71–80 of 106 posts
they should have built the roof with steel & glass so it can't burn!
Which was a Televangelical showpiece until it was purchased and renovated by the Roman Catholic diocese. Everything old is new again!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's really sad. What a shame cutting down 1k large old oaks for any building at all. It's not necessary these days. Of course they need some wood in publicly viewable areas, but this amount of not only wood but large old oak trees is excessive and concerning. Is there any indication that they're improving the structure so it will be more fire proof? Or are they simply restoring it to the configuration that already…
> Or are they simply restoring it to the configuration that already failed? 780 years is not that bad for a building. (or, more precisely, the roof frame) Macron & co had some idea for new things. They were all horrible. While I do think with good taste one could do some new things nicely ( e.g maybe a titanium-based roof instead of the lead one ), a restoration is the next best choice when proposed new things are cr…
I'm not proposing ugly or out of touch changes. Materials changes like titanium instead of lead are exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Not all of the oak will be in publicly viewable areas.
I'm surprised and disappointed you don't keep forests around simply to benefit nature and humanity without needing a pretext of building construction.
They also rely on medieval era trees to reconstruct it, as the more than 1000 oak trees painstakingly sought through entire France had to be more than 1 m wide. Okay not medieval - they are only about 200 years old. Could have made a nice title though.
There's the story by the Long Now foundation about the oak beams at the New College in Oxford https://longnow.org/ideas/humans-and-trees-in-long-term-part... /// https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/oak-beams-new-college-ox... /// https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/oct/02/david-... Another example (and less debatable in its authenticity) Why the US Navy Manages Its Own Private Forest - https://www.military…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has burnt down and been rebuilt many times in it's history. Just like we are rebuilding with original stones and techniques, one should perhaps argue that it should also be rebuilt with its original fire resilience too - ie. Low. At this point, a fire once every hundred years or so is part of the culture, and to stop doing that is in a way destroying the character of the cathedral.
I can't say whether it's sarcasm or not.
The Christian view of fire is, of course, multi-faceted, as the Holy Spirit is a force for renewal, rebirth and purification. No parishioner wants their home burned down, of course, but at the end of the day, those are simply buildings, and they're replaceable, and every demolition is an opportunity to remake something new and wonderful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of people are angry at churches. Mostly with good reason. So they tend to get the torch a lot more than your average business.
Hating God, is hating the world, is hating yourself. No good reason for that. If another earthly mortal connected to a church has done something you take issue with, take it up with that person, don’t damage or destroy a community’s property, heritage, and connection to the transcendent. people here srsly advocating/justifying criminal, potentially homicidal activity, smh
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_fire#Investigation Workers were smoking in a space where it was explicitly not permitted, and renovation work meant there was electrical supply where "normally, no electrical is allowed in the roof space because of the extreme fire risk". Pinpointing the exact source of ignition is a bit challenging given the fire and collapse, I suspect, but without any evidence poi…
Were they smoking there in the moments immediately preceding the fire, and a dropped cigarette and maybe some sawdust or something somehow ignited a 35cm or whatever wide beam? And the smokers didn’t notice? But I think the answer is there weren’t any construction workers around in the time before the fire to be smoking anyway. “Maybe it was an electrical thing or something” is far from conclusive evidence, and as OP…
You clearly don't know how fire works and just how quickly it spreads. You also vastly underestimate how flammable the roof material was.
>all the circumstantial evidence points toward arson
Pray tell them, instead of slinging vague provocations. Better yet, if you have such clear evidence, I'm sure you're gonna go to the police or the papers with it, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Were they smoking there in the moments immediately preceding the fire, and a dropped cigarette and maybe some sawdust or something somehow ignited a 35cm or whatever wide beam? And the smokers didn’t notice? But I think the answer is there weren’t any construction workers around in the time before the fire to be smoking anyway. “Maybe it was an electrical thing or something” is far from conclusive evidence, and as OP…
> The whole point of my original post was that all the circumstantial evidence points toward arson. What evidence are you talking about?
Duh.
The rebuilding is apparently going well, but this is hiding the fact that nobody seems to be doing any inquiry about why the fire wasn't stopped in time. As far as we know, the fire was an accident (not foul play) -- but an extremely preventable one. There were works in progress on the roof of the cathedral, so people were coming and going, some of them possibly smoking, electrical devices were being used, etc. And t…
> The rebuilding is apparently going well, but this is hiding the fact that nobody seems to be doing any inquiry about why the fire wasn't stopped in time. Is this a true statement? I remember reading an extremely detailed play-by-play in one of the major papers a couple years ago that did a pretty good analysis of why a confluence of factors led to the fire. I don't know what the status is of any governmental, offic…
> Is this a true statement?
Yes, I think it is, unless one can point to an inquiry, not about the fire itself, and how it started (which has been done), but about the chain of responsibilities of the people in charge of the construction site at the time of the fire.
My point is, having just one guy with no training and no experience, monitor a landmark of this importance, during major works on the roof, is incredibly careless and unprofessional and should have consequences. But apparently it doesn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The whole point of my original post was that all the circumstantial evidence points toward arson. What evidence are you talking about?
The evidence that he is Catholic and there is a war on the West and therefore some foreign migrant construction worker did it on purpose as an attack on christian cultural heritage. Duh.
I came here to share that the importance of using contemporaneous materials, if not methods, was highlighted for me when I worked on Bath cathedral and saw how the victorian 'improvements' of using iron rather than wood to fix the stonework caused much damage a century later; iron expands when it rusts and causes cracking. Then I see linked in that article that Notre Dame was a very early example of using iron staple…