I heard a correspondent note that there were no fatalities, no injuries. That in itself is miraculous if true.
It’s a site significant to human culture as a whole, not just of France.
Oh, really, there’s a backlog, is there? How unfortunate for you. And us.
Basical the Cathedral was undergoing substantial renovations. This resulted both in:
and
We had a discussion a few months ago about the Glasgow School of Art fire which also destroyed an extremely important architectural building–all because the workers were careless.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=857002
This sounds like the same situation here.
Damn…and I’ll bet that wood that is 700 years old is pretty dry and very flammable.
CBS reporting that the whole of L’Ile de la Cite is being evacuated.
I’m sure the building and grounds are insured.
Earlier, CNN did a closeup of a turret, upon which several FFs stood, presumably trying to figure out what to do next.
It appears that the FFs’ main focus was on preventing the fire from spreading, and then putting it out would be next.
Old buildings are great to look at, but modern fire codes exist for a reason.
The latest report (3:15 PM CT) is that they are still trying to save as much of the artwork as possible, but the north tower is in danger of collapse and the great bell of falling.
If it was my call: the buildings can be rebuilt - but save the historic artwork at all costs. I reserve the right to change my opinion on this if there is a chance that the fire can spread, in which case, “they’re just paintings,” but save the surrounding area at all costs.
Yes, but it’s interesting that the French are less inclined to spend money on fixing it than Americans are.
“André Finot, a spokesman for Notre Dame cathedral believes the bulk of the money will need to come from the Americans, millions of whom know Notre Dame and who are less hesitant than the French about giving money to the church. “People don’t want to give money because of laïcité,” he says, referring to the strict secularism that infuses French law.” That link is to a story from last year about the needed renovations to the Church, and where the money for the current renovations is coming from. The funding to repair the fire damage will probably come from similar channels–the bulk of which will be Americans.
There are still 400 firefighters trying to contain the fire, and they’re saying it’s not certain they can save the remaining parts.
CBS reporting that a Paris Fire Department spokesman says that nobody went into the building after the fire to save anything. It was already far too dangerous as the roof was already starting to buckle.
ETA: They are just saying that they would risk their lives to save lives, but not risk a human life to save artwork.
I feel awful about this, That building is a work of art, no matter whether you have any kind of religious feelings. The Episcopal congregation I belong to suffered a devastating fire in 1975, all that was left of the cathedral sanctuary was the stone walls, But it was rebuilt. It took three years to complete the initial work, and get it into usable condition, and then another fifteen to gradually add things like stained glass, extra organ workings, and so on. But it looks beautiful today. I wonder if the rose window at Notre Dame was destroyed?
The sirens sometimes sound like wailing bagpipes or horns, making it an eerie watch.
Civil authorities are reporting that water drops would destroy even more so everything but tankers are being used.
I’ve been watching this on TV. Wow.
“Nobody”? Or just no firefighters? It could have all been removed before the firefighters arrived. Also, I wonder if maybe it was already removed due to the renovations. Maybe it was better to remove the artwork, than to risk putting plastic drapes over everything only to have a falling hammer or paint brush destroy a priceless work of art. So it’s possible that the previous reports of all artwork and relics being safe, and the Fire Department’s statement that nobody entered the burning building to save anything can both be true.
Let’s hope.
Not a big fan of religion, but buildings like this are a testament to what humans can do when they want to. Yeah, today we could probably knock something like this together in a year or so but the bulk of Notre Dame went up over 800 years ago.
800 years is beyond the ken of a non-native American. Oldest Whitey-built thing here is, I think, Puerto Rico’s Cathedral of San Juan Bautista ca. 1521. ND was already 260 years old. Out here in Colorado there’s not much of any Whitey stuff older than 200 years. And the oldest man-made thing here, the longest-lived thing out here dreamed up by the Pueblos, is the cliff palace in Mesa Verde National Park. Guess what. Depending on how you look at these things, the first iteration of ND is STILL 30 years older than that, AND ND has been in constant use, surviving wars, industry, and countless pilgrims since it was built.
For perspective, think of things Europe didn’t have when most of ND was completed in 1260: scientific method, the black plague hadn’t happened yet, concept of “zero” as a number wouldn’t be relearned for another 300 years, coffee, 78 rpm records… Really, just about anything that makes us who we are today didn’t exist when ND went up.
There’s no way in hell they could have saved the stained glass, and if the belltowers burn the bells go, too - they might have saved the portable art and the sacred paraphernalia, but they did not save all the art work.
That wins the prize for the most inane comment of the day.
:smack:
How do you insure an 800-year old building that’s larger than a football field and the literally irreplaceable artwork inside.
Allstate?