# Rebuilding Notre-Dame cathedral (Paris) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 27, 2019, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437 "2019-12-27T03:47:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Space\_Vegetable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6de8d8/32.png) [@Space\_Vegetable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Space_Vegetable)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2020, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/41 "2020-01-01T21:21:45Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > That flaw is removed by the addition of the phrase “on average”. > > Just like I can gather up 100 people and hand one person $100. “Every person got $1” is wrong but “Every person, on average, got $1” is correct. No, that last phrase is misleading. Math isn’t English. When you say “every person”, you’re emphasizing that you’re making a claim about 100% of the people. If almost everyone actually got nothing, then saying “Every person, on average, got $1” is an attempt to deceive the reader. There are ways to say the $100 was somehow split among the group that aren’t designed to mislead, but “Every person, on average, got $1” isn’t one of them. Moreover, in the original example of molecules, some molecules are never replaced at all. Imagine half of your molecules are never replaced, and the rest are all replaced every 6 years. What’s the average of 6 years and never? There’s no such number, so the poster’s error can’t be magicked away by “on average”. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2020, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/42 "2020-04-28T18:36:01Z")
Bumped. If you’d like to donate some money (as I have already, and encourage you to, as well): [https://www.friendsofnotredamedeparis.org/give/](https://www.friendsofnotredamedeparis.org/give/) PBS has an upcoming special, “Saving Notre Dame,” to air May 20. Check local listings: [https://www.pbsutah.org/whatson/nova/saving-notre-dame](https://www.pbsutah.org/whatson/nova/saving-notre-dame) ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2020, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/43 "2020-04-28T19:52:18Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > PBS has an upcoming special, “Saving Notre Dame,” to air May 20. Check local listings: [https://www.pbsutah.org/whatson/nova/saving-notre-dame](https://www.pbsutah.org/whatson/nova/saving-notre-dame) The BBC broadcast that in the UK a couple of weeks ago to mark the anniversary. It was rather good. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2020, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/44 "2020-04-28T20:48:00Z")
> [@DesertDog](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > it was found that the exterior brick walls were standing largely out of habit–there was no foundation to speak of. Just wanted to note that that is a nice turn of phrase. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@Bill\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_Door)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2020, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/45 "2020-04-28T22:26:31Z")
> [@Kent\_Clark](#): > > Schrödinger’s cathedral? I feel like that’s a very Gallic attitude. Maybe it will fall; maybe it won’t. With a shrug. It doesn’t mean a 50:50 chance; it means either thing could happen, and takes a wait and see outlook on which it will be. ---
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2020, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/46 "2020-04-29T12:21:05Z")
The NOVA or Frontline special that aired recently ( I think its the one APB notes) was very good. It seems that they have the “shoring up” part under control but this was just the first step in a very long process. There was no speculation as to how long the whole thing will take. Somewhat related - Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet is a fictionalized account of the building of a cathedral. Its an excellent book and gives much insight into what it took to construct one of these marvels. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2020, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/47 "2020-05-01T12:36:09Z")
> [@Mark\_Finn](#): > > Recent stories say there is only about a 50% chance that Notre-Dame cathedral can be restored. What would be the feasibility of this following process - considering that churches (and other buildings) have been dismantled and rebuilt in the past? > > 1. Dismantle the cathedral stone by stone - carefully noting the placement of each one. > 2. Find some suitable nearby location to temporarily store all the stones. > 3. Gradually rebuild the cathedral from scratch using the original stones (and as much of the original woodwork and metalwork as possible). > > Could this be done? How difficult would it be to separate the mortar-bound stones? With modern construction methods - how long would it take to dismantle and then to rebuild it? Years? Decades? Centuries? Any major modifications needed so that it would last another 800 years or so? > [Notre-Dame rector sees ‘50% chance’ of saving fragile Paris cathedral after April fire - MarketWatch](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/notre-dame-rector-sees-50-chance-of-saving-fragile-cathedral-2019-12-26) Why would they need to dismantle anything? The foundation is solid, there is no need to relocate. The 50% wrote has already been commented on. The remaining structure is not at risk of collapsing. The risk was caused by the metal scaffolding that was in place as part of an ongoing renovation/restoration. Once that was removed, the building is sound. Asking about the feasibility, well, yes, it could be done. London Bridge was related to Arizona, afterall. I would random guess it would take a couple decades. > [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > I’d say very, very, very difficult. Those flying buttresses weren’t an artistic choice–they were half-assed props put in place after the fact to hold up the near-collapsing walls of a badly designed building. I’m really, really surprised the whole thing didn’t collapse in the fire. No, this is incorrect. According to “The Secrets of the Dead” (on PBS), Notre Dame was at the forefront of archetecture and masonry. The flying buttresses were an inherent part of the design. It was also a living construction project, with the master builders improving techniques as they went. The Wikipedia page includes this: > [@](#): > > Art historianAndrew Tallon, however, has argued based on detailed laser scans of the entire structure that the buttresses were part of the original design. According to Tallon, the scans indicate that “the upper part of the building has not moved one smidgen in 800 years,”[22]whereas if they were added later some movement from prior to their addition would be expected. Tallon thus concluded that “flying buttresses were there from the get-go.”[22]The first buttresses were replaced by larger and stronger ones in the 14th century; these had a reach of fifteen metres between the walls and counter-supports.[6] > [@md2000](#): > > The Notre Dame building was mainly stone, and the fire burned the wood roof covering the stone vault over the main church. It was bad enough that some sections of the vault collapsed. With modern construction techniques, I have no doubt they can rebuild the missing sections, and if necessary shore up the building with extra reinforcement (and maybe hide it in the roof area). > > (As I understand it, the flying buttresses were part of the original structure. They are the result, not of problems with the original building, but rather progressive trial and error on earlier similar buildings.) > > Some restoration simply can’t be done to original specs. The question is - how true to original do you want to be? The cost of a full roof made of the same giant oak beams would be prohibitive - if there is even enough such material available nowadays. But all that was hidden under the roofing. The original roofing (slate?) was underlaid with sheets of lead. We have better, cheaper more durable materials nowadays. There are materials that work better than lead (less toxic, too). Do you want to use slate shingles, or some substitute that is lighter, cheaper, more durable but can be made to look exactly like slate? Do they rebuild the spire the same with wood(it was only added in the 1800’s) or build a replica in modern non-flammable materials? Or (heresy!) have a design competition like in the 1800’s and crown a building from 1100 with some design obviously from the 2000’s? > > At the very basic - do they restore the vault using same stonework method - same block shapes? Same mortar mix or modern better tech? Match stones from near original quarries, or any stone of the same rough colour? (Or pour concrete and use a pattern in the form to simulate blocks?) All these are decisions that have speed reliability and cost implications. > > From what I’ve read elsewhere, the basic stone structure is sound except for the parts under where the spire was. And fortunately, unlike later buildings, as I recall the interior ceiling was mostly unpainted block, not some priceless heritage painting. You bring up some good questions regarding how far to go in restoration, and what amount of design change is acceptable. Notre Dame is not purely an 800 year old structure. It has been modified and improved over the centuries. The leaf roof was not original, but a later replacement. The flying buttresses have been removed and rebuilt at least twice. The window portals on the sides have been changed - first they were enlarged to provide more light, then Viollet-le-Duc decided to restore the windows to the previous design. The huge spire was Viollet-le-Duc’s addition. Originally, there was no spire. The first spire was much smaller, built in 1220 to 1230. It fell into disrepair and had partial collapse, so was removed in 1780’s. Viollet-le-Duc installed a much larger spire that was mocked in the media at the time. > **[Spire of Notre-Dame de Paris](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spire_of_Notre-Dame_de_Paris)** > > The Spire of Notre-Dame de Paris is located above the cross-section of the cathedral's Transept. Notre-Dame de Paris has had three timber spires made of oak, known as flèches. The first was built between 1220 and 1230. It eventually became so damaged that it was removed in the late 18th century. The second was put into place by the French architect Eugène Viollet-le-Duc in 1859, and destroyed in a major fire on 15 April 2019. Work to construct a third one started in 2022, and was completed when t... I agree with the others who say whatever choices are made in restoration and renovation will just become a part of the history of the building. Still, it is important to make considered choices, combining the desire to retain historical appearance with concerns over cost and appropriateness of using old tech like lead roofs. ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2020, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/48 "2020-06-08T23:34:18Z")
Updating this thread, it is only now they are starting to remove the old scaffolding: > **[Notre-Dame fire: Work starts to remove melted scaffolding](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52973659)** > > Images from Paris as the delicate work of removing melted scaffolding from the cathedral begins. ---
**Author:** ![Marvin\_the\_Martian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/marvin_the_martian/32/2898_2.png) [@Marvin\_the\_Martian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marvin_the_Martian)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/49 "2020-06-09T01:21:33Z")
Interesting article [here](https://https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/scientists-are-leading-notre-dame-s-restoration-and-probing-mysteries-laid-bare-its) covering several aspects of the restoration as well as the opportunity to learn more about the cathedral and site. ---
**Author:** ![ThisSpaceForRent](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thisspaceforrent/32/345_2.png) [@ThisSpaceForRent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisSpaceForRent)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/50 "2020-06-09T04:30:23Z")
> [@Marvin\_the\_Martian](#): > > Interesting article [here](https://https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/scientists-are-leading-notre-dame-s-restoration-and-probing-mysteries-laid-bare-its) covering several aspects of the restoration as well as the opportunity to learn more about the cathedral and site. check you link please ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/51 "2020-06-09T05:33:22Z")
Try: > **[Scientists are leading Notre Dame's restoration—and probing mysteries laid...](https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-are-leading-notre-dame-s-restoration-and-probing-mysteries-laid-bare-its)** > > Researchers use cathedral’s stones, wood, and lead to learn about its history and the best way to repair it ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/52 "2020-06-09T05:45:11Z")
Dead link. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/53 "2020-06-09T09:50:41Z")
> [@Marvin\_the\_Martian](#): > > Interesting article [here](https://https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/scientists-are-leading-notre-dame-s-restoration-and-probing-mysteries-laid-bare-its) covering several aspects of the restoration as well as the opportunity to learn more about the cathedral and site. Here are a couple of interesting links: The second may be the same as the one Marvin wanted) https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/look-inside-restoration-notre-dame-cathedral ---
**Author:** ![Marvin\_the\_Martian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/marvin_the_martian/32/2898_2.png) [@Marvin\_the\_Martian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marvin_the_Martian)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2020, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/54 "2020-06-09T12:50:38Z")
> [@PastTense](#): > > Try: > [https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/scientists-are-leading-notre-dame-s-restoration-and-probing-mysteries-laid-bare-its](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/03/scientists-are-leading-notre-dame-s-restoration-and-probing-mysteries-laid-bare-its) That’s the link I was trying for. I hate editing text in iOS… ---
**Author:** ![PastTense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pasttense/32/14550_2.png) [@PastTense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PastTense)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/55 "2020-11-23T20:43:30Z")
If anyone is interested: " A new special from NOVA, the science series on PBS, takes viewers through the challenges. It’s a journey that travels from within the cathedral itself, to the catacombs below Paris, to the forests of Normandy that might provide the wood to reconstruct the building’s massive roof. “We are thrilled to be able to tell the inside story of the dramatic rescue of Notre Dame,” NOVA co-executive producer Chris Schmidt said in a statement… The special, Saving Notre Dame, premieres Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 9 p.m. E.T./8 p.m. C.T. on PBS and will be available for streaming online and on the PBS video app." > **[Saving Notre Dame](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/saving-notre-dame/)** > > Scientists and engineers fight to save Notre Dame Cathedral after the 2019 fire. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2020, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/56 "2020-11-23T22:08:34Z")
> [@Tim\_R.Mortiss](#): > > Every molecule in your body is replaced (on the average) every seven years or so. Are you still the same person? > [@Space\_Vegetable](#): > > [Snopes debunks this](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-body-replace-itself-seven-years/): “The central flaw in the argument is that an average of all the cells in a body masks the fact that some cells last very long times, and other cells don’t regenerate for a person’s entire lifetime…” Not to say either of you is wrong or right, but one of you is talking about molecules, the other about cells. Molecules can be exchanged within living cells, without replacing the cells themselves (in fact you would die pretty quickly if this wasn’t ongoing) ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/57 "2020-11-29T10:38:04Z")
The damaged scaffolding has now been removed, and they can get on with securing, clearing and cleaning inside, ready for the vaulting repairs and deciding what to do about the roof and spire. [https://www.sortiraparis.com/news/in-paris/articles/220449-notre-dame-de-paris-the-scaffodling-is-done-being-dismantled/lang/en](https://www.sortiraparis.com/news/in-paris/articles/220449-notre-dame-de-paris-the-scaffodling-is-done-being-dismantled/lang/en) ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/58 "2020-11-29T10:51:11Z")
The official Notre Dame Foundation website has a time-lapse video of removing the scaffolding; [https://www.fondationnotredame.fr/patrimoine-culture/soutien-restauration-notre-dame-de-paris](https://www.fondationnotredame.fr/patrimoine-culture/soutien-restauration-notre-dame-de-paris) ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2020, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/59 "2020-11-29T21:19:40Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > But would you spell it wrong both days? Mod note: You had to say that, did you? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2020, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437/60 "2020-11-30T06:26:16Z")
Mod note note: check the date. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebuilding-notre-dame-cathedral-paris/845437.md?page=4)