I had the privilege of undertaking the first (and now the last..) study on the spire of Notre Dame since 1933.
The restoration works that were under place are a result in part of our recommended actions.
The spire was incredible. It was one oak trunk, connected with a "Scarf Joint", or "Jupitre" in French (Bolt-of-lightning joint)
There were the names of the last guys to inspect it in the 1930s, engraved at the top.
There was a french ww2 bullet embedded in the spire, presumably shot at a germany sniper who was in the spire...
Everything in the roof was antique wood. Anyone that went into the roof was paranoid of fire.
It's a very, very sad day.
As a celebration, I'm throwing up some photos that we'd never published from our study.
Individually, it feels like an intimate acquaintance has died, and collectively it is a huge loss.
Over the weeks we'd spent on the spire, we photographed and documented literally every square centimeter of the spire and roof space.
Outside of its intrinsic value, the spire also held religious relics (Thorn from the Crown of Thorns etc..). They were apparently contained in the wind-vane on the top of the crow's nest.
We were unable to access the crow's nest - the last 3 ladder rungs (the spire had iron foot pegs every 50cm or so up one side) had been removed - ( presumably to stop people from getting to the relics ) - and there was no way we could get access without installing scaffolding.
There was so much hidden detail on the roof - works that would never be seen from the ground - invisible to everyone but the workers and artisans. Truly a loss.
As for the cause, there would be some solace in an 'unavoidable' situation - I just hope it wasn't someone discarding a cigarette butt.
Just a point in clarification: when you say antique, that means mid 19th century. The original 13th century spire was removed in 1786 because it was falling apart.
Apologies, I wasn't using 'antique' in a quantitative fashion, simply trying to convey that it was aged and dry.
With that said, I was referring specifically to the carpentry in the roof itself, which dates before the spire itself.
The smell of the roof space was incredible - deep, wooden and wise.
André Finot, the spokesperson of Notre-Dame de Paris, announced soon after the fire was known that the roof's wood frame was doomed. This frame was in two parts: one side from oak beams of the 13th century, the other half from the 19th. Of course, the spire was in later part, since it was built by Viollet-Le-Duc.
To prevent fire, there was no electricity wires in attic, because the oak beams were extremely dry.
> when you say antique, that means mid 19th century
Where is that coming from?
I don't see any definitions that constrains antique to a specific time window, some definitions/laws include "at least 100 years old"
Antique: a work of art, piece of furniture, or decorative object made at an earlier period and according to various customs laws at least 100 years ago
They meant that antique means "only" 19th century in this case because that's when the spire was installed. It's not as antique as the rest of the cathedral.
Thanks for sharing the photos. It's an incredible tragedy. I had the privilege of visiting Notre Dame twice, but I'm deeply saddened for all those who will not have the opportunity to see it in its former magnificent form, including my own young children. I only hope that some of it will remain and be a foundation for rebuilding.
This is awesome - thanks for sharing your story, and that photo. I'm sure that the detailed studies performed by you and others will be invaluable going forward - both with remembering and healing, and eventually perhaps, rebuilding.
With my sympathy for this tremendous loss,
but could you comment on the accuracy of
this report on the amount of lead metal
in the spire (or is it the entire roof?)
> The 3-meter-tall statues are being sent to southwestern France for work that is part of a 6 million-euro ($6.8 million) renovation project on the cathedral spire and its 250 tons of lead.
My partner shot the inside of the spire, but I have a few quick shots.
On one of the sides I did - there were the traces of what we could only assume to be some type of explosion (probably a stray explosive from WW2 ..?).
There are also the eagles that were halfway up the spire.
Curiously enough, there were six, each one had a number stamped on its head - if you traced the numbers, it made a star composed of 2 equilateral triangles.
It seems the North Tower has since caught fire as well - so the bells will have gone, and all of the stored relics too - so some photos of those.
No, they're in the North Tower.
The bells are suspended in a wooden structure that is free-standing, and free moving inside the stone structure.
This allows free movement when the bells are ringing, without stressing the stones.
It was a priority to extinguish the north tower fire to prevent the bell structure from collapsing - the falling bells would have destroyed the stone structures on the way down, presumably triggering the collapse of both towers..
Is it possible that the stone parts of the structure will be more resilient than the (apparently) wooden roof, and might survive if the fire is put out quickly enough?
Yes, the vertical structures are likely to survive. See any number of photos of post-WW2 cities.
It’s debatable, however, how much that means. I suspect it serves more of a symbolic purpose, as a kernel of truth to a shared future fiction that the building is at least partially “original”.
In terms of costs, I suspect integrating those structures is likely to be more expensive than rebuilding from scratch. The loss is also greater than just the building, as it contained a multitude of art, some of it part of the structure like the famous stained glass windows, some not.
Also no expert, but from the cases I remember, actual construction is rather fast.
What takes time is often the financing: there are churches in Germany where, to this day they are collecting money and constructing piece-by-piece. I don’t know how this will play out here. For example: how much is the Catholic Church still involved? But I would assume the French state to be somewhat generous.
The other potentially delaying question is how to reconstruct. Going for an exact replica often feels anachronistic and sometimes tacky. The German Reichstag, for example, was reconstructed with a rather modern glass rotunda, and feels like a great example of combining old and new. The World Trade Centre was replaced by something entirely new. If they decide to go in such a direction, some time will be spent on architects’ competitions.
In France, the question of financing the reconstruction is rather simpler: Notre-Dame like most churches in France is owned by the State, so the State and the citizens will pay for it.
The reconstruction will be a restoration, to what degree, it remains to be seen, for example Reims Cathedral roof was rebuilt using concrete for the structure, but the general appearance will remain the same.
The symbolic is rather different that of the Reichtag, the Reichtag being the symbol of a new state in the XIXe century, destroyed during its darkest hour, and finally reconstructed after the rebirth of Germany and the Reunification with a mix of old and new, By itself the Reichtag summarizes German history.
>how much is the Catholic Church still involved? But I would assume the French state to be somewhat generous.
Nowadays churches in France belong to the city, not the Church. Which has led to many tragedies recently, with town halls (usually Communist) intentionally neglecting churches until there was no choice but to destroy them. I don't have any faith in the French state these days to be consistent with monuments.
Notre-Dame will be restored, it's too much of a symbol. However, the money will have to be found somewhere, and there is a good chance that it will mean other restoration projects for "lesser" historical buildings will be delayed (maybe dangerously) and subsidies from the Ministry of Culture for artists and art projects will be reduced.
I'm not the person to ask (I was there as a photographer and rope worker) - but my partner estimates decades. It depends on the extent of the damage. For the moment, it seems that the entire building will be gutted - and presumably structurally unsound. If it has to be rebuilt from scratch - look to the Sagrada Familia for a time reference..
The Sagrada Familia was attacked by anarchists during the Spanish Civil War, who destroyed Gaudí's study and the plans and models for the church. Decades were spent just reconstructing the project before actual construction could resume. In Notre Dame's case, there is much better documentation on the structure, so hopefully it won't take quite as long.
The latest news said that the structure is mostly saved.
Looking at some aerial pictures (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4OFOKMWkAEEHsz.jpg), it looks like the vault is holding except maybe for the section above the transept area (where the spire collapsed), but it has probably suffered, if not from the collapse of the roof, the heat has probably weakened it.
But yes, one or two decades of restoration is a realistic estimation, it's roughly what it took for other cathedrals to be restored (Rouen, Reims) after the World Wars (hopefully Notre-Dame will be in a better state after the disaster)
The Sagrada is not a good example as it is more complex than traditional gothic. Part of the original plans were supposedly unsound and several architects intervened over the decades. But granted, we're still probably talking decades.
The Reims Cathedral was reopened in 1938 (about 20 years after the start of the restoration).
But in this kind of restoration, the devil is in the details, repairing the structure and rebuilding the roof and the spire will probably take around 8 to 10 years, if the vault is not in too bad of a shape, more otherwise. But repairing the the sculptures and decoration, with all their minutes details will take generations.
For these, what was not destroyed by the fire is probably heavily damaged by the tons of waters poured to save the edifice.
> In terms of costs, I suspect integrating those structures is likely to be more expensive than rebuilding from scratch.
Respectfully, you have no idea what you are talking about. Nobody in Europe would consider tearing down the remaining structures and rebuilding from scratch because it's cheaper.
The roof is not made of wood, but like most old European buildings, its frame is made of wood.
Above the vaults of stone, a wooden frame supports the roof which is covered with metal (zinc). This is obviously lighter, and easier to build and to maintain than a roof made of stone. Unfortunately, after a few centuries it becomes extremely burnable.
No thanks. If we have any redwood left to be used for building, I'd rather have them go to the better attended local cathedrals, than a cathedral that is really no longer used.
I mean that Notre Dame, while certainly still a cathedral, is not very active. I've been to daily Mass in Notre Dame, and it was completely underpopulated, when compared to other, poorer cathedrals I've been to, including in my own state.
I've been to many Catholic locales, and there are many poor Catholic artisans who would be willing to create beautiful Catholic art if they had resources. I'd rather they get the resources, than some secular artisan simply trying to copy Catholic art.
I would rather see resources go to actual Catholics to be used in an actual Catholic place of worship that is frequented and populated than to non-Catholic artisans attempting to mimick Catholic beauty to restore a building that is not actually used.
The fact is that the well-loved parish stands a chance of becoming a Notre Dame of the future, whereas, Notre Dame itself is likely to fade away and become a museum, unless the people of France actually decide to become Catholic again.
The truth is that, it was the underlying belief in the Catholic world view that made Notre Dame the legend it is today (the constant creation of beauty, the grandeur, the preservation through the ages). No amount of money to secular authorities can possibly recreate that exact mythos, whereas it could if sent to another diocese that still practiced.
EDIT: perhaps I'm wrong and Notre dame is more active than I thought and I just visited at a bad time, but from what I've read, there's not many actual Catholics in France, at least when compared to California.
Please just stop. Even your attempt at mitigation through edit is wrong, and it would have been trivial for you to correct your misapprehension. There are an estimated 10 million Catholics in California compared to between 27-58 million in France. Besides, the value of the place as a cultural institution visited by 13m+ a year just to see it isn’t something you should dismiss along with its centuries of cultural significance just because it offends your religious sensibilities.
It’s also a miserable stance to take while the place is still literally on fire.
The state government set up Jackson Demonstration Forest specifically to show people how to sustainably harvest from a redwood grove. Notre Dame is a cultural icon, I'm sure the French would appreciate the gesture.
The restoration works that were under place are a result in part of our recommended actions.
The spire was incredible. It was one oak trunk, connected with a "Scarf Joint", or "Jupitre" in French (Bolt-of-lightning joint)
There were the names of the last guys to inspect it in the 1930s, engraved at the top. There was a french ww2 bullet embedded in the spire, presumably shot at a germany sniper who was in the spire...
Everything in the roof was antique wood. Anyone that went into the roof was paranoid of fire.
It's a very, very sad day.
As a celebration, I'm throwing up some photos that we'd never published from our study.
https://imgur.com/gallery/9k9I8Y0