
The Notre Dame fire and the future of history - pricklyPaper
https://www.wired.com/story/the-notre-dame-fire-and-the-future-of-history/
======
probably_wrong
> A new wall doesn’t contain [traces of its original craftmanship], even if it
> looks exactly like what once stood. “Do we clean it up and make it all look
> unified, or do we try to let the memory remain?”

I am very unhappy that Notre Dame burnt. Having said that, I don't see it as
"oh no, history has been destroyed" but rather as "this _is_ the history of
the Cathedral". If it's still standing (and it seems like it will be), people
will talk about this fire for hundreds of years, the same way we talk today
about how it survived the French revolution.

Douglas Adams has a great quote on how a building its more than its materials,
which you can read in [1]. If we use 3D scans and modern technology to
reconstruct the Cathedral to the way it was, I wouldn't see it as "Disneyland"
(as the article puts it) but rather as an example of how far we have come and
what we can do when we put our minds to it, and how the story of our
civilization is written not by design, but rather by accident.

[1] [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/742883-i-remembered-once-
in...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/742883-i-remembered-once-in-japan-
having-been-to-see-the)

~~~
freehunter
Great take. Also good to remember that a Temple of Jupiter once stood where
Notre Dame is. After that was destroyed, a basillica stood there, and then a
Romanesque cathedral. That last one, which was nearly 700 years old, was torn
down to build the Gothic style Notre Dame.

The people who built Notre Dame tore down what to them would have been ancient
history. Those other buildings were hundreds of years old by the time Notre
Dame was built. 800 years ago, Notre Dame was the change that destroyed a 700
year old historical building. And the new construction was built in a super-
modern style. They didn't try to make it look like the old building they tore
down, they built it with the most modern techniques in a super trendy style.

Much like death and rebirth are cornerstones of the Christian religion that
Notre Dame represents, death and rebirth are fundamental to Notre Dame itself.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
While I totally agree with your sentiment, I'm not sure how I'd feel about
tearing the whole thing down and building something brand new in its place.
Interesting to ponder why that is.

~~~
zip1234
In Rome I can think of one church (San Clemente Basilica) that was built on
top of a pagan temple, which then had another church built on top of it, which
then had the current church built on top of it. You can in fact tour all
levels of it. Much of ancient Rome lies at a lower level than the current
city, so those buildings are now basements or buried. In many cases that is
what happened, not wholesale knocking down of the old buildings.

~~~
iguy
Here's a great blog post about San Clemente [https://www.exurbe.com/the-shape-
of-rome/](https://www.exurbe.com/the-shape-of-rome/) (in which Freud battles
his vertigo...)

~~~
Aeolun
This is a great post about a whole deal more than just San Clemente.

It could almost be called a “brief” history of Rome.

But then, maybe San Clementes history IS the history of Rome.

------
binarymax
The thing that amazes me about Notre Dame, and several other structures of
that era, is that it took 200 years to build. The reason this is so amazing is
that the architects and planners knew it would not be completed in their
lifetime, and yet they progressed for a greater cause.

We don't really have projects like that anymore. Contemporary structures and
infrastructure are designed to be completed within the lifetime of the
creator.

We might be able to attribute that to advances in technology allowing for
faster development times. But sometimes it seems we've lost sight of the
grandeur that existed at those times, and perhaps we are not challenging
ourselves enough.

~~~
gppk
Back in the days when Kings reigned for tens of years, whereas now we have 4
year politician cycles...

~~~
JackFr
But remember the cathedral was built, owned and run by a supranational
organization, sometimes supporting, sometimes in conflict with the monarch.

~~~
teddyh
But was it _funded_ by that organization? I was under the impression that big
projects like cathedrals were used by the church as essentially huge visible
PR projects, which attracted funding from people who wanted to be _seen_ to
donate (providing PR for themselves). Some of the funding might also have been
siphoned off to the church itself, I can imagine.

This pattern continues today – witness the speed at which funding for
rebuilding has been publicly pledged by people wishing to be widely seen to do
so.

------
telesilla
A Parisienne friend of mine said last night when we discussed the fact that I
never went inside, while she had: "Actually it was a horrible experience. Loud
Americans everywhere taking pictures with their flashes."

Cities like Venice, Barcelona, Paris and Amsterdam need to address how we can
preserve history while also considering how unfettered access makes it
unappealing to participate as a local.

[Edit: I don't mean to single out Americans! That was just her comment. I know
it applies to all unruly tourists of all countries]

~~~
thehappypm
I work in the travel industry. I'm always amazed that people are still
flocking to those traditional tourist destinations in such huge numbers. Sure,
before the internet, travel research was much harder to do and going to places
like Rome or Barcelona was a safe bet. But now, with Kayak and TripAdvisor
making trip planning easier, Instagram and blogs making it easier to find
destinations, cheap flights becoming more common.. it's just so easy to find
cool destinations that are a little more off-the-beaten path, not to mention,
they're much cheaper! And yet, Paris and Venice are still absolutely flooded
with tourists year-after-year.

~~~
ghaff
That's probably making the assumption that "a little more off the beaten path"
is on most people's selection criteria. The evidence suggests it's not and the
Internet (and cheap flights) just makes it so easy to pick the obvious "best"
places. And, if anything, social media like Instagram probably increase the
desire of people to visit the iconic places so that they can share them
online.

TBH though, for a lot of places like Paris, going outside of peak times--
assuming you have the flexibility--go a long way towards decreasing the crowds
factor, at least away from the "must see" sites.

------
gumby
Buildings of this age are better thought as palimpsests, mutable structures
repurposed over generations. The building survived wars, revolutions,
renovations and neglect. The spire that toppled was itself a modern addition
that after a century is now mourned as canonical.

The building will be restored and revised and will be beloved again. Some will
complain it's not the same, some will swear it's as good as it was and some
will celebrate "improvements." I just hope the acoustics survive, though IMHO
there are other, smaller churches that sounds better.

There's plenty of hideous stuff in Paris as well but I won't name names
because what I consider dreadful some celebrate -- and perhaps we're both
right.

(former Paris resident, though I wouldn't call myself a "Parisian")

~~~
gregoriol
Let's hope they don't "improve" it with an Apple store inside.

~~~
gumby
That would be perfectly consistent with some earlier uses of the building.
Despite the story of jesus booting the money changers from the temple, for
centuries big cathedrals like nddp were large general-use public resources,
typically one of the only major building for miles.

As it happens nddp was built with some other palaces already there (e.g.
pieces of what became the louvre) or contemporaneously under construction
(e.g. Sainte Chapelle). But still it almost certainly housed businesses among
other activities over the centuries.

------
DoofusOfDeath
Let's assume that the goal is to rebuild Notre Dame as authentically as
possible, except for whatever changes are absolutely necessary for modern
safety standards (fire control; toxicity of paints; etc.) And that includes
using the same kinds/maturities of wood, same kinds of marble, same wood
varnish, etc.

And let's assume that we're okay with modern building _methods_ (such as
cranes) as long as the results are the same.

Do we still have access to all of the specialized knowledge that went into
that building? E.g., stone masonry, wood carving, preparation of varnishes,
etc.? And is there enough supply of the required building/decorating
materials?

Does the world currently have enough qualified artisans to allow construction
at some "acceptable" pace? Heck, do modern governments and Parisians even have
the _patience_ for a multi-decade construction project to succeed?

~~~
bradstewart
I'm trying to find the tweet again, but I read that they've been "farming" the
oak trees required to replace all of the wood in Notre Dame at Versailles for
the last 150 years or so.

Paris seemingly has good contingency plans for events like this.

EDIT:
[https://twitter.com/_theek_/status/1117895531563372544](https://twitter.com/_theek_/status/1117895531563372544)

~~~
Luc
I don't think this story checks out. I'm sure they have some eligible oaks at
Versailles but the roof needs ~13,000 of them. Hence why they called the
latticework 'the forest'.

The largest oak forest operator in France has offered to find the trees
needed:
[https://mobile.francetvinfo.fr/culture/patrimoine/incendie-d...](https://mobile.francetvinfo.fr/culture/patrimoine/incendie-
de-notre-dame-de-paris/notre-dame-de-paris-un-exploitant-forestier-francais-
offre-du-bois-pour-la-
reconstruction_3400571.html#xtref=https://www.google.com/)

~~~
count
The Versailles oaks are for the Steeple only, not the whole roof (which needs
the 13k).

------
pricklyPaper
For the last half-decade or so, an architectural historian named Andrew Tallon
worked with laser scanners to capture the entirety of the cathedral’s interior
and exterior in meticulous 3D point clouds.

~~~
human20190310
Should the interior be recreated as it was, or simply rebuilt in a new way?
Attempting to recreate it might result in never-ending comparisons to the
original.

~~~
bluGill
That is a good question that is very complex to answer. This isn't just a
historical building, it is a building. There was one (two?) pipe organ inside
that were used for beautiful music, modern design can improve the acoustics
making the music better. This was a cathedral, I assume still in use for
worship, could modern design help that purpose? This was a beautiful example
of historical architecture, should we recreate that exactly to add study of
architecture? This is a valuable building site in the middle of Paris, they
could build a skyscraper to better use the land.

Those are just a few of the competing concerns. There is a good argument to be
made for each (even the skyscraper), whatever you choose will be at the
expense of the others. We are forced to have this argument now: expect a lot
of shouting and nobody to be happy with the end result. Try to see all sides.
(I was going to say help to a reasonable compromise, but then I realized that
compromise is not always reasonable)

~~~
cr1895
>There is a good argument to be made for each (even the skyscraper)

I'm curious...what's the good argument towards replacement with a skyscraper?

~~~
baud147258
Prime spot right in the middle of Paris? (though, with maximum height
regulations in Paris, a skycraper there wouldn't be very tall)

------
lqet
I read several interviews today with the master builders of big cathedrals in
Germany and Austria. Basically, they are all deeply shocked, the consensus
being that nobody thought a catastrophe like that was possible in the 21st
century. This appears to be the first major fire in a European cathedral after
the second world war, where of course many cathedrals burnt down after
bombings (for example, a similar fire broke out in St. Stephens in Vienna in
1945) [0]

In several regional papers, they are now discussing if such a fire would be
possible in the local cathedrals (it would, of course) and whether sprinklers
should be installed in wooden roof frameworks (which brings all sorts of
problems). Only some newer cathedrals (for example the one in Cologne) or
cathedrals that burnt during WWII have steel frameworks under their roof.

On an emotional level, I am quite touched by the international reaction to
this catastrophe. Basically all cathedrals here in Germany rang their bells
today at noon out of respect.

[0] [http://www.pwein.at/Webpage-
Holocaust/Geschichte-1938/Stepha...](http://www.pwein.at/Webpage-
Holocaust/Geschichte-1938/Stephansdom-3.jpg)

~~~
saool
The cathedral in Leon, Spain, a slightly older gothic church, was the scene of
a very similar fire when a badly grounded lightning set the wooden roof on
fire in May, 1966.

The damage wasn't as pronounced thanks to the stone used for the top, which
was chosen for its lightness but had the added benefit of having volcanic-like
properties. And especially thanks to a local mason who made the call to pull
the fire brigade and sacrificed more of the wooden roofing to prevent the
water weight from making the vault collapse.

I haven't found much info in English but here's a detailed account in a
Spanish blog: [http://cosinasdeleon.com/el-incendio-de-la-catedral-de-
leon/](http://cosinasdeleon.com/el-incendio-de-la-catedral-de-leon/)

------
JacobDotVI
Microsoft had a pretty impressive demo of a 3D recreation of Notre Dame using
photos scrapped from Flickr back in 2007:

[https://www.ted.com/talks/blaise_aguera_y_arcas_demos_photos...](https://www.ted.com/talks/blaise_aguera_y_arcas_demos_photosynth?language=en)

I believe they used to have a viewer for the model available on the web, but I
can't seem to find it at the moment (maybe it died when Microsoft killed their
PhotoSynth product).

------
eruci
Notre Dame is more famous now than it has ever been. A new chapter has just
been added to its history. A building is just a building, the Chinese have
been building replicas of pretty much every famous European landmark. They,
like buildings, are probably even more imposing than the originals. But they
don't have the same history of destruction and rebirth that the originals
represent.

~~~
analyst74
Oh China has plenty history and destruction, just take one example
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Summer_Palace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Summer_Palace)

It's a royal palace that was pillaged and burnt down, that would require
unmeasurable amount of money to restore.

~~~
eruci
Of course, I don't doubt that. Just saying that a building is more than just a
building. China has its own historical landmarks. They also have an exact copy
of the Norte Dame: [https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/04/article/still-want-to-
see-...](https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/04/article/still-want-to-see-notre-
dame-go-to-china/)

------
JshWright
> Parisian fire brigades held the line. They kept the fire from spreading into
> the towers of the western face of the cathedral.

It's hard to overstate how hard this fire would have been to fight. That any
of the structure was saved is testament to the skill and herculean efforts of
the firefighters involved. If they had simply kept the fire from spreading to
the buildings north of the cathedral, that would have been a "win".

It's clear from reports that the decision was made very early on to salvage
what they could from the structure and set up to defend the western towers.
The first fire streams put in place were in defense of the towers, not
attacking the main body of the fire[1]. That was clearly the right tactical
call, and trying to fight the fire head on likely would have resulted in the
loss of the whole structure.

To highlight a few of the challenges...

The building itself had a huge amount of fuel (the tons of wood that have had
centuries to dry), plus the significant amount of wood in the construction
scaffolding supporting the renovation.

The fire likely burned undetected for some time in the attic space. By the
time it was visible, it had a solid head start, and extinguishing it was never
an option.

Once the fire was detected, getting sufficient manpower and equipment to the
scene would have been the next challenge. The cathedral is on a small island,
with limited access, and limited room to park vehicles in the vicinity. This
would have been an "all hands on deck" fire, with off-duty staff recalled, but
that takes time, and the initial incident had to be managed with relatively
limited manpower (relative to the scale of the fire).

The next issue would be getting enough water to the scene. A fire like this
requires tens of thousands of gallons of water per minute. There's likely only
one or two water mains serving the island, which puts a hard cap on the amount
of water that could be drawn from the local hydrants. The fact that it's an
island obviously means there's a huge amount of water near by, but using that
water has its own logistical challenges, as it requires special equipment (you
can't 'suck' water through a soft fire hose), and special training. While I'm
sure they had some capability to "draft" water from the river, it's not a
skill that gets used often by urban fire departments, and it's likely not
something they were set up to do in any significant way. In any large scale
incident like this, there are often more firefighters working in "water supply
operations" than there are actually fighting the fire.

Huge kudos to the firefighters on scene, and hopefully they'll have an
opportunity for some well deserved rest in the coming days.

[1]
[https://twitter.com/shivmalik/status/1117864730453061634](https://twitter.com/shivmalik/status/1117864730453061634)

~~~
baud147258
I'm pretty sure that you can park a certain number of trucks on the parvis in
front of the cathedral.

~~~
JshWright
Indeed. The problem is, that's on the wrong side of the structure from where
the fire (originally) was. Running hose lines 500+ feet isn't really an option
(the friction loss over that length means you don't have enough water pressure
for an effective fire stream).

~~~
baud147258
Yeah. Especially since I don't think there's a lot of access to the Seine side
of the cathedral.

------
vmh1928
Hagia Sophia in Istanbul is one in peril from both politics/religion and
physical condition. Visit soon if you have any interest in ever seeing it.

------
johnnycab
I feel optimistic knowing how widely surveyed this structure has been over the
centuries and the vast amount of data collected, coupled with the abundance of
resources available today, it can be restored to a condition, which will do it
justice. There have been pledges made by Apple and LVMH today of significant
finances, which will speed up the process.

A cross-section of The Notre-Dame:

[https://www.thechildrensbookreview.com/wp-
content/uploads/20...](https://www.thechildrensbookreview.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/3.-Notre-Dame-Cathedral-cross-section.jpg)

Illustrator:
[http://www.stephenbiesty.co.uk/home.html](http://www.stephenbiesty.co.uk/home.html)

------
vnchr
In the face of uncertainty after this tragedy, I find some comfort in knowing
this data was collected and can be used in efforts to rebuild and restore.

Some of the techniques and materials may be lost to history, but the detail is
perfectly preserved so at least there is a path to follow.

------
rurban
It's only the roof for God's sake. plus the minitower. Nobody sees that from
the inside. From the inside it looks nothing happened at all. Lots of hysteria
about a minor incident. Compare it to the Vienna Stephansdome fire in 1945,
where to big wooden blocks fell through the roof and destroyed the whole inner
room. Even down to the catacombs. Or the catastrophic fire in Venice, where
the whole church was destroyed by renovation works and was not even reerected!
Or the destruction in Palmyra or the Twin Towers. They are gone forever. The
Notre Dame roof and center tower is no problem at all to reerect. It's only
wood after all, all the important parts are still there.

------
oremor
On the topic of "history", there is a Spaniard (Justo Gallego Martínez) that
started the construction of a cathedral in 1961 by himself [1]. He gained
notoriety with an Aquarius spot [2]. If you are interested, there are some
videos that show the inside [3].

There is even a movement to stop the demolition (it has not building permits)
because many people consider it a monument.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justo_Gallego_Mart%C3%ADnez](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justo_Gallego_Mart%C3%ADnez)

[2]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk9jGBjiBZI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk9jGBjiBZI)

[3]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhC2N0eK168](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhC2N0eK168)

------
eecc
Restoration is itself an art as well as a scientific and engineering effort.

Paintings are treated to remove as much detritus and patina as possible
without damaging the underlying pigments or lacquers that might have been part
of the original artwork (some might argue this is itself destructive and might
accidentally go too far.)

To make this process easier to future treatments, restores take great care to
make their contribution visibly obvious to a careful (and close) observer
rather than blend it with the original.

I think something along these lines will be the best solution for all; perhaps
we can avoid reinstalling that pike which - however beautiful in its own - was
more suited to an Alpine parish church.

~~~
trobertson
On the subject of painting restoration, there is a channel on Youtube called
Baumgartner Restoration that makes documentary-style videos about restoring
old paitings. Here is one of the more recent videos, where the restorer
describes what he is doing and why it works:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8quhZLHVg4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8quhZLHVg4)

------
cm2187
I have kind of mixed feeling on that. On one side I kind of see the
fascination of looking at a construction that is almost 1000 years old. On the
other side wood is wood. If the roof structure is rebuilt identically (and we
most likely have enough pictures and blue prints to do so), rationally, does
it really matter than the wood is not the original wood (and half of the wood
wasn't the original wood anyway, and the spire wasn't the original spire
either)?

------
partiallypro
My view is that tons of buildings in Munich that we view as "historic" are
mere recreations of the originals that were destroyed in World War 2. Notre
Dame will be rebuilt, and it will merely be a part of its long history that it
survived the fire. People will always long for how something was before, but
unfortunately, that's not life.

~~~
lainga
The beautiful old Breton town of Saint-Malo was also rebuilt "historically",
but not "exactly" \- where they could not find original plans or reuse stones
from buildings, they recreated them in a style that they felt was a best
approximation of how it had looked before. (That was after the Wehrmacht made
a holdout of the town in August 1944, and the Americans dealt with it by
expediently bombing 80% of the town to rubble.)

[] [https://paysages.ille-et-
vilaine.fr/IMG/jpg/5_3_stmaloarretc...](https://paysages.ille-et-
vilaine.fr/IMG/jpg/5_3_stmaloarretche_cle811e1e.jpg)

------
8bitsrule
The BBC today published some experts' thoughts on what rebuilding will
require. In short, much depends on how much the heat and debris affected the
still-standing, critical structure.

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-
europe-47952055](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47952055)

------
baud147258
I went to take a look. There were so many people, it's sad that the fire has
made it even more of a tourist attraction. As for the cathedral, it doesn’t
seem to be a lot of exterior damage, but all the roof and the spire have
disappeared.

Also there's been a fire at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. It's a bad day
for old places of worship.

~~~
oska
> I went to take a look. There were so many people, it's sad that the fire has
> made it even more of a tourist attraction.

I wonder if you see the hypocrisy here.

~~~
baud147258
I'm not a tourist, so I wouldn't call that hypocrisy. Rather more irony.

------
drewmassey
With all this discussion of revival of old styles in this thread it is worth
noting that France saw the revival of chant itself in the 19th century, which
is in many ways an echo of that enchantment with the past. The musicologist
Katherine Bergeron has a great book about it

------
vmh1928
fwiw here's a picture of the attic above the vaults:

[http://manuelcohen.photoshelter.com/image/I0000l4VZKzgXgcI](http://manuelcohen.photoshelter.com/image/I0000l4VZKzgXgcI)

~~~
carolarouge
According to the legend this is Basilique Notre Dame des Victoires [0], not
the cathedral.

Still beautiful though !

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_Notre-Dame-des-
Vic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_Notre-Dame-des-
Victoires,_Paris)

------
jdlyga
It's wonderful that they were able to save the cathedral. The Tuileries
Palace, an important fixture of the French Revolution, is sadly only a garden
now after it was destroyed in a fire.

~~~
oska
Pretty nice garden though.

------
Johnny555
rebuilding doesn't have to destroy its historical value -- Osaka Castle has
fallen and has been rebuilt several times in its 600 year history, most
recently it was destroyed by WWII bombing raids (well, it was a 1930's era
reconstruction that was destroyed) and was reconstructed in the mid 1990's and
is still a historical site.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_Castle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_Castle)

------
rapmspp
And Apple donates a lot of money for the reconstruction. How about they just
start paying their taxes instead of turning everything into some marketing
scheme.

------
OrgNet
[https://gigarama.ru/notredame/](https://gigarama.ru/notredame/)

------
NotPaidToPost
Perhaps time to discover or rediscover the Sainte Chapelle, which is near
Notre Dame and arguably more spectacular.

------
argd678
I’m surprised that we still have precious buildings that don’t have sprinkler
systems in them as that fires have been so common throughout history. The
national history museum in Brazil too just recently.

It seems like we should be able to make a system that can be installed in
older buildings that isn’t unsightly and damages them at this point.

~~~
c0nducktr
> It seems like we should be able to make a system that can be installed in
> older buildings that isn’t unsightly and damages them at this point.

This shouldn't be downvoted. That would be more interesting and useful work
than most of the Apps everyone's working on.

