Notre Dame is unstable: a strong wind could make the walls collapse, report says
theartnewspaper.com
theartnewspaper.com
There is massive consolidation work to do, but at least from what I saw, the news is better than you would probably believe.
The guys doing the consolidation are working "real time" on the structure, shoring up what is necessary as soon as they notice. Rapidly shifting priorities and tasks.
There were definitely parts that could easily collapse, bit again, compared to the rest of the structure, they appear to be minimal.
The overriding feeling I had was: Hats off to the firemen for the incredible restraint and foresight that they applied.
I don't understand what report the article is reacting to, because Vannucci's study is three years old and I haven't heard anything concerning on that topic lately.
Oh and if you don't mind me asking, were you invited to the rooftop because you were involved in the spire study before? Or did you take part in the operations?
One of the managers of the consolidation companies is a close friend, so we were able to head up under their jurisdiction.
Again, the south and north towers are spotless inside, as is the nave (apart from the obvious 3 holes in the roof..).
The stained glass, even directly under the collapsed sections were intact (and being meticulously removed)
The wall sections on the shorter arms of the roof section were the most unstable parts, as the roof and beams are obviously gone. The North wall was already reinforced, and they were in the process of doing the same on the south wall.
One of the biggest challenges will be removing the scaffolding, which is melted, twisted and a general mess.
It was also incredible to see cooled lead flows from the mouths of the gargoyles.
Again, the resounding feeling from the visit and the workers was one of hope and relief.
The press were going through the same day I was there, there are surely similar / better images that mine online.
I don't think that's a good situation, but it has nothing to do with selling rights to a private entity.
The firemen had planned to let the roof burn - it would have been impossible to stop, and would have pulled resources from the more inport tasks, namely protecting the towers and keeping the inside temperatures below flash point.
The North Tower was particularly important: the bells are mounted on a wooden frame that is independent of the stonework - when they sound, the wooden structure absorbs the movement and weight changes, so the tower structure isn't stressed. If this structure burnt, the bells would have fallen, causing catastrophic damage to the tower and probably the structure itself.
As it stands, there were only three holes punched through the vault - which is incredible considering the weight and heat directly above them.
The firemen came under intense criticism during and immediately after the blaze, but the proof is most definitely in the result.
I'm thinking of Beauvais Cathedral:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Interior_of_Cath...
This cathedral is the highest in France, but it had some design flaws, with part of the vault collapsing during the construction, and then, the huge spire collapsed during Ascension Day in 1573. It was never finished because of that.
This cathedral is also quite interesting because of this unfinished state as it permits to compare the old roman cathedral vs the new gothic cathedral, showing the huge increase in scale between the twos:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cath%C3%A9drale_...
That's the professional bureaucrat overseeing the work e.g. an architect who chose to do his career in the civil service and is suffisently adept at navigating it/old enough to have been promoted. That is not in itself particularly reassuring.
Where I agree with you is that France most likely has both access to good experts and the technical know-how and means necessary to secure such a building.
> fully agree with the author in that they should be the ones designing the reconstructed spire
I completely disagree. The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ?
Since we have to build something, let's at least build something reflecting our time. It will be old soon enough. A worldwide art project will surely bring a lot more new and bold ideas to the table.
AIUI, the spire itself actually dates back to the early 19th century - if so, rebuilding one in the same style would be quite appropriate. 19th c. was the peak in scale and ambition for these sorts of works, and we should take that as our reference. Brutalist 20th-c. or 21th-c. architecture might be "ambitious" in its own terms, but it would never fit the context of a Gothic cathedral.
I don't buy this idea. The original design was so beautiful that it inspired pilgrims for hundreds of years to make a trek to see it. Modern architecture is bland, glass-and-metal, uninspired crap; shiny jewels with no staying power that will be torn down within a century to make room for something else, or brutalist monstrosities put here to punish us with their brooding ugliness.
The original design is not the cathedral that stood there before the fire. People have been adding modern touches to the cathedral for centuries, why not continue that tradition?
2) Even with that, Viollet-Le-Duc is somewhat criticized for it's restoration works as he generally chose what looked "nice" as opposed to historical accuracy or significance.
Rebuilding the spire in a modern style would be a mistake in my opinion, or at the very least, a huge risk of style disunity of the building, rebuilding in Gothic style maybe boring but it's safe.
As to which technics could be used, that's another matter. Notre-Dame would not be the first cathedral to be rebuilt using the technics of the day.
Reims was rebuilt using concret, and the result is actually quite beautiful:
https://img.aws.la-croix.com/2019/04/17/1301016385/charpente...
Others were rebuilt using steel, Metz Cathedral for example.
I'm sorry but that's absolutely wrong. You don't become an Architecte en chef by promotion, it's a competitive exam that requires extensive knowledge of art history, ancient architecture and preservation/restoration techniques. Most architects with this title have businesses of their own, they're just specialized in restoration work rather than construction work, and they're assigned a number of territories to study and preserve their monuments (as long as they're state-owned). It's not, at all, about "navigating the civil service", and since they're architects, they're not overseeing any architects besides their own employees.
No, Architecte et urbaniste de l'État is an exam (like everything regarding the civil service in France). Architecte en chef very much is a promotion. It's the grade following Architecte de l'État and preceding Architecte générale.
> Most architects with this title have businesses of their own
No, they are all civil servants and work for a minister.
> navigating the civil service
Yes, being promoted is very much about getting old and navigating the civil service. Architecte et urbaniste de l'État very much is a managing position with all it implies when you are working for the state.
[1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecte_en_chef_des_monumen...
If you believe that's all it takes to be Architecte en chef des monuments historiques in a place like France, you just don't have a full appreciation for the importance France attaches to its history and culture.
Like the German Reichstag modifications post-reunification, but there also was a very different modification in the 1960s, early 70s. Such projects can go both directions, even on the very same building.
I'd faithfully copy the exterior, switching the material to something that will last. The obvious choice is a good-quality stainless steel to replace the wood, and a glassy substance (granite? porcelain?) to replace any limestone or marble. Another choice is phosphor bronze. Nickel is another option.
The presence of timber in a historic structure obviously makes it less durable and fire-resistant, but it is authentic, and that is something that is taken very seriously.
It's like an old recipe, an old painting, or an old piece of music. Nobody who is seriously engaged with those things believes in improving them by substituting modern high-tech elements in the course of recreating/restoring an original.
There is a lot of historical precedent for restorers "fixing" art. (Most often adding clothing to cover private areas). Since we now know the art by the "fixed version today there is the open question of if we remove the fix or not - either way we are destroying art.
Winston Churchill's cigar has been edited from a photo before.
https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/in-the-media/churchil...
Anyway, the wood is inside the roof. It's not even visible unless you go up into the attic. Would it really be such a big deal to replace it with steel trusses?
There's a role for modern technology to play in preserving older technology. Sometimes you need to retrofit the old stuff with the modern in order to preserve as much as possible over the long run. That's the case here.
This is a totally separate issue from the bizarre hylomorphic idea of replacing limestone and marble with granite(?!) and porcelain.
Here's an example of unseen functional reinforcement of an historic roof with a modern steel truss: https://www.julianharraparchitects.co.uk/st-annes-limehouse. This is a case of pragmatism and economy. It's a long way from completely replacing the roof structure with a modern solution.
The idea that is going around of rebuilding the roof of Notre Dame with diamond/Kryptonite/carbon fiber as a way of trumpeting how advanced we are is annoying. The consensus these days about restoration is that it should be about making humble, minimally invasive, economical changes. Just put things back in order. Put in a sprinkler system. This is not an occasion for making a tacky gesture that will only reveal how mediocre 21st C architecture is in comparison to medieval Gothic.
For a truly authentic roof appearance, only the lead surface matters. Lead is actually an awful substance to use though. It had cracked, letting in water to rot the wood. Swapping out that metal for one that is lighter and more durable would be sensible. I don't think it would be sacrilege to pick a better metal. Suggestions: phosphor bronze, surgical stainless steel, nickel, titanium, titanium nitride, titanium aluminum nitride, gold leaf over aluminium oxynitride, Monel, Inconel, cupronickel. Some examples here: http://finemetalrooftech.com/products/metal-shingles/
Limestone gargoyles only last a century. They aren't even old! They disintegrate due to the water flowing through them. The other grotesques, such as the chimera, were also pretty well disintegrated. Limestone is fundamentally terrible for long-term durability. The stone chemically dissolves, causing statues to turn crumbly and look melted. Glassy materials are far superior. All desired colors are available, so matching the original color is possible. You can go natural (white granite, black granite, etc.) or artificial.
There is nothing tacky about building with durable materials. Tacky would be like my house, with stucco over styrofoam, a very common construction method in the USA. Granite is the good stuff. Limestone is junk, almost as bad as my stucco over styrofoam.
In the old recipe, we replace the margarine with butter. We always replace the passenger pigeon, typically with chicken, but there may be higher-quality substitutes.
If you want to paint in the style of Rembrandt, you can do that without deadly toxic vermilion.
Music by Mozart and Berlioz is not normally played on the serpent or ophicleide. We're even beginning the process of replacing the contrabassoon with the contraforte.
So likewise, if you want to replace a heavy roof that supports fire and insects and fungus, you would use materials without those problems. The steel replacement beam may be of the original dimensions if it is hollow, but that only makes sense for something externally visible. Unseen internal structure need not replicate the original.
Once knew a talented artist who painted in the style of the old masters and took pride in it. Substitution, or improvement, certainly exists in that school of thought, and in practice.
And, from it's original state, it is gone. We cannot replace the irreplaceable, but we have the opportunity to modify it. Such is life.
The cathedral is mostly intact. This is a repair job, just like a repair to an Old Master painting damaged by a vandal. A restorer wouldn't use the latest and greatest synthetic painting materials (acrylics or paints with synthetic binders) to repair an old master. They might use some new technology in the process, but they wouldn't treat the job as an opportunity to indulge their personal creative vanity and leave their mark on the painting. There is more than enough creativity and self-expression in the task of restoration.
Thankfully the French do have a very strong sense of tradition and cultural identity, something that's sadly being lost in most of the rest of the western world.
The original is not.
What is arguably largely intact (though, per TFA, that's true superficially but not structurally) is the result of multiple changes over a long period for a variety of different reasons (often in the context of repairs, but the past repair efforts weren't with an attitude of “restore the original with no artistic changes”.)
> just like a repair to an Old Master painting damaged by a vandal.
Except it's not like an Old Master painting, as the pre-recent-damage condition was he result of many different artistic visions at many different times, unless you are comparing all the past innovation to the work of vandals, not just the recent damage.
Throughout its life, it has been added to, repaired, and modified as necessary.
Why? The "original" (i.e. the thing that burned) was the result of numerous changes for functional and fashionable reasons over the century. The famous Viollet-lde-duc spire was a recent change only 150 years old. Life is change; cities and old buildings are palimpsests; to try to ape an earlier age is a form of cultural death.
The same is true of the Louvre which has grown and changed in use and shape for 900s years and few complain about that.
Regardless of what happens, the result will disappoint and even enrage many people. Either it will be an attemptt to be authentic, but won't be authentic enough for everyone, or it won't be and that will cause a different kind of outrage. And every change will be mourned by some as a "missed opportunity". C'est la vie!
If someone slashes a Rembrandt, people would be aghast if you suggested Banksy stencil over the damage or Hirst submerge it in formaldehyde, no matter how modern and popular those artists may be.
Of course, there are various reasons one might argue the same rationale doesn't apply to buildings.
The replacement paint need not be absurdly toxic mercury compounds.
The backing might best be supported by something modern, such as a glass fiber mat.
Likewise with buildings, we can get the old style with modern materials.
What is the appropriate repair point? Why should Violet-le-duc’s change be (or not be) privileged over more modern changes? The point of the building was to serve the people of a given time and it was adapted many times over the centuries to different usage models. Even the big plaza out front is relatively new (I have seen historical novels that anachronistically assumed the plaza to have been there, e.g. The Baroque Cycle).
What’s present-day to us will become history to future generations.
It has lots of information about how buildings were built in the past.
That isn't to say the new bits can't obviously be new, I'm not sure old buildings have to be static, they've evolved over 100s of years, why not continue that tradition?
It isn't!
What you are seeing is stone vaulting, essentially a great big three-dimensional arch, related to a hemispherical dome in somewhat the same way as a gothic arch is related to a Romanesque rounded arch. It may or may not be painted or plastered or frescoed (ND's wasn't, I think) but the actual "ceiling" of the church—and, crucially, the structural part of what's over your head—was/is stone. The roof in a modern building is often structurally keeping the tops of the walls at a fixed distance as well as holding itself up, but in a stone cathedral, the roof was an extra layer over the top of the stonework, primarily to shed rainwater.
All of which is to say, the loss of the wooden roof structure is a lot less threatening than the loss of (some of) the vaulting; and replacing the roof with glass or stained glass would be utterly invisible from inside the church, whose ceiling would still be the stone vaulting.
While they may comprise the bulk of the structure, I don't think it is correct to say suggest that the roof and roof supports (all that timber) is merely to keep the rain off. It plays a significant role in the structure as well. Sure, without an earthquake or strong wind the valuting is strong enough, but with the roof supports gone the building is substantially less able to stand up to extreme conditions.
As for replacing the roof with something else, it would have to be done where it contributes to the structure, not just sits on top. Glass can actually be structural, in fact. I like some of the new ideas, and don't think the ones I've seen are unfeasible, but they would simply (or not so simply) be done with a whole lot of regard for adding to the structure.
When you say "glass can actually be structural", what meaning of "structural" are you using?
For me, the above statement is the reason why I would prefer the roof and spite of Notre Dame to be reconstructed in a modern design that utilizes all the advancements in architecture. The Gothic churches were built using state-of-the-art technologies hundreds of years ago, and they deserve to be rebuilt with the state-of-the-art technologies we have nowadays. If the medieval French could, they would certainly build Notre Dame with steel and glass.
Modern materials, on the other hand, are designed for productivity, not permanence. They hit cost targets. They're cheap and effective and sometimes even elegant, but it's highly unusual for a modern building to be built in a way that reflects an expected lifespan of centuries or even millennia.
I think one thing that's proven beyond a doubt by now, once more by this fire, is that everything that man puts up is almost by definition not timeless, unless you make it out of large piles of stone such as the pyramids.
Who builds a building like that today? Other than the Long Now's clock, who is really building things designed to last for centuries, millennia? That's my point. Even the most epic of modern architecture generally isn't thinking beyond a century or so. Hell, my house is over 100 years old. So modern materials thinking, in its usual box, is not really up to the task of re-roofing Notre Dame in the way it deserves.
That doesn't mean we can't do it, or we should just build another flammable wooden roof. But it does mean that we need to think about how it should be done, to protect and preserve the legacy of that historic triumph of the human spirit over time itself.
If you're worried about true timelessness... even the pyramids will die someday, eaten by the relentless desert sands. But we can maybe make something that lasts as long as human civilization itself, if we try.
Given a reasonable extension of existing technology, we could eliminate that trash eventually. Imagine, say, machines designed to find plastic trash in the ocean, powered by ocean currents/thermals, that decompose the trash into basic releasable organics like CO2 and water. Just takes the will to do it. And hopefully someday, that will will exist.
And cleaning up the wreckage of the Industrial Revolution for the sake of future generations would be a legacy we could be proud of.
Look at a glass building. Count the seams. Ask how serious they are about architecture that lasts.
Are you saying they should rebuild the Notre Dame as a steel and glass structure?
But they couldn't and so they built it with stone and misshapen bits of coloured glass. That's part of the achievement and of what makes it a monument. Otherwise the Luxor in Vegas would be an acceptable substitute for the giant piles of stones in Giza.
To what end? The roof is on the outside put the inside is vaulted stone.
The glass would only be visible from the outside... unless one wants to get rid of the internal vaults?
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/france-notre-dame-green-sc...
For better or worse, we have developed a fondness for past artifacts that they totally lacked; it may make sense to build something modern on top of the old structure, but we need to save what can be saved.
Take a component out, and the result is unstable.
Appropirately for a cathedral, the sermons practically write themselves.
Without that weight, there isn't much to prevent the walls from caving in.
On an unrelated note, a sibling post, though also summarizing the article, seems to be correct. How did it get killed within a minute of posting?
Yeah. I noticed that too. I assume that the algorithm weights the time between down-votes and it got a couple real quick or something. It wasn't like it was even an opinionated comment so that's still odd.
Did they have quantitative data about materials' tensile strength, shear strength, etc.? If yes, what kind of math did they have for applying those data? If no, how did they safely design first-of-a-kind structures?
Presumably could be manufactured from concrete in molds, so incremental cost could be quite low.
For example gothic architecture, see for example https://www.ankerwiki.de/Neue-Modelle-bis-Kasten-34/Kasten-N... or https://www.nikhef.nl/~i56/Anker.html (front of Chartres cathedral, gothic villa)
Pity Anker stones are still so rare and expensive.
It seems to me like the author is concerned about not "updating" the building (as was done several times in the past, like the 1860 spire). It's hard to separate those concerns about his attitude about preservation from the true needs of the project.
https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/brutalist-clifton-cat...
oh, and another: it looks like a nuclear power station:
https://www.e-architect.co.uk/liverpool/liverpool-catholic-c...
Liverpool famously has two cathedrals very close to each other, within a mile, Church of England and Catholic Church.
Nice pic link below shows both together with further individual pictures further down that page.
The Anglican cathedral, started in 1904 was finished later, in 1978 - was very much of the classical mould inside and out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Cathedral
Hallgrímskirkja: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Reykjavik%27s...
Basalt formation at Reynisfjara Beach: https://photos.smugmug.com/Travel/Iceland/Rework-lightroom/i...
Churches are an even more relevant example because they traditionally served a didactic purpose all by themselves. The buildings and the art inscribed into them served as means of propogating the culture through the generations and people going to the same cathedral every week would be surrounded murals and statuary of all sorts. They don't have to take it in all at once, they have the rest of their lives to do that and so increased detail is better.
I think that is one of the unexpected failings of the more minimal modern styles of architecture, brutalism included. At first glance they are quite striking but as time passes, they seem bland, sterile, or merely impossing.
http://cathedrale-evry.net/smart/textes/exterieur.htm http://cathedrale-evry.net/smart/textes/interieur.htm
Why is engineering in scare quotes?
If anyone has the data brought into the 21st C I'd love to re-fly the nave.
We already need to change a lot (carbon free and many other problem areas) and like the Apollo program was a challenge for engineering we could start an effort in the domains of architecture and arts (and maybe others) to build something better, spiritual etc. ...
Lets put our nation's most prized and irreplaceable artifacts in it!
naturally