Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
EU News

Rector Says There Is a 50% Chance That Notre Dame Cathedral Will Not Be Saved (apnews.com) 157

Posted by EditorDavid from the living-on-a-prayer dept.
McGruber quotes the Associated Press: The rector of Notre Dame Cathedral says the Paris landmark is still so fragile that there's a "50% chance" the structure might not be saved, because scaffolding installed before this year's fire is threatening the vaults of the Gothic monument... "Today it is not out of danger," he told The Associated Press on the sidelines of Christmas Eve midnight Mass in a nearby church. "It will be out of danger when we take out the remaining scaffolding... Today we can say that there is maybe a 50% chance that it will be saved. There is also 50% chance of scaffolding falling onto the three vaults, so as you can see the building is still very fragile," he said...

"We need to remove completely the scaffolding in order to make the building safe, so in 2021 we will probably start the restoration of the cathedral," Chauvet said. "Once the scaffolding is removed we need to assess the state of the cathedral, the quantity of stones to be removed and replaced."

Chauvet estimated it would take another three years after that to make it safe enough for people to re-enter the cathedral, but that the full restoration will take longer.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rector Says There Is a 50% Chance That Notre Dame Cathedral Will Not Be Saved More

Rector Says There Is a 50% Chance That Notre Dame Cathedral Will Not Be Saved

Comments Filter:

  • Slow and steady (Score:3, Interesting)

    by solardesalination ( 6463838 ) on Monday December 30, 2019 @12:52AM (#59569366)
    It's going to take a year to remove scaffolding? I'm still bugged they were able to raise half a billion for this in a matter of weeks when things like Yemen are happening. This guy is going to be employed for the next decade by talking about how delicate the stone cathedral is.

    • Re: Slow and steady (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NagrothAgain ( 4130865 ) on Monday December 30, 2019 @01:59AM (#59569534)
      There's always some bullshit like Yemen happening. The Cathedral was a work of art for the Ages, and is living History. Luckily there are enough people with money who can appreciate that. If it was up to small minded people like you, we would have no Greatness, no History, but we would still have another Yemen.

      • Re: Slow and steady (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SoCalChris ( 573049 ) on Monday December 30, 2019 @08:29PM (#59572100) Journal

        The cathedral is an absolute work of art that should be restored and preserved. But perhaps the Catholic church should have put their fortune towards that, and let the other donations go towards things that aren't directly benefiting the richest church in history?

        • Fun fact its owned by the french government not the church, they lease it.
        • People are entitled to donate that which is theirs to what they wish, when they wish, and without regard to your opinion, mine, or anyone else's. Objecting to their right to do so is just another form of envy, and couching it in terms like "it should go to the poor" etc. (which usually means it goes to those with a vested interest in keeping people poor) makes it no less so.

    • Re:Slow and steady (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dwillden ( 521345 ) on Monday December 30, 2019 @06:02AM (#59569854) Homepage
      What does a civil war in a crappy little country have to do with saving an architectural masterpiece? I guarantee should something happen to a similarly significant mosque, the Islamic global community would be able to raise similar funds as fast.

      The private charitable donations of millions of Christians around the world to save such a noted landmark as Notre Dame has zero relation to a small scale civil war in a region of the world where the rare country is the one that is not experiencing some kind of armed conflict.

      • Meanwhile the internet archive can't even get the access to save the some of the disappearing web.

        I've been inside the Notre Dame, it's similar to other French Cathedrals in terms of construction. There is a point where cost to repair outweighs the preservation of a rich history.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Billly Gates ( 198444 )

        Jesus. Maybe just maybe I may be a small minority that likes to consider himself human with basic compassion and not a psychopath because God forbid a Mom crying in anguish losing her daughter from a missle attack or a boy who will never have Dad who died fighting to save his family from militants is more important to me than an old building historical or not.

        The fact this is +5 and so is another comment +5 talking about how human life is not as important because the country is a shit hole worries me.

        • Having priorities that differ from yours is not necessarily an indication of lack of compassion.

        • Re:Slow and steady (Score:5, Interesting)

          by twocows ( 1216842 ) on Tuesday December 31, 2019 @12:49PM (#59573780)
          The post you're responding to was definitely lacking in empathy, but the original post makes the tired "how dare we deal with X when Y exists" argument. This argument constantly gets trotted out whenever anyone tries to fix any kind of problem, as though it is some great sin to focus our effort or resources on anything other than the most severe problem facing the world. How dare we spend money on fixing the roads when North Korea's building nuclear weapons, right?

          If there's a problem that people can fix and are willing to put time and money toward fixing, it is not inherently bad to fix that problem even if other, more dire problems exist. It's basic human nature (and probably an evolved adaptation) to care more about things that closely relate to you, and rather than flagellating ourselves for that, it would probably be better to just let people fix the problems they want to fix without treating them as though they're committing some great crime for doing so.

          I'm not even sure how he thinks throwing $500 million at Yemen would do anything to solve that problem, anyway. Some problems can't be solved by throwing money at them. The Notre Dame cathedral might be one that can. As far as the Middle East is concerned, there are actually quite a few well-funded humanitarian groups that do their best to alleviate suffering there, because in fact a lot of people do care about that.

    • Can you imagine the funds pouring in if the Sheik Zayed grand mosque burnt down? It would make this half a billion look like small change.

      Religiously significant buildings in wealthy nations have nothing at all in common with civil wars in nations which have never lived without.

    • Does it make you feel better or worse that the big money donors aren't actually handing the pledged money over?

      https://observer.com/2019/07/n... [observer.com]

  • Today we can say that there is maybe a 50% chance that it will be saved. There is also 50% chance of scaffolding falling onto the three vaults

    What a maroon.

  • Hold Up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jarwulf ( 530523 ) on Monday December 30, 2019 @12:52AM (#59569370)
    Before all the obligatory 'lol why are they spending money on this?' the state owns the Cathedral not the church. And besides itd be pretty dumb to just let a major historical site and tourist trap fall apart even if you are an atheist and much of the French authorities are. They're not doing this out of charity to the church, at least not primarily.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 )

      The state owns the building and pays all the upkeep. The church just gets exclusive use of and control of the building. This is an arrangement the church is quite happy with.

    • Most french politician are theist, not atheist. but the state has a secular duty, not to allow religious influence (in practice this does not always happen , e.g. see how long gay marriage was stopped, or see the money flowing through religious school from the state by voucher).

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        but the state has a secular duty, not to allow religious influence

        Only in countries where the government's charter or laws particularly say that the state has such a duty. In many countries: the state has no such duty; in France they laïcité as a popular thing, but the law is much less stringent; religious institutions and state act as independent authorities, but that does not mean they never interact and one never influences another or vice-versa.

        There are numerous entanglements; for ex

  • I don't understand why it would be so difficult and chancy? If it is already stable enough to not have fallen already it should be easy to prevent it from falling on top of any unstable structure. Scaffolding is by it nature open and full of gaps could they not build another more stable scaffold underneath it and around it with material draped and tied down to carry away anything that falls? I'm sure they couldn't cover things completely but there are ways to fill in gaps. Spray the whole thing with so

    • > it should be easy to prevent it from falling on top of any unstable structure.

      Where can you mount any extensive supports? And how can you attach them to support the exiting structure without damaging it, or releasing strains that hold other components in place? And how do you do so quickly enough, safely enough, and cheaply enough to not not run out of time or resources before it collapses further? Many problems are soluble by throwing time and money at them, but those solutions sometimes generate oth

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Rectors aren't normally known for their structural engineering skills. I imagine he's drumming up a little PR for the restoration effort.

      It would be shocking if anything major happened to the cathedral after so many rich people donated money to make sure it didn't.

      • Don't exclude the engineers and project manager who put those odds into his head. The rector has far less of a payday from this than the contractors doing the work.

        • Re: don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Monday December 30, 2019 @03:17AM (#59569640)

          Don't exclude the engineers and project manager who put those odds into his head.

          They told him 50/50. That says everything you need to know about how the engineers are communicating with him.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

            If that's a Scotty estimate, then they're 80% sure they can do it and just don't want to inflate expectations.

          • When you have no idea what the odds are of two scenarios, 50% is the correct estimate. It either will or will not succeed based on unknowable unknowns.

      • Many rich people, as has already been mentioned, said they would donate money.

        But they haven't.

        From 3 October 2019: https://www.news.com.au/travel... [news.com.au]

        TL:DR "The Notre Dame Foundation has received just €36 million ($A59 million) from 46,000 individuals, 60 businesses and 29 municipalities between April 15 and the end of September, with some donations as small as one euro, AP reported."

        Though it goes on to mention "On Tuesday in Paris, French billionaire Francois Pinault and son Francois-Henri Pinault off

  • I'm not attempting to be rude but I've never understood the need to hold onto old buildings like this. It was a landmark yes, but it's now gone as everything will eventually be. This is a perfect time to build a modern structure in its place. Create a room within the new structure to remember the old one and move on.

    • Re:I've never understood (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Monday December 30, 2019 @03:22AM (#59569648)
      It's an architectural landmark. A modern building would look out-of-place in that area. People enjoy seeing these kinds of buildings amidst similar-looking modern buildings.

      There's something to be said about rebuilding it, as close to the original as possible though.
    • Rebuilding the cathedral was an easy choice. The building was well loved by locals, and it was a major tourist draw.
      Opting for a modern building is not so easy. What will you build there? And who will design it? A lot of modern architecture doesn't weather well, and many modern buildings are nasty eye sores, even when the original design was made to look stunning and stand the test of time. There are some exceptions like the Sydney Opera or the Disney Concert Hall in LA, but even well designed modern

    • It was *the* example of gothic architecture and nothing else looked like it. You're going to throw together some boxy glass building in its place?

    • I doubt you ever will understand why we don't just raze everything that isn't "modern" to the ground to "make way" for cool brand new stuff all the time. What value does architecture or art have anyway, that we would want to preserve any of it from previous times? Historic artifacts aren't unique and priceless and irreplaceable but just old junk we can never learn anything from. We can just take pictures of it and that's plenty good enough for all future times.

    • Different people like different things. Some like old buildings - quite a lot based on the amount of tourism attracted to old buildings around the world. Since its impossible to make new old buildings, it seems to make sense to keep the ones that people like.

      It is also a piece of history - maybe not "good" history, but its better that we see all sorts of history. Of course many people don't realize that while the Cathedral dates from the 12th century, it was massively rebuilt in the 19th century and repr

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I didn't see anyone else mention this, but Notre Dame has (for now) one of the most beloved and unique pipe organs in the world. There are no others like it, and very few even similar exist anyplace else (St. Sulpice and St. Ouen in Rouen are among only a few that are even comparable). Organ aficionados worldwide, including myself, tend to share the hope that not only the organ itself, but the building whose acoustics are an inherent part of its sound, can be saved.

  • The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrKaos ( 858439 ) on Monday December 30, 2019 @02:18AM (#59569552) Journal

    The Washington Post has an article citing it burned as it was designed to do [washingtonpost.com] so that the roof would be sacrificed if there was a fire to save the rest of the building.

    The roof also had other functions that went beyond form. The first being acoustics of the inside of the building and specific angles of light and shadow that were designed to illuminate the artworks at certain times with the right kind of light.

    I hope they pick a roof replacement that also maintains these particular qualities.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by MrKaos ( 858439 )

        They only need to grow a forrest and wait 100+ years for the trees to be usable and then a few more years to dry the wood. Easy.

        Maybe they could 3D print an exact replica from recycled drink bottles.

      • Why replicate the fire-prone design? The original is gone - no use in pretending otherwise. Use modern materials which are visually indistinguishable but fire resistant. The oak beams were not visible from inside or outside the cathedral unless you went into the attic - they were not an important aspect of the design, but rather an implementation detail.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by MrKaos ( 858439 )

          Why replicate the fire-prone design? The original is gone - no use in pretending otherwise. Use modern materials which are visually indistinguishable but fire resistant.

          I've got no problem with using fire resistant materials as long as the acoustics and light angles are maintained. You have to consider how much time and consideration goes into creating these buildings. At the time of commission you are looking at a effort that is viewed by the people of the day as something similar to the space program in a vehicle designed to traverse *time*.

          Consequently, regardless of fire codes, you have to adapt your thinking to why certain compromises were made and this knowledge

      • They'd need to grow crook- and y-joints, so you're looking at more like three or four hundred years to get timber of the right size and shape.

  • Remember all those generous donations from billionaires? Hundreds of millions in total.
    Amazing that not a single Euro of that actually showed up at the end of the day.

    • Remember all those generous donations from billionaires? Hundreds of millions in total. Amazing that not a single Euro of that actually showed up at the end of the day.

      They got the publicity, when the spotlight was on the event, now that the spotlight is shining elsewhere, why pay up? ... nobody is going to remember them weaseling out of them keeping their word. This is how rich people think, it should not surprise you.

    • Amazing that not a single Euro of that actually showed up at the end of the day.

      Citation or GTFO.

  • Imagine Kevin McCloud wandering around, making his brand of slightly-snarky and doubtful comments to camera, then asking the french project manager what it's like to work for an employer like the church.

    "It's 5 years into the restoration, and the promised 100 million donated euros have yet to show up"

    Cue: closeup of rain dripping onto scaffolding, medium shot of wheelbarrows and workbenches but no workers, MCU of builder's plastic sheeting flapping in the wind.

  • Ma€ron said it will be rebuild in 5 years. Before the Olympic Games.
    So, who are you to say it will take a lot more, or that it may not be rebuild?
    Who ? Scientists? What's that?
    Oh, well ...
    Who's gonna tell him?

  • The old building was past it and about to fall down anyway. So they let a fire burn the roof (but not the stained glass) so they could justify bull dozing it and claiming the insurance.

    The site is perfect for a large casino/hotel. There are plenty of other churches in Paris.

    You read about it first here...

  • Since the fire department is often just sitting around on call, waiting to respond to a disaster, why not require a fireman to be on site whenever a century-old building is being worked on (that is, has construction workers present that day)? The fireman could act as a safety consultant, keeping an eye on the construction workers' (possibly careless) activities. It would cost close to nothing, would be in the fire departments' interest and that fireman would still be on call via radio.

    I thought of this
  • With the money they have and can get, and the resolve to see it done, and the outcry if it is not, and the exact information they have on every square inch of that place, it will be rebuilt, even if it winds up having to be stone by stone from the vaults up.

Slashdot Top Deals

"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe

Close