Notre Dame on fire - looks pretty serious
Discussion
p1stonhead said:
The two loaded blokes who donated 300m are calling their lawyers to rescind and offer 10m lolBurwood said:
p1stonhead said:
The two loaded blokes who donated 300m are calling their lawyers to rescind and offer 10m lol
p1stonhead said:
Burwood said:
p1stonhead said:
The two loaded blokes who donated 300m are calling their lawyers to rescind and offer 10m lolBurwood said:
p1stonhead said:
Burwood said:
p1stonhead said:
The two loaded blokes who donated 300m are calling their lawyers to rescind and offer 10m lolmcdjl said:
Short Grain said:
Still no word from the Vatican on how much they'll put in to rebuild their church The Catholic Church must be one of the richest organisations in the world in both property and actual finances!! Wonder how much they've paid over the years to cover up abuse?
I respect anyone's choice to worship anything they want to but don't expect me to pay for it!! Maybe The Pope is already having a chat with the Head Guy!!
Which of the Vaticans churches have burnt down recently? Unless you mean the Notre Dame de Paris which this thread is about. However as has already been pointed out on this thread.....I respect anyone's choice to worship anything they want to but don't expect me to pay for it!! Maybe The Pope is already having a chat with the Head Guy!!
http://www.notredamedeparis.fr/friends/history/ said:
As a result of a French law passed in 1905, the cathedral became the property of the French State but its use is dedicated exclusively to the Roman Catholic rite. Entrance is free of charge. It is classified as a French Historic Monument.
So who fronts up the rebuild cost, the owner or the tenant?So i think its outrageous the French state haven't said how much money they'll be putting in to rebuild their church. Or just maybe they're making sure the fires out before they get a builder in to give them quotes.
Just had an interesting discussion about a gothic church here in the UK built in the 13th/14th century. Very similar construction with stone vaulting, and wooden roof (albeit 'only' a 60ft nave height vs 115 for ND).
During major restoration works a decade or two ago it was possible to install fire breaks in the roof so in theory, only one quarter of the church should ever burn out. This single act reduced the yearly insurance by a significant 5 figure sum!
There is also a state of the art fire detection system installed throughout. The local fire brigade also do annual exercises and have a grab pack of information ready to go detailing what items should be rescued if possible.
During major restoration works a decade or two ago it was possible to install fire breaks in the roof so in theory, only one quarter of the church should ever burn out. This single act reduced the yearly insurance by a significant 5 figure sum!
There is also a state of the art fire detection system installed throughout. The local fire brigade also do annual exercises and have a grab pack of information ready to go detailing what items should be rescued if possible.
AJL308 said:
mcdjl said:
Short Grain said:
Still no word from the Vatican on how much they'll put in to rebuild their church The Catholic Church must be one of the richest organisations in the world in both property and actual finances!! Wonder how much they've paid over the years to cover up abuse?
I respect anyone's choice to worship anything they want to but don't expect me to pay for it!! Maybe The Pope is already having a chat with the Head Guy!!
Which of the Vaticans churches have burnt down recently? Unless you mean the Notre Dame de Paris which this thread is about. However as has already been pointed out on this thread.....I respect anyone's choice to worship anything they want to but don't expect me to pay for it!! Maybe The Pope is already having a chat with the Head Guy!!
http://www.notredamedeparis.fr/friends/history/ said:
As a result of a French law passed in 1905, the cathedral became the property of the French State but its use is dedicated exclusively to the Roman Catholic rite. Entrance is free of charge. It is classified as a French Historic Monument.
So who fronts up the rebuild cost, the owner or the tenant?So i think its outrageous the French state haven't said how much money they'll be putting in to rebuild their church. Or just maybe they're making sure the fires out before they get a builder in to give them quotes.
French explanation:
Comme le prévoit la loi de 1905, l'Etat est propriétaire de toutes les cathédrales construites avant le début du XXe siècle, dont fait partie Notre-Dame de Paris. Cet élément est important car, en tant que propriétaire, l'Etat est son propre assureur, et doit assumer seul le coût des dégâts. Si la responsabilité d'une entreprise chargée des travaux de rénovation est engagée (ce qui n'est absolument pas le cas pour l'instant), alors l'assurance de celle-ci pourrait être amenée à couvrir une partie des charges, mais pas l'intégralité. D'où l'importance de la collecte de fonds
TwigtheWonderkid said:
yonex said:
God doesn’t make fire suppression systems, man did that.
But you have to admit, lightning rods on church steeples does show a remarkable lack of confidence in the product being sold therein. 
louiechevy said:
Looking at the videos of the interior it makes you realise how good the stonemasons that built it were, I'm amazed how well the vaulted ceiling stood up to the heat and weight of the falling roof. They certainly built to last back then!
I thought the whole interior was going to be burnt out, but I forgot about the stone vaulted ceilings. The one area in the centre, wooden construction I believe, is where all the collapse has gone into by the look of it. But it looked so much worse because all the wood was effectively burning in a contained giant fire pit at roof level. I’m sure they’ll be some structural issues with the stonework going to those temps and back down again. But was amazed waking up the next day and thinking it didn’t look too bad.
How many times have places gone up in flames during buildings works! There’s possibly one guy feeling pretty bad right now.
I have been away for a long weekend looking at Dutch bulb fields , so have only just been able to catch up with this thread .
Without reading twenty or so pages , I think the general opinion is that it is sad the original features of the cathedral are lost ,and any rebuild should be like for like , and not as Macron says , even better , I am atheist so have no interest of the function of these type of buildings , but am in awe of the beauty of the architecture .
I have no doubt within this thread it will have been pointed out that the Macron outpourings regarding rebuilding the cathedral are a cynical attempt by him to score brownie points with the French , and raise public opinion of him, and divert from yellow jackets and the economy
Without reading twenty or so pages , I think the general opinion is that it is sad the original features of the cathedral are lost ,and any rebuild should be like for like , and not as Macron says , even better , I am atheist so have no interest of the function of these type of buildings , but am in awe of the beauty of the architecture .
I have no doubt within this thread it will have been pointed out that the Macron outpourings regarding rebuilding the cathedral are a cynical attempt by him to score brownie points with the French , and raise public opinion of him, and divert from yellow jackets and the economy
Effectively, it was a roof fire rather than a building fire. Which is fantastic considering what it looked like!
I didn’t initially know it had a stone ceiling, I assume it was timber. Amazing that it effectively withstood the roof collapsing onto it. I bet the hole is where the spire crashed down
I didn’t initially know it had a stone ceiling, I assume it was timber. Amazing that it effectively withstood the roof collapsing onto it. I bet the hole is where the spire crashed down
Controversial thought...
Rather than replacing the roof and spire with a copy of the original, I’d quite like to see a visibly modern (eg glass and metal) replacement. The spire was a 19thC addition anyway, the cost would be a fraction of an attempt at restoration, and Paris would gain something from the fire, not just end up with a copy of what was there.
Fully appreciate that wouldn’t be to everyone’s taste though.
Rather than replacing the roof and spire with a copy of the original, I’d quite like to see a visibly modern (eg glass and metal) replacement. The spire was a 19thC addition anyway, the cost would be a fraction of an attempt at restoration, and Paris would gain something from the fire, not just end up with a copy of what was there.
Fully appreciate that wouldn’t be to everyone’s taste though.
Edited by 67Dino on Wednesday 17th April 07:37
Burwood said:
p1stonhead said:
Burwood said:
p1stonhead said:
The two loaded blokes who donated 300m are calling their lawyers to rescind and offer 10m lolMXRod said:
Without reading twenty or so pages , I think the general opinion is that it is sad the original features of the cathedral are lost ,and any rebuild should be like for like , and not as Macron says , even better
But what is "like for like" - the spire was built in the 18th century based on an approximation, or maybe completely different to the the original.Cathedrals evolve. Even York Minister was not exactly as was.
Do we replicate or evolve? I think we keep to traditional methods but I think there is scope for improvement. Modern analysis might improve on loadings, etc to make it even stronger?
Turns out the billionaire donors just want a tax break.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6925139/F...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6925139/F...
DailyMail said:
Were the government to enact the policy, French taxpayers rather than the wealthy donors would foot most of the bill for repairs.
Ninety per cent of the sum donated would be taken off the wealthy individual's tax bill, leaving the Exchequer significantly out of pocket and needing to make up the shortfall from general taxation or by cutting spending.
So they want their €100m donations to only cost them €10m and cost the public the rest, genius.Ninety per cent of the sum donated would be taken off the wealthy individual's tax bill, leaving the Exchequer significantly out of pocket and needing to make up the shortfall from general taxation or by cutting spending.
67Dino said:
Controversial thought...
Rather than replacing the roof and spire with a copy of the original, I’d quite like to see a visibly modern (eg glass and metal) replacement. The spire was a 19thC addition anyway, the cost would be a fraction of an attempt at restoration, and Paris would gain something from the fire, not just end up with a copy of what was there.
Fully appreciate that wouldn’t be to everyone’s taste though.
Perfectly sensible.Rather than replacing the roof and spire with a copy of the original, I’d quite like to see a visibly modern (eg glass and metal) replacement. The spire was a 19thC addition anyway, the cost would be a fraction of an attempt at restoration, and Paris would gain something from the fire, not just end up with a copy of what was there.
Fully appreciate that wouldn’t be to everyone’s taste though.
Modern fire resistant materials would massively reduce future fire risk, be much cheaper and quicker to rebuild, give more scope for artistic/architectural changes, as well as negate the need to cut down loads of trees and source huge quantities of aged oak etc.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff