Notre Dame on Fire

[kerbiloid]

27 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

They also did'nt have circuits in the 12th century any circuitry would have a circuit breaker

You see? The XII cent. electrics should be replaced anyway.

P.S.
I will be surprised if they restore the toxic lead roof right in the city center.
So, it will anyway be replaced with something modern, probably tiles. The solar panels are the best approach to the stained glass, just the lesser evil. And additionally a way to save Cathedral's money.

Edited April 19, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Cheif Operations Director]

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

You see? The XII cent. electrics should be replaced anyway.

P.S.
I will be surprised if they will restore the toxic lead roof right in the city center.
So, it will anyway be replaced with something modern, probably tiles. The solar panels are the best approach to the stained glass, just the lesser evil. And additionally a way to save Cathedral's money.

Why do you need solar panels for the church all of frances electric already comes from Nuclear!

[kerbiloid]

5 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:

Why do you need solar panels for the church all of frances electric already comes from Nuclear!

(About 3/4 afaik)

Why put useless plastic or ceramic tiles (anyway no lead allowed), when the solar plant will be looking like a one more big stained glass on top.

The spire anyway was not medieval, why add it again.

Edited April 19, 2019 by kerbiloid

[kerbiloid]

All 3 hives on the roof are intact, 0.2 Mbees survived.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/19/europe/notre-dame-bees-fire-intl-scli/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_term=image&utm_source=twCNN&utm_content=2019-04-19T12%3A12%3A29

[Cheif Operations Director]

32 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

(About 3/4 afaik)

Why put useless plastic or ceramic tiles (anyway no lead allowed), when the solar plant will be looking like a one more big stained glass on top.

The spire anyway was not medieval, why add it again.

To preserve the original color?

[Crampman]

16 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

(About 3/4 afaik)

Why put useless plastic or ceramic tiles (anyway no lead allowed), when the solar plant will be looking like a one more big stained glass on top.

The spire anyway was not medieval, why add it again.

There was previous spire, built between 1220 and 1230. It was removed in 1786 because if was damaged.

The later spire, built between 1853 and 1859, was taller and based on Orlean's cathedral.

 

I don't really see the problem of rebuilding it.

[Shpaget]

Third time the charm?

[LordFerret]

8 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

basalt

Basalt doesn't weather as well as granite.  Granite will last longer.

 

2 hours ago, Messier said:

Apparently, the cause of the fire was a short circuit. Seems believable, but it could've also been arson.

I read a quick blurb about that this morning.  What I read though was that the short circuit was caused by a computer glitch, something about the controller for the temporary elevators (lifts?) used in the reconstruction efforts.

[TheSaint]

They'll put I. M. Pei in charge of the rebuild. I'm sure it will be fine.

[YNM]

2 hours ago, Messier said:

Apparently, the cause of the fire was a short circuit. Seems believable, but it could've also been arson.

I was going to say the scraping between steel scaffolding and the lead roof makes a spark, somehow... But I guess that makes no sense.

7 minutes ago, TheSaint said:

They'll put I. M. Pei in charge of the rebuild. I'm sure it will be fine.

Oh lord no, he almost defaced Grand Central in NYC...

[Crampman]

There are already several examples of similar restaurations on cathedrals whose roofs had burn :

Chartres, 1836 : Fire caused by careless workers, replaced by a cast iron structure.

Metz, 1877 : Fire caused by fireworks, replaced by iron trusses.

Reims, 1914 : Bombed by the germans during WWI, replaced with a concrete frame.

Nantes, 1972 : Fire caused by a careless worker, replaced by a concrete structure.

 

Why rebuild a heavy wooden structure that could burn again ?

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

14 hours ago, YNM said:

14 hours ago, TheSaint said:

They'll put I. M. Pei in charge of the rebuild. I'm sure it will be fine.

Oh lord no, he almost defaced Grand Central in NYC...

You don't understand. They are going to make a human sacrifice of him to attrract the fortune.

 

[DDE]

On 4/18/2019 at 7:44 AM, kerbiloid said:

  Hide contents

Just googled: "how far is fire station from notre dame"

And this is what google gives me:

  Hide contents

So, maybe the firefighters just did the same?

 

 

At least I think I know how that happened - the Volunteer Fire Society of Russia commented on the fire very, very early.

Edited April 26, 2019 by DDE

[kerbiloid]

 

No solar panels.

https://www.designboom.com/architecture/vincent-callebaut-notre-dame-glass-canopy-cathedral-paris-05-07-2019/

Spoiler

 

[StrandedonEarth]

Well, my first impression is to like it. No solar panels, but the crystal panels are supposed to produce power, along with a host of other 'green' features. But reading the comments on that article, I see that this design is quite controversial. However, that's no different than KSP or most  other projects; where everyone wants different things.

[TheSaint]

12 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

No solar panels.

https://www.designboom.com/architecture/vincent-callebaut-notre-dame-glass-canopy-cathedral-paris-05-07-2019/

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I stand by my previous statement.

On 4/18/2019 at 9:09 AM, TheSaint said:

This.

However they choose to rebuild Notre Dame, you can be assured of two things:

1. Half of Paris will hate it and half of Paris will love it. They will argue about it incessantly.

2. In 20 years all of Paris will all agree that it is the greatest architectural triumph of the 21st century, whether anybody else likes it or not.

 

[DDE]

On 5/13/2019 at 12:21 AM, TheSaint said:

I stand by my previous statement.

I know you think that’s clever, but the Eiffel Tower didn’t hijack an existing building.

[YNM]

On 5/12/2019 at 3:29 PM, kerbiloid said:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I wonder do they need to do reinforcements for that... Glass isn't a very green material as well.

33 minutes ago, DDE said:

the Eiffel Tower didn’t hijack an existing building.

It was a one-off project, and was practically abandoned in the 1920s. I think the design was originally only for the first deck as well - it's just continued upwards.

[Guest]

Notre dome it was sad... But very minor though

[TheSaint]

2 hours ago, DDE said:

I know you think that’s clever, but the Eiffel Tower didn’t hijack an existing building.

No, but I.M. Pei's pyramid did, and the Parisians' reaction to it was substantially as I described. (I visited Paris in 1988 while it was under construction. Trust me, you couldn't get away from it.) Parisians are an odd group. I think they've come to realize that if they held every building over 200 years old as a sacred cow they practically wouldn't be able to build anything new inside of the city limits. As I heard it put, "To an American, 200 years is a long time. To a European, 200 miles is a long drive."

Personally, I would prefer them to rebuild the roof architecturally identical but with upgraded materials and safety standards. But, last time I checked, nobody on the planning committee has asked me what I think.

[StellaGraham]

It's very sad