Note Dame is burning

ml1

this is so sad. The main spire has just collapsed 

https://apple.news/AT3PS6gl2Qqe6JT0OMczXQA


annielou

So sad. Has been there since the 12th century. 


proeasdf

One of the saddest stories about an architectural treasure that I have heard in a long time.


Nancy

So sad.  There can never be another as great. 


conandrob240

I started to cry when I saw this. So sad.


ml1

these are photos I took in April, 2008



jimmurphy

Very beautiful photos. I visited 31 years ago and was awed.  So sad today.  Read today that the spire and the gargoyles, among other elements, were added in the 19th Century. I am sure that they'll rebuild - it will be interesting to see how it unfolds.


Morganna

An architectural wonder that I fell in love with as a child who deeply cared about the resident hunchback.


jfinnegan

Beautiful pictures. We were there two weeks ago. It's so sad. Fortunately nobody was hurt. I can't imagine how much they think it will cost to renovate it. A lot of that work is irreeplaceable.  


bub
Morganna said:
An architectural wonder that I fell in love with as a child who deeply cared about the resident hunchback.

 Got me to thinking about watching the Charles Laughton version of the movie.  One of the saddest, most moving movie roles ever.


cubby

Beautiful photos. I have very happy memories of spending time near and in Notre Dame. I believe they will rebuild it and it will be beautiful again.


mrincredible

There have already been pledged of hundreds of millions of dollars to repair the damage. The entire wooden framework inside the stone facade is apparently completely gone. It can probably be restored to its exact former appearance but you can't replace 700 year old timbers and woodwork. And it will be years before the work is complete. 

I'm glad I got to see it in person years ago. I'm sad my daughter never will see it as it was. 


apple44

Beyond sad. I think the will and money will exist to rebuild, but are there enough people trained in stone masonry, ornate woodworking and stained glass to do a significant amount of work? I thought that one of the reasons the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in NYC took so long to be completed - if it indeed is completed - is that there are comparatively few people who can do this type of detailed work. There are restoration people, but that's different.

Like many, am trying to dig out the old photos.


Linda

All of my old pictures of Notre Dame are slides that I shot almost 40 years ago. I can view them, but don't know any easy/not expensive way to do anything else with them.


mjc

@cody, i haven't studied this at all, but there seem to be a number of not-that-expensive scanners for converting slides or negatives to jpeg/usb that you can then transfer to your computer.  hmmm.  Brother-in-law spent a lot of time scanning photos years ago, though, so "easy" is an open question.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&channel=tus&q=transferring+photo+slides+to+cd+or+computer

(also services, Youtube demonstrations, etc., still don't know about easy/expensive...)


jeffl

saw this online.  

An update about the Notre-Dame fire:

There's been a lot of reports going around that seem to misrepresent the extent of the damage. Watching the fire take hold yesterday was horrific and emotional on many levels, not least because at many points it seemed as though the entire cathedral would be destroyed. But, there's been some astoundingly good news since:

* Almost all of what we saw burning yesterday was the roof of the cathedral. This was made of old timbers felled in the early 13th century which were then covered in lead to create the exterior we're so familiar with. If you saw aerial footage of the burning church yesterday, what you saw was this part of the structure, which collapsed onto the mason vault which forms the interior roof of the church. When you read reports talking about how 2/3 of the roof was destroyed, they are referring to this wood and lead construction.

* The spire also collapsed, but it was also not the original spire, which had been destroyed by weather and removed in the 1700s. The spire that collapsed yesterday was installed in the mid 1800s, and was larger and more ornate than the original.

* The fact that more of the cathedral was not ruined is a testament to the ingenuity of its original architects. Notre-Dame is an incredibly well-designed building, which is largely why it has withstood the test of time so well. The vault I mentioned earlier was intentionally built to protect the interior of the building and slow the spread of fire in case of just the sort of scenario we saw yesterday. Here's a quote I found about this:

“It’s not that they’re designed to be burned down, but it’s designed so that if the roof burns off, it’s hard for [the fire] to spread to the rest of the building,” says Lisa Reilly, an associate professor of architectural history at the University of Virginia and a scholar of medieval architecture. “In the Middle Ages, the thought was that stone vaults [could be] used to prevent the spread of fire.”

That's incredible.

* The flying buttresses on the side of the building also did a lot to protect the structure. While the vault helps support the architecture on the inside, the buttresses keep it standing along the outside. Again: well done architects and designers of centuries ago.

* Many of the most iconic features of the cathedral remain intact. The bell towers, which were in danger yesterday, have survived. All three of the major rose windows are intact. The large organ inside was very dusty and is a bit clogged with smoke, but otherwise came through unharmed. Much of the artwork and relics were safely removed. It is hard to say what the toll is here, but it sounds as though it is far from the worst that we feared.

* Finally, NO ONE DIED. One firefighter and two police officers were injured, but there were no fatalities. Again, this is no coincidence: The Paris fire department had protocols in place for how to respond to emergencies of this nature. The first priority was to protect the people, followed by the relics and artwork, and finally the structure. They executed that strategy to a T, and boy did it pay off. Some things are replaceable; human lives aren't.

When it comes to the reconstruction work ahead, a lot has already been donated. Another factor working in our favor here is that Notre-Dame is one of the most meticulously studied buildings in the world. We have laser scans of the entire structure showing how it was built. We have reams of information about the artwork and architecture, not to mention detailed photography about every section of this building. We have the blueprints. We can rebuild.

History is filled with the stories of lost buildings, lost artwork, lost records. It is also filled with stories of reconstruction. Notre-Dame de Paris was not lost. Like every structure its age, it has survived many calamities, although none as catastrophic as the one we witnessed yesterday. Just for perspective, its famous South Rose Window was so damaged in the nineteenth century that it had to be entirely rebuilt in 1861, to the extent that it was even rotated 15 degrees on its axis to create a more vertical alignment. While some of the medieval glass remained, other panes had to be replaced with new glass in the same style. Other sections have been rebuilt or replaced over the ages. This is just another step in that process.

The bottom line is: Notre-Dame is still standing. The fire was shocking and unnerving. For those of us who love history, art, and testaments to human endeavor, it was a really close call. But we were spared the worst, and most of us will have another chance to visit it during our lives and see it restored to its former glory. The heart of Paris beats.


spontaneous

I’m reading that the first fire alarm sounded at 6:20, but was apparently showing an incorrect location.  Due to this problem the fire wasn’t discovered until it spread enough to set off a second fire alarm at 6:43.  They’re calling it a computer glitch.  I’m wondering if whoever installed it screwed up in matching the locations to the detectors in their system.  Either way, the fire was allowed an extra 23 minutes to establish itself due to this problem.  In a building that large, with timbers that old and dry, 23 minutes is an eternity.


Sally
jeffl said:
saw this online.  
An update about the Notre-Dame fire:
There's been a lot of reports going around that seem to misrepresent the extent of the damage. Watching the fire take hold yesterday was horrific and emotional on many levels, not least because at many points it seemed as though the entire cathedral would be destroyed. But, there's been some astoundingly good news since:
* Almost all of what we saw burning yesterday was the roof of the cathedral. This was made of old timbers felled in the early 13th century which were then covered in lead to create the exterior we're so familiar with. If you saw aerial footage of the burning church yesterday, what you saw was this part of the structure, which collapsed onto the mason vault which forms the interior roof of the church. When you read reports talking about how 2/3 of the roof was destroyed, they are referring to this wood and lead construction.
* The spire also collapsed, but it was also not the original spire, which had been destroyed by weather and removed in the 1700s. The spire that collapsed yesterday was installed in the mid 1800s, and was larger and more ornate than the original.
* The fact that more of the cathedral was not ruined is a testament to the ingenuity of its original architects. Notre-Dame is an incredibly well-designed building, which is largely why it has withstood the test of time so well. The vault I mentioned earlier was intentionally built to protect the interior of the building and slow the spread of fire in case of just the sort of scenario we saw yesterday. Here's a quote I found about this:
“It’s not that they’re designed to be burned down, but it’s designed so that if the roof burns off, it’s hard for [the fire] to spread to the rest of the building,” says Lisa Reilly, an associate professor of architectural history at the University of Virginia and a scholar of medieval architecture. “In the Middle Ages, the thought was that stone vaults [could be] used to prevent the spread of fire.”
That's incredible.
* The flying buttresses on the side of the building also did a lot to protect the structure. While the vault helps support the architecture on the inside, the buttresses keep it standing along the outside. Again: well done architects and designers of centuries ago.
* Many of the most iconic features of the cathedral remain intact. The bell towers, which were in danger yesterday, have survived. All three of the major rose windows are intact. The large organ inside was very dusty and is a bit clogged with smoke, but otherwise came through unharmed. Much of the artwork and relics were safely removed. It is hard to say what the toll is here, but it sounds as though it is far from the worst that we feared.
* Finally, NO ONE DIED. One firefighter and two police officers were injured, but there were no fatalities. Again, this is no coincidence: The Paris fire department had protocols in place for how to respond to emergencies of this nature. The first priority was to protect the people, followed by the relics and artwork, and finally the structure. They executed that strategy to a T, and boy did it pay off. Some things are replaceable; human lives aren't.
When it comes to the reconstruction work ahead, a lot has already been donated. Another factor working in our favor here is that Notre-Dame is one of the most meticulously studied buildings in the world. We have laser scans of the entire structure showing how it was built. We have reams of information about the artwork and architecture, not to mention detailed photography about every section of this building. We have the blueprints. We can rebuild.
History is filled with the stories of lost buildings, lost artwork, lost records. It is also filled with stories of reconstruction. Notre-Dame de Paris was not lost. Like every structure its age, it has survived many calamities, although none as catastrophic as the one we witnessed yesterday. Just for perspective, its famous South Rose Window was so damaged in the nineteenth century that it had to be entirely rebuilt in 1861, to the extent that it was even rotated 15 degrees on its axis to create a more vertical alignment. While some of the medieval glass remained, other panes had to be replaced with new glass in the same style. Other sections have been rebuilt or replaced over the ages. This is just another step in that process.
The bottom line is: Notre-Dame is still standing. The fire was shocking and unnerving. For those of us who love history, art, and testaments to human endeavor, it was a really close call. But we were spared the worst, and most of us will have another chance to visit it during our lives and see it restored to its former glory. The heart of Paris beats.

 Any chance you can cite the source of this?


sprout

Over 1.8 billion has already been donated to its reconstruction.  Which is a tremendous amount, especially considering no lives were lost, and its impact on humans' way of life is relatively small.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/439745-why-the-charitable-outpouring-for-notre-dame-cathedral

While the author examines some aspects of influences on giving, he ultimately concludes on a positive note about generosity. However, I come away with a more negative interpretation -- that this generosity is as symbolic as the structure. 

When real humans experience real need, are the same donors and corporations as generous then?  And if not, why is human suffering less worthy? And are the tremendous amounts of donations from corporations able to be provided due to maintaining low employee pay?  Are workers also less worthy?

While I understand the desire to rebuild an historical (and religious) landmark, the rush to donate to the rebuilding of Notre Dame also provides an opportunity to examine priorities.


Morganna
sprout said:
Over 1.8 billion has already been donated to it's reconstruction.  Which is a tremendous amount, especially considering no lives were lost, and it's impact on humans' way of life is relatively small.
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/439745-why-the-charitable-outpouring-for-notre-dame-cathedral
While the author examines some aspects of influences on giving, he ultimately concludes on a positive note about generosity. However, I come away with a more negative interpretation -- that this generosity is as symbolic as the structure. 
When real humans experience real need, are the same donors and corporations as generous then?  And if not, why is human suffering less worthy? And are the tremendous amounts of donations from corporations able to be provided due to maintaining low employee pay?  Are workers also less worthy?

While I understand the desire to rebuild an historical (and religious) landmark, the rush to donate to the rebuilding of Notre Dame also provides an opportunity to examine priorities.

 I'm very sympathetic to your argument. I refused to continue going to church at 14 when I complained to my mother about the riches amassed by the Catholic Church while so many of the faithful went hungry. She felt it was a valid point and offered a compromise, no more Sunday mass but I had to stay in Catholic school as she felt the public option in our area was not a good choice.

I do have a passion for history and art, so while I have not donated, I do understand that impulse.




In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.