
Notre Dame is unstable: a strong wind could make the walls collapse, report says - rutenspitz
https://www.theartnewspaper.com/analysis/notre-dame-is-unstable
======
kweks
I was up on the rooftop three weeks ago. What is more incredible is how
untouched everything that was not directly touched by the fire is. Inside the
church itself, the wood, the chairs, the organs.. incredible condition.

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.

~~~
Kyrio
Hey, I remember your comments from the day of the fire. Your photos from the
top of the spire are amazing. My father went to the rooftop probably at the
same time as you, so he had the same conclusion; the structure is quickly
being shored up and the teams know what they're doing.

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?

~~~
kweks
We had contacted the DRAC (governing body for patrimony and culture), but
things were on lockdown because someone had leaked photos to the press, which
had caused all sorts of chaos.

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.

~~~
hammock
That's so cool. Do you have a photo of the gargoyles? Or anything else?

~~~
kweks
I was able to take a few under strict "eyes only" conditions. There had been
photo leaks a few days prior of someone who had bluffed through the security
and sold photos to the press.

The press were going through the same day I was there, there are surely
similar / better images that mine online.

~~~
cco
Why is there an issue with photos of a public structure being released to the
public? Have the rights to professional photos of Notre Dame been sold to a
private entity a la the Eiffel Tower?

~~~
seszett
The rights to the Eiffel Tower have never been sold to a private entity, but
the private entity that designed the night lighting _kept_ their rights on it
(which is the default, if the city didn't specifically ask for the rights to
be transferred in the contract).

I don't think that's a good situation, but it has nothing to do with selling
rights to a private entity.

~~~
cco
I'm not sure I follow, to my understanding it is not legal to take
professional photographs of the Eiffel tower at night, is that wrong?

~~~
closeparen
Yes, because copyright remains with the original lighting designer and was
never transferred - to or from - the public.

------
Kyrio
My parents were both involved in post-fire salvage operations at Notre-Dame
and though I'm necessarily a bit biased towards their opinions, I wish we
wouldn't share any self-branded expert's take on what went wrong or how things
should be done. Some of the most qualified people in the country are working
on the site and aren't being interviewed. As the article states, the man in
charge of the restoration is an Architecte en chef des monuments historiques;
preserving and restoring state-owned monuments is his job and he's accompanied
by other architects of the same training. I fully agree with the author in
that they should be the ones designing the reconstructed spire, not a
worldwide art project as the president suggests. As far as the "independent
report" about the stability of the building, it has not made the news here so
far.

~~~
brmgb
> the man in charge of the restoration is an Architecte en chef des monuments
> historiques

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.

~~~
core-questions
>Since we have to build something, let's at least build something reflecting
our time.

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.

~~~
simias
The spire that collapsed had been inaugurated in 1859, so it's relatively
recent compared to the age of the cathedral. I don't really have a strong
opinion on the subject but dismissing modern architecture as a whole before
we've even seen the first proposals doesn't seem very... constructive.

~~~
kakwa_
1) The spire rebuilt in 1859 by Viollet-Le-Duc didn't have XIXe century look,
it was heavily inspired by the one of the Orleans cathedral

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...](https://img.aws.la-
croix.com/2019/04/17/1301016385/charpente-beton-cathedrale-
Reims-17-avril-2019_0_729_486.jpg)

Others were rebuilt using steel, Metz Cathedral for example.

------
blahedo
Most of the "entries" that people are making for designs for the roof/spire
replacement, and many of the posts on here, suggest that many people think
that when you were looking up in the pre-fire Notre Dame, or any other church
building of similar construction, what you were/are seeing is the underside of
the roof.

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.

~~~
robbrown451
I think most people understand that the stone vaults are what is seen from the
inside. At least most people who have given it a tiny bit of thought or looked
at any pictures. Most, but not all, of the stone vaulting remains intact,
although some of it may be weakened.

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.

~~~
blahedo
I think your middle paragraph is much more true for modern (last 100-150
years) buildings than older ones, though I'm not an architectural engineer.

When you say "glass can actually be structural", what meaning of "structural"
are you using?

------
llamathrowaway
Gothic architecture is fascinating because they are not only aesthetically
appealing, but also very advanced (at their time) in terms of engineering.
Stones are heavy, but the pointed arches and flying buttresses make Gothic
churches feel light and nimble. Advanced structural design also allows Gothic
churches to have larger windows as the structure is no longer solely supported
by the walls, inviting more natural light into the church which contributes
aesthetically and spiritually.

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.

~~~
Animats
The glass roof is not a bad idea. It would be very French to do that. Like the
I. M. Pei pyramid at the Louvre. If it's done, it will be done competently. So
many people are watching.

~~~
sirkneeland
Wouldn't that drastically increase the sun exposure on the internal elements
and artifacts in the church? Sun damage is noticeable in just a few years, let
alone on a time scale of centuries...

~~~
0xffff2
See this comment:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19994844](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19994844)

------
hprotagonist
If i'm not mistaken, this is by design for Gothic buildings. I forget what the
proper term is, but Gothic architecture exploits dynamic tension really
thoroughly. The whole building is fighting against itself to destroy itself,
and so remains balanced and static.

Take a component out, and the result is unstable.

Appropirately for a cathedral, the sermons practically write themselves.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
Now I'm curious how, hundreds of years ago, engineers and architects
determined what designs were viable.

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?

~~~
skybrian
This is at least partially survivor bias. Sometimes they miscalculated and
buildings fell down.

~~~
tssva
Even the ones still standing often aren't because of fantastic original
engineering but because they are the ones people have cared to carefully
maintain and to perform renovations on to compensate for original engineering
flaws.

~~~
bdamm
And sometimes simply by sheer mistake; the leaning tower of Pisa was supposed
to be supported by the Corinthian columns and limestone internal blocks, but
it turns out that its structure is actually supported significantly by the
marble façade.

------
mzs
This English-language article gets a lot mixed-up, Cathédrale durable was the
report, it's from 2016, it correctly predicted the danger of fire in the roof,
it was largely ignored by the people that mattered in France, it contained the
details about wind, Vannucci recently spoke with an Italian journalist and
highlighted this plus provided some additional context:
[https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2019/05/20/news/paolo_vannu...](https://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2019/05/20/news/paolo_vannucci_notre-
dame_non_e_ancora_salva_secondo_i_miei_calcoli_i_rischi_di_un_collasso_al_livello_della_volta_sono_a-226710639)

------
cwkoss
Does anyone know of a kit for building a gothic architecture building
consisting of small stones with pre-cut geometry? Seems like it would be fun
to put together - could you use it like a puzzle and assemble with no
adhesive, throw the pieces back into the box when you're done?

Presumably could be manufactured from concrete in molds, so incremental cost
could be quite low.

~~~
Someone
“Anker stones”
([http://www.ankerstein.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=v...](http://www.ankerstein.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=18),
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_Stone_Blocks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_Stone_Blocks))
aren’t quite that, but also are better in the sense that you can build
different buildings with them.

For example gothic architecture, see for example
[https://www.ankerwiki.de/Neue-Modelle-bis-
Kasten-34/Kasten-N...](https://www.ankerwiki.de/Neue-Modelle-bis-
Kasten-34/Kasten-NF-34-plus/Gotische-Kirche/) or
[https://www.nikhef.nl/~i56/Anker.html](https://www.nikhef.nl/~i56/Anker.html)
(front of Chartres cathedral, gothic villa)

------
MagicPropmaker
> Whether the government now launches an architectural competition or decides
> to rely on the highly professional bodies in charge of French monuments (in
> particular, the Compagnie des Architects en Chef, to which Philippe
> Villeneuve, the architect in charge of Notre Dame, belongs), it should
> demand an integrated project for the entire structure and not allow the
> design and implementation processes to be fragmented.

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.

------
jhallenworld
I was thinking jokingly that this is a chance to replace that old fashioned
Gothic design with a nice Modern Brutalist one. Well sure enough, there is
such a cathedral:

[https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/brutalist-clifton-
cat...](https://www.wallpaper.com/architecture/brutalist-clifton-cathedral-
bristol-purcell-renovation)

oh, and another: it looks like a nuclear power station:

[https://www.e-architect.co.uk/liverpool/liverpool-
catholic-c...](https://www.e-architect.co.uk/liverpool/liverpool-catholic-
cathedral)

~~~
jamiek88
There’s also ‘Paddy’s Wigwam’ as we used to call it, not very nicely I now see
as an adult, as kids.

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.

[https://images.app.goo.gl/vy5ZJ43FBx9Y1S5A7](https://images.app.goo.gl/vy5ZJ43FBx9Y1S5A7)

~~~
glaurung_
Something about this reminds me of the Witch-King of Angmar.

------
jkingsbery
> The current approach to its restoration fails to take account of the
> interconnected structural “engineering” of Gothic architecture

Why is engineering in scare quotes?

~~~
Nomentatus
I suppose because it wasn't highly quantitative or firmly within the range of
known physics, back then. But since "engineering" originally referred to the
building, operation and repair of siege engines, in ancient Rome; I'm with
you. It was just plain engineering.

------
ggm
A very old (DOS days) VRML navigable fly-through Notre Dame is somewhere on my
hoarde of data. I wish it had been carried forward as a thing to self
navigate. The same people did a virtual cluny I think.

If anyone has the data brought into the 21st C I'd love to re-fly the nave.

------
olaf
if humankind (best minds) is not able to build something better in every
aspect today, we as a species are on the wrong trail and should change.

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. ...

~~~
toasterlovin
Why not just leave the cathedral as it was and build a whole new cathedral if
people really want some modern masterpiece?

------
vectorEQ
i'm sure 600+million collected can help to stabilise it... or where did that
money go? ....

------
brookside
Really, sir. A strong breeze...

------
tide_ad
If these churches weren't churches they would have been condemned for not
being up to code.

Lets put our nation's most prized and irreplaceable artifacts in it!

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Sure, if you ignore all the non-church historic buildings all over Europe
massively outnumber them.

~~~
tide_ad
> if you ignore

naturally

------
idlewords
I'm reserving judgement until I can hear Elon Musk's take on how to save the
cathedral, and whether the chief architect on the project is a pedo.

~~~
dopeypopey
Nice!

