It didn't survive that stuff unscathed. It's been badly damaged and rebuilt in the past too.
In fact the spire itself had fallen apart by the 18th century and rebuilt in the 19th century.
So it'll be rebuilt in the 22nd century?
Nah dawg. We got cranes. Heights? Psh. Nothing but a peanut
Tell that to the Sagrada Familia
My first thought, as well. I've always been astonished that modern technology can't speed it along.
What's the story there? I tried to look it up but couldn't find much
A minor basilica in Barcelona that is known for two main things:
Thanks, I found the building when I looked it up but not that it was never finished. At least it'll probably be done soon (relatively anyway)!
Valve wants a word
Cathedrals are never done - once it’s “finished” you start renovating , restoring, repairing.
I live in Vienna - and i think there were maybe 1 or 2 years in which st Stephen didn’t have some sort of scaffold on or around it
Oddly enough jagger will outlive it
Fun fact- my native Barcelona friend said it has taken so long because Spain will only build on it when it had the funds- and they had not put any debt into it- meaning that it has taken 100 years to build chunks of it when they get the funding for it
It’s a famous cathedral designed by Gaudí that was never finished due to his death. They’ve been trying to finish it for the past century; hopefully it will be complete in seven years—at least, that’s the projected completion date.
that's actually not a bad estimate. I visited Sagrada Familia in 1982, 37 years ago, and the signs said that the estimated completion date was in 50 years.
That's kinda soon, I mean at least relatively right?
I think it's neat af that someone designed a building that's taking well over 100 years to get built!
Yeah, for sure. Gaudí has super intricate, beautiful, complex, and original architecture that’s so amazing to be in the presence of. Went to see it on a trip to Spain two weeks ago, along with Park Güell, and it definitely was the highlight of my week
Kinda like fixing potholes in Michigan.
Most cathedrals take that long or longer. I remember going to a cathedral in DC in the eighth grade that (at the time) boasted the world's fastest completion time for a cathedral - only 88 years!
Wouldn't go that far. It's such an important symbol that whoever will be in charge of rebuilding is going to be very careful with the process.
You mean super careful like the construction company in charge of the renovations that caused today's fire?
If it was a construction accident, that company probably won't get work again.
And I was talking more about bidding, drafting, approvals, all the stuff that goes into the renovations before a single board is laid down.
I'm just joking because I'd assume any company would be careful when renovating an 800 year old building, not just the company fixing the first company's fuck up :-)
No, like "Not struggling for funding like the previous efforts". Now it's going to get every penny it ever needed. And they can take up the entire interior if need be with restoration efforts, with it closed to the public the entire time (simply not an option by previous needs). The best in the world will fight for the contract with the press and prestige they'll get from it.
The previous restoration was going to take ten years and cost 69 million Euros - much of that time and cost due to having to work around a functional museum that hosted 30,000 to 50,000 visitors per day. And that 60 million Euro budget was only 2/3rds funded (by the French government), with the remaining 20 million Euros still not yet found funding sources entirely.
Those previous efforts weren't even targeting hugely needed areas of renovation, focusing on getting the most important things done that they could manage to fund.
Now it'll get the best in the world, with hundreds of millions if not into a billion or more Euros. This is all of a sudden extremely important to fund, whereas it was previously the close on thousand years old structure known for surviving and thus not prioritized no matter how many engineers cried at the top of their lungs.
Basically, this is like climate change. All the warnings have been screamed from the rafters, all the proof is there, and yet we still delay all over and many doubt the necessity. The big difference is that no amount of funds is going to fix that after the fact.
Do you know something we don't? No news source has said anything about construction causing a fire.....
They already burned it down once, what's the odds of that happening again?
The renovations weren't even scheduled to be done until 2022 tho. Triple time, guys!
It's closed to the public now vs working on a building that was an active museum with with 30,000-50,000 visitors a day. They can scaffold the fuck out of the inside and build upwards a lot faster and more efficiently, once the plans are in place.
The detail work, however, will take insane amounts of time.
Backup crew to the rescue!
Did you see how fast I-85 bridge got rebuilt? Throw enough cash at a problem and shit can get done quick
Rebuilding is actually faster and easier than renovation.
La Sagrada Familia was designed in the pre-crane era, and is still to this date not finished. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes at least a decade before it is back to yesterday's glory.
Yeah, but at this point "not being finished" has kind of become a selling point for it, so they arent really in a rush.
Its also an intentional stupidly complex structure.
YEAH BUDDY! LIGHTWEIGHT!
YEAA BUDDY... LIGHT WEIGHT BABY
Nuthin a crane thang
why are you rebuilding a peanut?
Most of the structure is still there. It's mainly the roof that burned up. I'm gonna guess it'll be 20 years until it's fully repaired.
Well that and all the paintings that need to be redone on the walls and fine wooden trimmings that adorn the interior.
Handmade art isn't cheap.
With French labor that’s a little optimistic.
Exactly. The only reason it wasnt demolished was because victor hugo wrote a book about it
I think it was torn down before it completely fell apart. And the effort to rebuild was inspired in part by the hunchback of notre dame.
I sure hope it can be rebuilt but it's going to take a lot, I don't think it's ever been damaged to anywhere near this extent.
THis specific cathedral, no, but many, many other cathedrals have had similar or worse damage and have been rebuilt.
Remember that only the roof burns down, the rest of it is made of stone.
An expert they had on NPR earlier said the kind of stone they used can lose structural integrity at high temperatures too. So. That’s fun.
Also all the art...
Good news!! I read that they retrieved the art and artefacts!
You mean you didn't hear it in the voice of James May and get excited about the new Dacia Sandero?
Doctor Slow Himself
Now I need to turn on some classic Top Gear.
I don't know why but now I really want one, but I don't have a clue who Dacia is or what a Sandero is besides a small car they tend to destroy on top gear...
To shreds you say?
And how's the wife?
Supposedly the art, artifacts, and relics were taken out of the cathedral while they were working on renovations to the spire. Unfortunately, it's currently believed that those renovations may have been the cause of the fire.
Are you saying that they burnt it down on purpose for the insurance money?
There's always money in the cathedral
The general conspiracy theory that I've seen in Youtube comment sections is that the cathedral was burned down on purpose because Macron loves Muslims. So take that how you will.
i always knew Muslims loved macaroons
Now I'm definitely one to call Macron Islamophilic but even I'll admit that's a bit of a stretch.
Nothing wrong with loving Muslims.
That one guy who didn't unplug that thing tho....
He's just praying it's totally gone and they can't find it
I really hope that is true. Historic building have taken damage like this and been repaired but the art would never come back.
Yes, that’s awesome! But there’s still stained glass and sculpture, gargoyles, and the religious artefacts housed in the spire itself—apparently it contained a piece of what was claimed to be Christ’s crown of thorns.
Good luck, though, even if the renovation does turn out to be what caused it.
I saw in another thread that the gargoyles were taken down four days ago and put in storage. Fingers crossed that this is true.
That was not in the spire. And yes, they got that out.
That stained glass though. Is it safe? That intricate work. Could it ever be redone
How can fire unmake stone?
And it was being repaired due to structural concerns in the first place.
Can the stone’s structural integrity be compromised by heat, though?
Yes, depending on the stone and how long it was subjected to heat, could produce stress fractures in the stone.
Fortunately this is one of the best-documented buildings in the world, we could recreate almost everything even if all the stone suddenly evaporated.
We should recreate the Colosseum already. Use it for Serie A games.
What games would it even be used for? A football field wouldn't fit in it.
Gladiatorial death matches?
Yea, but then it has kind of a "Ship of Theseus" feel to it
Doesn't it already? I mean, it's been heavily damaged and significantly rebuilt several times.
I mean if fire can compromise steel, it can compromise stone... unless....
If only Notre Dame were part of a larger organization with untold riches...
You mean the football team? I don't think they'll share their money.
Rumor has it they are still asking Alumni for more money just to get by.
i'm sure that organization would be taxed heavily for those riches
It belongs to the French government. In case you were thinking of some other org. with untold riches
We can rebuild it. We have the technology. But don't want to spend a lot of money.
When I am feeling down that is my goto clip.
Well... It got burned down during the French Revolution and stayed like that for many years, eventually becoming used by the lower income people of Paris for market or even housing. Then there was an effort in the 1800s for a restoration, that's why a lot of it was built in those years like the spire destroyed yesterday evening.
And, yes, if you're wondering: Hugo wrote Notre Dame de Paris to raise awareness to the decay and neglect of the cathedral.
If everyone just kicks in $1......
It was pretty damaged in the french revolution - the bells we're melted for cannons and the roof used to make bullets. Birds flew in and out for years and it was de-christian. Most of what's there (roof, spire, even the famous gargoyles) are from the 1850s.
It looks like quite a bit of the structure survived
That is quite a relief, hopefully the structure is still sound.
My Uncle runs a firm in Philadelphia that restores historic landmarks, and they are buildings younger than the time it took to build Notre Dame. They use old techniques instead of power tools often on wood. It takes them a vast amount of time to do a restoration.
My guess is some idiot was welding in the attic, and didn’t protect the 800 year old oak nearby.
That firm is basically done. They may even see jail time.
Every detail has been very well doccumented. It will be rebuilt to as close of specifications as possible. Nothing will be noticeable to the average pesron.
Yes it will take time but it will be almost exactly as it stood before within due time.
The hotel Adlon in Berlin survived all of WW2 including the bombings and artillery only to be burned down accidentally by drunken red army soldiers celebrating their victory
hey now, not every child, just the hot ones
The post started about a Catholic church are you surprised raping children clocks in at the 4th comment in?
Maybe I didn't see "clocks" the first time I read through. Maybe I had to do a double take. Maybe a triple take.
Maybe I need help.
You do need help. You can't rape children cocks. Just children's cocks.
So... Rooster-fucking is ok, but only if a youngling's possession/companion?
Today's life lessons are getting so... odd, or is that an old life lesson? I can't keep up with today, or the past, I give up.
Not that much
I was appalled it said children when they should have typed boys. Girls have no place in the catholic church.
FBI KGB OPEN UP
Jesus H. Fuck.
Did you know that Jesus' middle name is Hoobastank?
It’s Horatio, actually.
A fellow of infinite jest
Hot as in attractive, or temperature?
The red army did use flamethrower
Ah, that would explain why your mother never showed signs of childhood trauma.
judging by the fire most of those kids were hot ones anyways.
I thought we only started using napalm during the Korean war...
True, but don't forget the firebombing of Dresden....
We made some glowing japanese children
Yes officer this post right here
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
I have questions, but I dont want to hear the answers
Was that what the fire was for?
Stupid sexy kids
This comment right here officer
and theres still memorials and monuments up for red army soldiers, no memorials or monuments for all the women and children that were raped.
STOP RIGHT THERE! YOU ARE BEING LIBERATED
So many accidents happened at that time, for example the accidental invasion of the USSR and the deaths of millions of civilians at the hands of the invading Germans. Clumsy times I suppose.
Who knew trying to genocide a population and putting them through literal hell on earth makes em a little bloodthirsty and unhinged
сука блять Comrade Molotov, no more making drinks for you!
I mean, they may have just wanted to start a fire and didn't mean to burn down the whole building. That's an accident...technically.
"Hey guys we missed one"
Well what do you expect them to do? Burn down one of the demolished ones?
There's not much you can really expect from a group of people who thinks it's acceptable to rape every female they find and then expect to be called heroes for it.
I can't imagine a sprinkler system being installed in the cathedral especially with its age, fortunately enough neither can anyone else now.
Wouldn't this prompt most old historic churches to have proper fire supression retrofitted & HIDDEN in the structure?
It would be a shame if the Cologne Cathedral had a similar fate.
It would be a shame if the Cologne Cathedral had a similar fate.
Easy, now. We can work something out, ok?
Sure thing, you just have to make your fire protection payments, and there won't be any incedents, see?
I’m pretty sure Martin Luther had a problem with paying to prevent fire within the church in 1517.
I bet you feel really proud of yourself right now.
Fun isn't something one considers when balancing the church, but this does put 95 theses on my door
I got 95 theses but a bitch aint one
Have my up- grievance
Now you're just being indulgent.
Except for all that feces behind the nail, yeah.
Someone give this person gold. The villain wins.....THIS time.
Bravo. If there was a 'you win' comment, that was it.
That's bullshit. This whole thing is bullshit. Here's 95 reasons why.
That's a nice cathedral you have there...
Thank you for sharing your perspective!
My takeaway from your comment is “it’s costly and installing it might damage the building because we don’t want to drill holes in stone walls or add new screws to wooden beams.”
I understand the preservationist impulse there, but honestly, I don’t think you’ll find anyone who wouldn’t trade those holes and screws in order to avoid a conflagration like we just witnessed. A network of pipes and sprinklers running through the roof beams above the vault seems like such an obvious cost-benefit no-brainer to me. Visitors wouldn’t even see it.
In a way, it reminds me of when the US National Archives’ military records complex went up in flames a couple of decades ago. They purposefully didn’t install a sprinkler system in an archive filled with old paper because they thought they could put a fire out quickly and didn’t want to risk water-damage to the documents. They didn’t consider that if a fire gets too large, then water damage is a hell of a lot easier to deal with than ashes. As a result, records for millions of servicemen (including my grandfather) are irretrievably lost. And archives like that all have fire suppression systems now.
With hindsight, sometimes the correct risk/reward calculus becomes blindingly obvious.
I don't completely disagree that it certainly feels very wrong to not want to do whatever we can for these important places. I just wanted to reiterate and maybe better communicate the challenges. It's not entirely just not some new screw holes here and there. When looking at core systems like plumbing and trying to retrofit in historic buildings, you have to consider how to fit within the building. This isn't just as far as attaching it to what's existing. This would also involve dismantling the structure in a large capacity, removing the floor or walls to add the plumbing under neither it, alongside drilling extensive holes to fit that plumbing through a historic floor joist, which you must consider if you are compromising the structural integrity that's already there.
We've truly come a long way in our building technology and how we incorporate core and mechanical systems within the building shell. The way that buildings are constructed today is meticulous in considering the layers by which each of these trades comes in after the other. For example, we have to frame the walls, then we can start the plumbing, then we can do the electrical, then we can apply the drywall/paint, then the millwork over that. It wouldn't be possible to do these out of that order because of how we've just come put these parts and pieces together. This is with modern buildings that account these things when you look at historic structures, they had no concept of needing specific room or space to allow for plumbing to drain at a certain angle. So the floors might be much thinner than what applying plumbing would allow in modern buildings. I think a good example many may encounter is what we refer to as ADA or Accessible design for those in wheelchairs. This wasn't a standard until the 1970s, so old buildings didn't often have ramps or hallways were very thin and cramped. This prevented those in wheelchairs from even being apart of the space. Now to fix this, we can't simply move walls to provide a 30-60" walkway clearance because it may be structurally built for that wall to exist where it is and to move it would not only change the history of this building and accounting for that wall but it would impact the size and outline of other rooms and areas, and the many layers of what that building consists of within its walls.
I have been trying to think of a good example to really demonstrate the evolution of buildings and just how much they have changed since we introduced so many precautions and mechanical elements to them. I think the best I can come up with this morning is looking at this image of a brick wall and how it differs over time. Historically, brick walls were a lot thicker and there structure came from layering the bricks in such a manner to make walls thicker and more stable. Today though, brick is more often adhered to the surface of existing framework, it's cheaper and allows us to better insulate the home and finish the interior walls with drywall. It would be within that framing that all our modern core systems would exist. I hope it helps illustrate in thinking just how different these buildings can be over time.
I would expect some 'replace the battery once a year, it will spray fire dampening foam everywhere if a fire is detected' devices would be ideal.
The nice thing about some of these old churches and cathedrals is frankly they arn't build with many flammable materials.
Except that those systems can also leak, and break. The attic spaces of these cathedrals are usually not heated and can easily reach freezing temperatures, so a wet sprinkler system is out. A dry sprinkler system is also possible, but is difficult for such large spaces where it will take more time for the lines to fill, meaning the fire can already be getting out of control. There are a LOT of technical, practical, conservation, and risk considerations to consider. The attic space was huge, and not easily protected even by modern systems.
Structurally it's mostly stone. The tricky bit is all the furnishings inside tended to be wood.
I enjoyed reading your insights
Time for a firefighting robot to be hanging around with his fire extinguisher or whatever.
Germany had a LOT of churches get torched by the 8th air force. It can be rebuilt.
And Castles. I wouldn't be surprised if, after all is said and done, they refurbish Notre Dame into an updated tourist venture. My mother got married in the ruins of Heidelberg Castle and it was incredibly cool. Heidelberg castle burnt down similarly to Notre Dame and annually they have a weird event where they have fake fire and screaming coming from the castle, so to onlookers in the street it appears that the castle is burning. I'm not sure the purpose of the event because I was young when I got to experience it and it seemed awfully gothic to me.
I live here and don't even know when they do that
I think it's possible it's not annual. I for sure remember it being a thing at least 1 time in the last 20 years.
I miss Heidelberg so much. I havent been back there for 10 years now, however I'm planning on visiting this winter to experience haubtstrasser and the Christmas market as an adult. I hope nothing has changed!
The old city hasn't changed much! Hope you have fun. It is planned that the train station area renovations will be done by the end of 2019, so you'll see a futuristic Heidelberg!
I think he means Schlossbeleuchtung... Maybe they did something like that at some point instead of just fireworks.
Kind of a bad example for rebuilding burnt down landmarks since it was only partially rebuilt... Also to clarify: The castle wasn't burnt down in WW2 - Heidelberg was barely bombed, maybe because it had no industry worth bombing or maybe because the allies always planned on using it as their headquarters, apparently the reason isn't quite clear. The castle was actually destroyed by French soldiers towards the end of the 17th century.
The "weird event" probably refers to the Schlossbeleuchtung ("castle illumination") which is a firework display in reference to the destruction of the castle.
Wouldn't this prompt most old historic churches to have proper fire supression retrofitted & HIDDEN in the structure
Wouldn't this prompt most old historic churches to have proper fire supression retrofitted & HIDDEN in the structure
I doubt it. The cost would be insane. It would all be built custom to the historic buildings the churches are in.
Every sprinkler system is custom, but yes, it'd be expensive. I design suppression and alarm systems. Cathedrals are a major pain in the ass.
We're talking about the Roman Catholic Church here. They have the money.
The building is not owned by the Catholic Church. It is owned by the state.
Every sprinkler system is custom
Every sprinkler system is custom
I say custom in reference to this:
HIDDEN in the structure?
HIDDEN in the structure?
To be hidden, I assume it would have to be pieces that are created to fit, and be hidden from eyesight, within the structure itself which means you aren't just installing pipes and heads.
Except for a gothic cathedral like this, you can do just that. The timber is all hidden away inside the towers or above the stone vault. The roof is the vulnerable part, and the people down below don’t see it at all. I have to imagine that you could run a network of pipes and sprinklers through the roof beams without taking any special efforts to hide it.
Fellow designer here myself. Did 2 1860’s era churches converted into wedding venues. Was not fun or a good challenge. It was an absolute bitch of a design. Especially the attic system and figuring out how anguy is gonna get 85+ feet up in the ceiling when the trusses are spread 4’ OC. They built scaffolding at like 50 feet I believe and my dude stood on a 8’ ladder and used a 12’ piece of ATR with a coupling and another 6’ piece with a Sammy at the end to set the peak line. Insane.
Sheeesh, that's sketchy. I used to be a fitter, so I feel for the guys when a church project comes through. Especially if I can't utilize attic heads. Worst for me was a huge mosque. Giant domes on a dry system are not fun to figure out.
Have you checked out r/firepe ?
The 'insane' cost isn't as insane as the idea of a national treasure being lost. "Oh no, a 'wasteful' $10 million'" instead of it going to a supermarket arrangement of danishes and sliced fruit for executive meetings, it will go to something stupid like fire supression.
One Dassault Rafale fighter jet costs $74m. I don't know what it would cost to put a fire suppression system in Notre Dame, but it seems like it should be less than that.
Yea just drilling holes for tubes in a 850 year old monument..
Given the context, are the holes better or worse than the fire risk?
Yeah just figuring a few holes is somehow worse than being set on fire.
You still have to have the 10 million
As opposed to going down to the local Home Depot and buying an assemble yourself sprinkler system?
All the systems are custom made. That is what pipe-fitters do
The dude I was responding to wanted it to be hidden in the structure. To do something like in the Cathedral of Notre Dame isn't as simple as going to Home Depot, buying some fittings and pipe, and installing it. We are talking about having pieces created to look like they belong on the structure so when people look up, they don't see a bunch of fire suppression hardware.
It's not really practical. Once one of those roofs is going it's done with or without sprinklers.
Well the idea of a sprinkler system is the fire never progresses beyond the 'gets going' part.
Sure. And the ceiling height of that building would significantly complicate sprinkler use. Not to mention the building is full of building materials that arent fire resistant.
I have a degree in fire safety and technology and am also a firefighter. Once that roof was going there isnt a sprinkler system in the world thats putting it out. And many church fires start in the walls or directly on the roof - where sprinkler systems dont even have access to.
There are structure fires often in fully sprinkled buildings. The systems can only put out so much water in so many places. Add super old building with incredibly high ceilings and it's not going to happen. The only sure bet thing to help would be to reroof the entire thing in non combustible material and then seal it in a heat resistant covering. That way the room below has the chance to be cooled before it melts the roof off. Getting that heat out even after hitting it with a lot of water would still be really hard and would obliterate whatever was inside.
The height of the tower is 226 feet according to wikipedia. There arent even master streams that can reach that in the vast majority of fire departments around the world. The spire is amazingly high, forget putting water on it.
The majority of sprinkler systems are geared towards small/mid sized room content fires with low/mid BTU potential.
But what if the sprinklers used holy water?
I don't think you realize how much that would cost
Probably less than rebuilding a Cathedral.
If you don't have the money in the first place none of it makes a difference
You would be amazed how cost prohibitive and actually risky that installation is to the structure.
Also, if the fire were smaller, you would basically have horrific water damage as an overreaction.
That a threat?
yes officer, this comment right here
I designed 2 sprinkler systems for 18th century churches that got renovated into wedding venues. Unfortunately most of the code states if there’s no change in occupancy, you can go on without them.
It’s pretty incredible to see something constructed in the 1800s compared to modern construction. Those roof trusses at the peak are like 3’ thick. They are a bitch to design for.
In NYC, most new construction, including abatement, have to have sprinklers. Churches are exempt.
Honestly to retrofit a place as old as that would be extremely difficult.
That almost sounds like a threat Lol. Are you by any chance in the hidden fire suppression business?
Personally I feel like historic buildings are historic for more than just their appearance. Even if the damage isn't noticeable, it's still damage being done to a historic building. Of course, to most people, fire safety is worth it. I can see why the church may be hesitant, though.
Sprinkler systems are definitely added to buildings like this all the time. Same with electricity and plumbing.
With how important of a tourist attraction and icon Notre Dame is, I would be surprised if there hadn't been some sort of sprinkler system already. It must have just not been enough to put out the fire.
Youd be shocked to how little preventive measures are actually in place
Between this and the National Museum of Brazil burning down, I'd think the people who oversee and fund historical treasures would start insisting on fireproofing and suppression systems, aesthetics and finer preservation details be damned. OK, run the sprinkler pipe through that wall. I don't care how old that fresco is or who painted it, this joint's a damn tinderbox!
Replace the spiral stairs with elevators
Sorry, /u/BolognaPwny, we're going to go with a different candidate for the sprinkler system sales executive but we'll notify you if we have any other openings that fit your work experience.
Why the fuck not. I’m shocked they didn’t put sprinklers in back in the 20’s or something.
I used to install fire sprinklers and in the U.S. Historic monuments would not be required to install them. And nowadays the plumbing is all in the walls but old structures like that it might have to show to cover most of the cathedral. I'm not sure what the cathedral was made out of but my guess is the only way to make the piping "invisible" would be to paint it.
Holy water is too expensive these days
Especially with the nave at 35m tall. That starts to be tough to protect with sprinklers. The side chambers could be protected, but it runs a risk of water damage in addition to the installation and maintainence costs. I could absolutely see people deciding that they don't want sprinklers in the building at all. They probably thought with their current system they could control any expected fire before it got big enough to cause wide spread damage
Wouldn’t it be a fire hazard (lol) to not have sprinklers installed in any building nowadays?
Agreed. Sounds like the stonework is intact, and they've saved the towers from collapse.
Much of the interior and the spire were built in the 1800's. It'll be rebuilt again.
And I imagine the roof will be rebuilt with a very sophisticated sprinkler system.
From the news i was following they were worried about the bells. They thought there was a chance of losing the whole thing. If the bells fell the towers couldve gone down with it.
Much of the interior and the spire were built in the 1800's. It'll be rebuilt again.
I thought the section called "the Forest" burned, and that most of the wood was original from the first two phases of building in the 11 and 1200s.
Sick soundtrack. Could have been written by r/twrp
They already rebuilt the spire once, in the 19th century. I have no doubt they could do it again. It would be a monumental effort, but it's possible.
If anyone can do it, it's the French. They have the money, the skills, the political will, and the soul.
As a Frenchman, thank you. The money though, not really. Over the past few decades the French state has been struggling to find funds to maintain their historical heritage. They even introduced a lottery recently to collect funds (which may have been mismanaged, but that's another story). A non-profit created controversy recently too when they announced plans to target American donors for Notre-Dame-de-Paris' renovation costs.
The situation is reaching critical proportions for some monuments.
It's especially difficult since the French state owns all those churches and cathedrals, not the Vatican. There is also the fact that there isn't a culture of charity-giving in France like there is in the U.S., in great part because the state provides a social safety net and usually comes through for this type of program.
So, unfortunately the money is getting very, very tight. So Pinault's offer of 100M euros is going to be welcome. So is Macron's announcement for a subscription program.
Yeah, they’ve never quit anything
Edit: Geeze I guess no jokes allowed
Damn, I think you pissed off the french redditors.
The French government capitulated in WW2. The French people never did.
Hur dur WW2 hur dur baguette surrender
I think its intressting how quckly people seem to forget ww1.
Not even talking that the French won the American independance war for them just to piss off the Brits
It's an old joke with no variation and it's inaccurate. People are tired of it.
I’ve read this comment four times and I still can’t decide if your use of monumental is an intentional or accidental pun.
Accidental, but as a dad, I'll take it. :)
Don’t forget Old Town Warsaw is something like 60-70 years old. The nazi’s burned down 90% of it; Belweder palace is one of the few buildings that remained unscathed.
From the pictures, the exterior is intact. It’s not in danger of collapsing. It’s just the roof and spire that burned down. The spire had to be rebuilt once in the 19th century.
Nobody will be able to go inside the church for a long time. But it can be rebuilt.
The stone not being structurally altered by fire is not a guarantee.
US President Donald Trump suggested "perhaps flying water tankers" could be used to extinguish the fire.
Maybe if they would have raked the leaves
and had more paper towels
throws a paper towel roll smugly
He did have a point there, it's been raise multiple times that a no burn policy is just creating a giant tinderbox of death.
How is he in charge of anything larger than a men's room?
Racism!!!!! Bigot!!!!! Propaganda!!!!
Electoral College makes some states matter more/less than others. Sparsely populated states yield much more voting power per person than heavily populated states, because every state gets at least 3 Electoral Votes (2 Senators and 1 Congressman minimum per state). So Wyoming's population of 577,000 results in 1 EV per 192,000 people. But California's population of 39,560,000 and 55 EVs yields only 1 EV per 719,000 people. So a Wyoming vote in a presidential election is equivalent to about 3.74 California votes.
Most sparsely populated states also lean heavily toward republicans, so their party reaps the rewards of this skewed system, and is very much against anything that would balance it (like making Puerto Rico a state) or simply doing away with the Electoral College.
This system also results in many states being non-competitive since they lean heavily toward one party or the other (TX and CA are good examples). This results in presidential candidates not bothering to campaign much (if at all) in those states because the winner is a foregone conclusion. Trump is not going to win California, and Sanders is not going to win Mississippi, so neither candidate will pander to either of those states. Instead they'll focus on the few heavier populated states that don't lean heavily toward one party (Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio generally). End result, the winner of those states determine who wins the election. Trump won all 4.
The only states that matter are the swing states. Even with Wyoming's outsized power, no one ever thinks to visit it after Labor Day in an Election Year. The same goes for Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, etc.
The Swing State effect that renders 85% of Americans spectators on Election Day is a major argument against winner-take-all state elections for President. Proponents argue that the big cities would get all the attention, but now they get none, and neither do the vast majority of rural voters.
Shit, do you really want him running a men's room?
I wouldn't trust Trump with my toilet.
Wood framing is destroyed, anyways.
French officials replied to this tweet (in english) calling out Trump saying dropping water from the sky would destroy the structure more.
Did he actually say th- oh what am I thinking, of course he did.
If it weren't for the fact that he's President of the United States, the idea of a 70 year old man trying to play firefighter would be pretty amusing.
Depends, can we throw him from the plane instead?
Nah, it would just make the fire worse
All that hairspray though...
Certainly paper towels could fix the problem
Did you know. He's an "expert" in everything
Does he mean the planes used on forest fires or the hovercraft used in Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith to put out the flaming half of General Grievous's ship when Anakin landed it in Coruscant?
See, we need the Space Force.
Hes now wondering who has the "second highest cathedral" to give them credit for that.
Who gives a hoot about what he thinks. I'm annoyed the media is reporting on it.
Out of 52 weeks in a year, it is burning down during one of the “holy” weeks
I hope this isn’t the case, but I have an uneasy feeling that this was deliberate.
You can see that there's a lot of scaffolding on the roof in some of the pictures, they were doing some restoration work on the spire apparently. Wouldn't be surprised to hear that a worker was a little careless with a cigarette around some flammable chemicals or something.
It's the French, there's cigarettes everywhere!
Caused by an electrical fault of some sort.
How do we know that? It literally just burned down a few hours ago and no investigation yet
He’s talking out of his ass. Yes it is likely it was caused by some kind of electrical issue, but there’s absolutely no evidence for anything at this point.
And yet it makes a lot more sense than hysterically jumping to a shadowy cabal of arsonists.
They're not very shadowy, the drive trucks into crowds and post videos of them beheading men.
Or yknow. Volatile chemicals in restoration processes. Jesus christ
I hate how people just say X.
Instead of saying they think it's X... or they've heard it's X... or Y is reporting X.
They're just so confidently without a single doubt or droplet of shame proclaims X.
I'm leaning towards that anti-pigeon wiring they have had on the roof.
that is a current theory. he cant possibly know for sure
Could have even been someone using a grinder near some sawdust. But yeah, my first pick is a butt.
It was likely caused by volatile chemicals used in the restoration process.
The chemicals were definitely a propellant/caustic agent/(I have no idea how to describe flammable objects don’t judge me). Or whatever. I’m sure any products being used for the restoration, as well as the scaffolding, provided ample fuel for the fire.
But the cause is up in the air. I’m not jumping to conclusions, and I hope a thorough investigation can determine the root of the cause - electrical fault, cigarettes, and at the risk of starting an argument - terrorism or a nefarious objective.
I hope for the most innocent outcome.
How many “holy weeks” are there in a year? If it was deliberate and done specifically because now is a “Holy Week” why choose a Monday? There are many more significant days this week than today.
It being Monday before Easter makes it actually more likely there was extra pressure on the construction workers to finish some part of the work before the weekend, possibly leading to mistakes being made.
Just for your first question... in Catholicism, at least, Holy Week is the week from Palm Sunday to Holy Saturday. Even though there are a lot of important dates in the Christian calendar, the events around Good Friday and Easter Sunday are considered to be the most critical ones.
Not Catholic, but most Christians observe or know the same holidays. There is really only one Holy Week and a few other days that are important and observed.
Lent - 40 days before Easter begins on Ash Wednesday
Holy Week - week of Easter, Palm Sunday, Spy Wednesday, Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, Holy Saturday/Black Saturday
Easter - the Resurrection
Pentecost - seventh Sunday after Easter the coming of the Holy Spirit
Other than these related to Easter there is Advent (40 days before Christmas and Christmas day)
There are some others days and each church is a little different, but Easter and Christmas are by far the most Holy days for any Christian/Catholic church.
There's only the one "Holy Week" and its the week leading up to Easter.
But you're right theres a lot more candles people during holy week. Possibly palms and lights for passion plays too.
Out of 52 weeks in a year, it is burning down during one of the “holy” weeks
Let's be very careful not to insinuate anything. There are vile people on the internet already spreading rumors.
2 other Catholic cathedrals in France have been deliberately set on fire since February. The vile people are the ones setting shit on fire, not the ones noticing people setting shit on fire.
Vile people? Rumours? On the internet!?
Two days ago three Muslim women who tried to burn it down in 2016 got sentenced to 8 years in jail
Completely unrelated of course of course
Yeah, what are the chances of that?
Roughly (number of holy weeks in a year)/52
Yeah, that was a joke, but it's 1/52. There's only one holy week.
Well I guess we can now hide from the eyes of Notre Dame.
I was randomly whistling this last night. Kinda eerie when I read the news this morning.
Such an incredible soundtrack.
Wikipedia is quick
I felt bad for laughing when I saw this
They must've gone and dun intsalled one of them new fire distinguishers
where can i get a talking fire extinguisher, not that i need some one to talk with me umm i asking for a frend.
Here you go
Sometimes little doses of humor are the best way to deal with tragedy
If you could provide some tasteful jokes about burning churches by the end of the day that'd be great.
who said anything about tasteful
is a place like this ever not under renovation?
“Renovation, what’s that all about?”
Yeah, I was refreshing my browser and seeing the changes for when Tiger recently won the Masters. These folks are fast and excellent.
Thanks I needed a laugh, the joke is on fire.
How can a plague affect a building?
People thought fire and smoke kept the plague at bay, so people lit more fires. They also burned the bodies of the dead, resulting in even more ongoing fires. Sometimes fires got out of control at a time when there were few healthy people to coordinate a strategy to put out those fires.
I too was very confused by this inclusion in the title. Thank you for clearing this up.
I was laughing about the plague line but that makes sense! Thanks for teaching me that! :)
Because it wasn’t vaccinated, and only had oils and herbs rubbed on it for centuries
Chiming in here as I sort of work in the fire alarm industry.
Retrofitting old buildings alone is difficult (think 50-100 years). Typically some serious modification is required and a lot of holes must be drilled into the building to allow for pipes, wires etc. It's very costly.
Now when you get into historic buildings? Good luck.
For many reasons, must historic builds at most have a fire alarm system, but that's it. It's simply not realistic to be able to install any type of fire suppression system in them. This would require essentially ripping the building apart, and the owners of these places would never allow it, let alone a finding a contractor actually capable of taking on that risk. Most owners/controllers of these structures want absolutely nothing touched/changed/modified that in anyway would detract from it's authentic historical significance. I personally would never want to drill holes in a 300 year old wooden building, or disassemble it and then have to put it back together afterwards, because it absolutely will not go back, assuming the material the structure is made out of doesn't just disintegrate when you attempt to remove it. Building on that point too, many of the methods/materials used in the old buildings simply isn't attainable. Let's say by some miracle you found a way to recreate and/or maintain a buildings authenticity for this kind of procedure(quite literally given the delicate nature and risk involved) to be carried out, the cost would be unimaginable. And then given that this was a church and how secular France is, finding the funding would have nearly impossible, just as it was for the project that led to the fire. And then do not forget, you will assuredly encounter groups that would be angered you are potentially defiling a historic landmark and religious artifact.
I personally just finished a fire alarm system update/refresh in my city to a roughly 150 year old building. Mind you all this was, was removing old smoke detectors and installing new ones in there place, zero screws just snap in. My company was REQUIRED to have a curator present with us at all times to work in the building, simply for the liability. The owners of the facility did not want it to look like there were any smoke detectors in the building. It was very meticulous and time consuming, and all we're doing was replacing an old smoke alarm system that had already been retrofitted in. I had asked about the danger of fire in the building and the curator told me they once got a fire assessment from the local fire department a few years ago, the fire department told them after the assessment was completed that in the even of a fire, the building would be likely be ashes before they even got there.
Edit: words, phone formatting
Came here to say this, I am a professional firefighter, people think it’s easy and simple to add fire protection systems. It’s not. Additionally with sprinklers I would say water damage risk to art and and features is greater than fire risk.
My guess is that it will come back as the fuel load of the scaffolding will be a primary factor to fire spread. Large diameter timbers (no matter how dry they are) are actually really good at surviving fire. However, OSB or even cut fin form boards are a different story.
The sprinklers getting triggered by accident is probably way more likely than a fire. I can see where there would be a legitimate concern for water damage.
Could scaffolding contain a fire suppression system? Like an outside sprinkler that runs along the temp structure to reduce the fuel load?
No modification to the historical part, but protection while there is combustible wood around the outside?
Additionally with sprinklers I would say water damage risk to art and and features is greater than fire risk.
Additionally with sprinklers I would say water damage risk to art and and features is greater than fire risk.
Absolutely. Fire isn't going to make its way down into the stone crypts and reliquaries, but water sure will, and it will flood everything.
Alexa, add "Things we lost in the fire" from Bastille to my current playlist
The Bastille was already lost in 1789. We're talking about Notre Dame cathedral here. /s
Imagine being the roofer who started the fire? Awkward.
I was thinking - imagine being a renovator. All your hard work up in flames.
I didn’t know buildings could catch the plague. The more you know!
There were sometimes bonfires lit during plague to 'cleanse the air.' That's probably what OP is referring to.
Thank you! I knew there was a reason and couldn’t think of what it was.
To be fair, masonry can't get the plague
Complete craziness- still in shock to see it burning :(
I just saw a post claiming 700 years then someone in the comments said 800 and now this post says 900. I can’t believe how fast a 1000 year old building ages.
Looking on Wikipedia they report a groundbreaking of 1163 (856 ya) and completion of 1345 (674 ya), which probably accounts for the disparity in those ages.
We need one more law or regulation that finally protect our history treasures
Fire should be illegal
Then only outlaws will be on fire.
I.. I mean, that would probably still be a bad thing.
Redox equations should be illegal.
I can't tell if you are sarcastic
Yes we should outlaw fire
Ahh it looks like the stupid has finally arrived.
Yes. More laws and regulations. Just what the world needs. MOAR GOVERNMENT.
No more regulations! Let our corporate masters look out for our well being, as they are so prone to doing!
What's interesting is that we are also in the age where it could be rebuilt fairly precisely using existing information like photos and videos.
This meme was around when the Notre Dame was built
When I found out that the cathedral was on fire I almost cried. Visiting Notre Dame has been on my bucket list for a while now. :/
Let me ask you something. You're like the 10th person to suggest that, and so far no one has answered my question.
Do you have any proof at all? If not, why do you automatically assume that's who is responsible?
While we mourn the loss of historic architecture let's be thankful that no one has lost their life in this tragic event.
Yeah nah got completely fucked over during the French Revolution & took Victor Hugo & his book money from "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" to repair it, and to build the spire that burned down.
I really don’t get why anyone is so concerned. Genuinely. Not trolling or anything. No one was hurt, the building was insured and so we move on. I’m not happy about it or sad. It’s a building. Any single tragic loss of life is infinitely more significant.
There are many people who would live on to have a worthless unproductive and burdened existence that helped no one.
This building gave* faith to hundreds of millions of people.
i think its about the history its been a part of and the culture it reprecent. it has stood on the grounds of Paris for a very long time. Just because someone didnt die doesnt mean there wasnt anything significant lost. luckily the relics and sculpture seems to be fine
this fucking subreddit is stuck in 1160
i wish reddit would burn down right now.
this is fucking cringy
I wish this subreddit would burn down
Hasn't it burned down before?
Too soon man
It's burnt before.
The plague infected buildings?
What do you think happened to many buildings when everyone thought fire kept the plague away and people were too sick to fight any fire that got out of control?
It hasn't burnt down though, has it? People are going on as if the building has ceased to be. It will be rebuilt, as it has been before. This is what happens with old buildings. It's sad, but it's not the monumental tragedy people who don't understand history and architecture are making it out to be.
I'm more blown away given the number of revolutions, wars, and government changes it survived. I mean, the French revolution, reformation of the Catholic Church, both world wars; it is staggering.
Golly, it's almost as if God was pissed at the Catholic Church. Why would that be? If I were the Pope, I sure wouldn't go outside during any lightning storms ...
I’m just happy to see Bad Luck Brian back on the front page!
ITT, how can a building catch the plague and Islamophobia.
France lost +10 happiness and +4 faith a turn too :(
Cathedrals are notoriously susceptible to plagues. Terrible immune systems.
This overlooks the fact that with the advent of all those modern devices, humans themselves have gotten much, MUCH more careless.
It burned in the current Age of Common Negligence.
Imagine this being done on purpose for a large ass renovation bill so the companies that handle it get payed big. just saying it is a theory you don't have to believe it.
Possible. Not likely, but possible.
Ive always gotten the impression Reddit hated religion. Now, all of a sudden, we care so much about a church that it’s like 50% of the top page. This is a weird place.
Regardless of religion it's still a peace of cultural heritage. It's like if the Lincoln memorial caught fire.
Except this meme is irrelevant because it survived.
Thousands of fine young men lost their virginity in this building !
Smoke detecters and sprinkers don’t work on roofs? And firefighters just contain fires to prevent it spreading but whatever’s burning is already gone. I mean how stupid is this post seriously.
Why is plague mentioned...
We will build a new one... with blackjack and hookers.
She got overconfident.
ok people really need to understand that the whole structure isn't coming down. it's made of stone ffs. yes it will need extensive renovations but inside the cathedral will most likely be FINE.
Stone splits when heated and the roof vaults are very thin. Fire has trashed several Cathedrals.
also the age when we can SUMMON LIGHTNING AT WILL though
At least it wasnt the big bit at the front, just the roof and a spire further back.
it can be rebuilt.
I get the rest....but the plague???
Everyone knows that plagues and fires are fond of one another.
Plague means burning bodies and contaminated places. Sometimes those fires get out of control, but everyone is too sick to do anything about it.
can we get an F for Notre Dame?
In other news, Varg Vikernes seen leaving Notre Dame....
At least now they can rebuild the spire into a huge cell tower.
I literally just read this , and was like what ?!? Looked up and on the tv it’s playing the exact same thing and then I was like oh ..
Quasimodo predicted all this....
Was it too much to photoshop a beret and baguette on Brian?
The longer a building exists without a fire the more likely it will burn down.
Such a missed opportunity for this meme with Quasimodo
Some people did something.
How would the plague hurt the cathedral?
Fires often followed plagues in the past.
Also poison damage
I would have installed an aircraft carrier foamy fire suppressant system.
Why the fuck would a plague damage the cathedral?
Historically, fires and plagues go hand in hand.
Lack of available manpower to maintain it. Up to 60% of Europe's population disappeared so lots of projects went by the wayside.
Technically it was in such poor repair by Napoleon's time that most people wanted to tear it down. Napoleon insisted on repairing it.
Also remember that Victor Hugo wrote "Hunchback of Notre Dame" after Napoleon did this.
Jesus does not save the house of diddlers.
It was in disrepair within the last 200 years, it's been rebuilt a NUMBER of times.
Plenty of new space just opened up for residential high rises sold my your friendly next door corporations!
While there was a restoration crew working where the fire started...
What are they going to do with the Hunchback NOW ???
it was properly due to carelessness with "hot work" as that tends to be a major risk for starting fires. and with an old building with a lot of wood due to the big renovations, they have been using grinders/or other tools that are considered hot work. mix that with people cutting wood and you have a big fire hazard
Too soon homie, too soon
is made of rocks
Thank God it survived the Black Plague. Thought for sure that would have taken it.
Did you see what the Black Plague did to London?
That was unfortunately before my time. Kinda glad I wasn’t there though to be honest.
Yeah, I heard from a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy who was there. He said that the burning of bodies, combined with the false belief that fire and smoke cleaned the plague-riddled "bad air," combined with the destruction the plague caused to the central government, combined with the lack of able-bodied citizens, caused the Great Fire to get out of control more than it otherwise would have.
YES!!! This is what I don’t understand. It has made it through so much! But here in the modern world is when it gets destroyed???
how the hell would a plague destroy a building
unless someone can prove me wrong
People to sick to maintain it properly? It’s a stretch.
Well it wasn't built for electricity...
I still don't know how the building survived the Plague.
Not really true. Parts of it have burned before. And restored.
A victim of the Pittsburgh Temple shootings survived the Holocaust just to be killed for her religion years later. Terrible.
I didn’t realise plagues infected buildings.
They don't. But they're hell on a central government tasked with fighting city fires that get out of control.
Does anyone know really how old it is? I've seen two centuries old, I've also seen 700 years old and now I've seen 900 years old, lol, everyone seems to have their own idea for how old this building is.
During a renovation.
Mixing of flags and candles is dangerous.
It's amazing that it survived the building plague of 1428.
Hold on is that a picture of ron weasly if he wasn't in hogwarts? Or is it just me?
Just use creative mode to bring it back lol
Poor contractor management results in fire more often than you can imagine.
It's been a long time since I've seen Bad Luck Brian. You must be from the golden days.
Capitalism will destroy everything and everyone you love. Remember that.
Well. This isn’t advice. And that’s not an animal. This sub sucks lol.
Has anyone said how the fire began??
I think we all know notre dame has been this badly damaged before, and it will be rebuilt just like in the past
I feel so out of the loop. I found out the Notre Dame had a fire.
The first sprinkler system was tested in the 15th century. The first successful sprinkler system was installed in 1723.
Nothing last forever.
We can rebuild it at least.
Well gasoline is a really fast accelerant
Their god must be very unhappy about all the pedophilia.
Yeah man he got really sick during the plague and there weren’t any antibiotics so it just used that Witch Hazel essential oil.
How would it be damaged by plagues, anyway?
How's a plague gonna hurt a cathedral?
How did The Catholic Church allow this to happen!!??
Shame on them!!
They should rebuild it and praise Shrek instead of jesus.
It's not dead just seriously wounded!
It was never damaged while they were burning people in front.
It's like Alexander the Great, survived bloody wars but killed by a mosquito.
One of those renovators really fucked up
I like how you put Fire Trucks in there, because it begs the question where everyone is saying how Notre Dame was too old to retrofit fire suppression systems inside - why wasn't there some sort of 24 hour fire crew nearby?
I'm sure they could hide a bunch of extinguishers and even a guy or two inside a room somewhere, even next door or across the street. Seems like a cheaper investment than the amounts being given to retro fit modern fire suppression systems. Makes sense that any historical building would have a fire guard of some sort.
Too soon 😢
Smoke detectors sprinklers, fire trucks and a severe overabundance of incompetence in management.
Bet ya a dime for a dozen, that there are no smoking signs everywhere, especially on the balcony.
Oh no, where will Quasimodo live now?
Trump is going to find out and build a casino. Trumpthedral
Lol people are saying France deserved this:
Probably because all of the fire fighters were on their 3rd holiday for the quarter, the smoke detectors were removed so all the French people working there could smoke in it and the sprinklers were on strike for not getting more than their allotted 3 months of holiday per year.
As someone who works in the industry of fire and life safety you get a lot of "there's nothing that can burn" and/or "it's grandfathered in" for places like this just because someone was trying to save some money.
I mean, it’s a stone shell now. So kinda.