mine posted a photo of the Rose Window intact this morning, and I was happy to see that.
When I was last in Paris a couple of years ago, I considered going into the cathedral, but skipped it since I’d just been to Chartres the day before and it’s too easy to get cathedral’d out. I’m sorry now that I didn’t.
I wouldn’t want to put that responsibility on any firefighters. It’s not lot you could say oops, If the walls collapsed. The entire world would be pissed off.
The fire damage is bad but at least the walls are standing.
When I first saw that picture yesterday, my first reaction was “Oh shit, it’s burned to a hollowed out shell.” Then I saw the photos from the interior showing much of the vaulting intact (and a lot of wooden seats unburnt) I went back to that photo and realized what is was clearly showing is the burning remains of the roof resting on top of the vaulting: the roof had burnt down to the vaulting, not to the ground.
Regarding using a “water bomber”: the vaulting apparently protected much of the interior of the church, including the rose windows. Dumping tons of water in one go could very well have caved in the vaulting. In any case, there was no way to get water onto the fire (water bomber, hoses) until the lead roof had melted/burned away enough to expose the fire to the open air.
The key right now (once structural assessments are done and any emergency remediation in place) is to get a temporary roof on the place to protect from further water damage. Eventually replace the roof with one built with modern materials - I see no reason to rebuild it exactly as it was done originally (the “forest of wood” that comprised the structure of the roof was functional, not decorative). The Cologne cathedral was started in the Gothic period but the roof was not completed until the 19th century; the builders used modern iron framework rather than the wood framework called for in the original design.
In many ways it was already “never the same”.
A building that old in continuous use is not going to be all original parts. Something like 20% of the original stained glass had been replaced over time. All but one of the bells was relatively recently recast. The current electrical lights were certainly not in the original plans. The spire that fell only dates from the 19th Century.
Normally these repairs, replacements and changes take place slowly over time. If plans move forward to restore the cathedral it is, in a way, more of the same but highly compressed in time.
Change is the only constant, as they say.
I did have to look that one up. That fire was small, contained, did little damage, and was known to be started by kids playing. I don’t shiver at false equivalences.
All true, and that gives the restorers permission of sorts to make the building safer and more durable. There doesn’t have to be structural wood anymore in areas worshippers and tourists don’t see, including in the new spire, and there can be sprinklers placed inobtrusively elsewhere, for instance.
Yeah, at what point in its history should the ever-changing building be restored to? The 1200’s, the Revolution, last week?
For those who’d like to donate to the restoration; I’ve already written a check: How To Donate To Help Rebuild Notre Dame Cathedral - CBS San Francisco
From the Guardian:
In large metropolitan areas.
An even more apposite comparison would be Chartres Cathedral, which suffered a similar fire in 1836. Its inner roof structure was replaced in metal. That’s now considered historically significant in its own right.
That’s going to be an interesting argument. While in this particular case Viollet-le-Duc actually wasn’t quite as interventionist as is sometimes assumed, there is a serious case for saying that his version of Notre-Dame is the only one with which any of us is familiar. Yet is that version ‘authentic’, either in our terms or, more paradoxically, even in his terms? Should his changes now be undone because we possibly know better? Isn’t that precisely what he would do in the present situation? But might not his inauthentic authenticity now feel more authentic because that’s what we know has been lost? The arguments over this will run and run.
The term you want is “tracery”
How did they know?!
Debate about ‘authenticity’ doesn’t make much sense.
This is not a building that ever was, or ever was intended to be, frozen in time. It’s not a museum. It’s not an art gallery. It’s a living, changing building in a living, changing tradition, and it always has been. It’s used for church services every day, and that’s its primary function. Everything else is secondary. It’s not there to be a tourist attraction or a museum.
That why, although Notre Dame was chronically short of funds for restoration for years, they wouldn’t charge an entrance fee to the 12-13 million visitors each year. It’s a church, and you don’t charge entrance fees to a church. End of story.
The best way to see the building is not as a tourist attraction, or as a monument to architectural history, but performing its true function - as in the video of vespers I posted earlier. An ordinary quiet Monday evening, after all the tourists have been shooed out… and ending only half an hour before the fire started.
It isn’t a Jewish organ?
Thank you! 
My opinions are my own. I’m not defending Trump nor did I mention his name. I stated my case with the logic that water planes are very accurate and can change the dispersal pattern with altitude. I also showed clips of their accuracy.
You on the other hand injected politics into it and ran your pie-hole with a rant that doesn’t belong in this thread. So, feel free to apologize.
How do you install such a system in an old building with very high ceilings and towers? And without making it look hideous?
No,. I don’t know either.
In the case of Notre Dame (and presumably many large buildings of similar age and construction) a fire suppression system in the attic is what was needed, along with fireblocking (which would have helped contain the fire to only a section of the roof). Relatively little is flammable inside the cathedral below the vaulting - seating, confessionals, pulpits, choir stalls. Such fire suppression wouldn’t even be visible unless you went into the attic. Certainly whatever replacement roof is built (hopefully not a forest of wood like the old roof, but structural steel) will have such modern systems.
OK, OK, OK, maybe Lloyd’s of London?" :rolleyes:
Almost $1 billion has been pledged by donors worldwide to finance the restoration.