[HN Gopher] Notre Dame Cathedral reopens
___________________________________________________________________
Notre Dame Cathedral reopens
Author : chmaynard
Score : 205 points
Date : 2024-12-07 22:05 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (apnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (apnews.com)
| taylorlapeyre wrote:
| I wonder what would a ceremony like this look like before the era
| of cameras broadcasting every move to the entire planet
| simultaneously. It does seem like a lot of this is performative
| in the "showtime" sense, and I wonder if the character of an
| event like this would be more "practical" in another time.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| What does a practical opening ceremony even mean? It's in the
| name, it's a ceremony, a ritual.
|
| Even if it wasn't being broadcasted, this is an act of prestige
| that flows both ways. Power people go these events to lend
| their gravitas, and power people go to these events to borrow
| from the gravitas.
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| If cathedrals were practical, they'd look like big cross-shaped
| barns. To turn the restoration of a city's cathedral into a
| spectacle befits their nature. They were supposed to inspire
| awe.
| paxys wrote:
| You think pomp and ceremony weren't a thing before the
| TV/social media age?
| highcountess wrote:
| You may enjoy reading Pillars of the Earth
| gerdesj wrote:
| What a beauty! Its been rebuilt (restored is a tricky concept
| here) in largely the same materials and in the same form as the
| original, prior to various restoration efforts through the
| centuries, with a few knobs on.
|
| This means that we get a mediaeval cathedral looking like it did
| when it was conceived and built (with an extra spire and a few
| other things). The colours are amazing.
|
| Elderly churches, mosques and temples (int al) have a habit of
| losing their original colours and "feel" across the centuries.
| They change - age. Stone walls age and thanks to modern pollution
| darken. Pigments age, disperse and peel off.
|
| Notre Dame has been restored. Not to how it was in 2018, prior
| the fire ... but to how it was intended when built, with a bit of
| sympathetic interpretation.
|
| Well done!
| nntwozz wrote:
| Ship of Theseus comes to mind.
| highcountess wrote:
| That is not really applicable here. The cathedral itself was
| never really destroyed even though the Christian rejectors'
| mob ransacked it in the "French" Revolution and the latest
| fire also did not really cause structural damage.
|
| It is also still a functioning Christian church with
| services.
| akerl_ wrote:
| The ship of Theseus was never really destroyed either. It
| was a functional ship with services.
| anon291 wrote:
| I mean it's a living church. The entire thing can be rebuilt
| and it will still be the real Notre Dame de Paris. It'd have
| to stop being used for the original function.
|
| Similar to how the California missions that are still
| parishes will continue to be complete. The ones that are
| museums will deteriorate.
|
| The beauty of a building is more than just its physical
| materials but also those things for which it was built and
| those people who built it
| akerl_ wrote:
| > The entire thing can be rebuilt and it will still be the
| real Notre Dame de Paris
|
| This statement is kindof the whole point of the "ship of
| Theseus" thought experiment.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| A more favorable interpretation would be that the church
| consists of more than just its worldly parts; its place
| and use are also part of its identity. Even if you'd
| completely rebuild the church building, the other parts
| of its identity would persist. Therefore, the "ship of
| Theuses" argument doesn't apply, as, in this case, we
| would never replace all parts of [the identity of] this
| church.
| akerl_ wrote:
| It feels like you're referring to the "ship of Theseus"
| as an argument that the identity does not persist...
|
| It's not.
|
| It's a hypothetical designed to call attention to the
| exact thing you're saying: that potentially identity is
| more than the specific physical parts.
| anon291 wrote:
| I gave my differentiating factor..
|
| Yes it's my take on the ship of Theseus problem.
|
| In that problem we re asked to consider if a ship with
| all it's parts replaced is the same as the original..
|
| My argument is that so long as the ship is being used for
| the same purpose by the same people then it is. Without a
| purpose, wood in the shape of a ship is not even
| necessarily a ship
|
| Things are more than just their physical form.
| astrobe_ wrote:
| Our own bodies are ships of Theseus. I've read once that
| every atom in our bodies are replaced in 40 years. In 40
| years, our bodies change a lot and so are our minds. What
| make Theseus' ship the ship of Theseus, is that Theseus
| is the owner of the ship. Ownership is a social
| convention, a construction of the mind.
|
| What makes Notre Dame, is that people generally agree it
| is still Notre Dame. If hypothetically we were in a time
| of modernism craze, and that our government decided to
| rebuilt it in some modern style (there actually was
| proposals like that), it would still be the people who
| makes it Notre Dame de Paris or not.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > The entire thing can be rebuilt and it will still be the
| real Notre Dame de Paris. It'd have to stop being used for
| the original function.
|
| This is demonstrably wrong, as we have many examples of old
| buildings and we know what people actually feel about them.
|
| Consider two very famous examples of buildings that
| completely changed their purpose, but are still the same
| building: the Pantheon and the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul.
| The Pantheon was a Roman temple to all of the Gods when it
| was built in 126, and became a Christian church ~400 years
| later, but everyone recognizes it as the same building. The
| Hagia Sophia was a Christian church built in 537, and 1100
| years later became an Islamic mosque, but it is still the
| same building to everyone.
|
| Then for the opposite example: St Peter's Basillica at the
| Vatican. This was built in 1506 on the site of a much older
| church, also called St Peter's Basillica (commissioned by
| emperor Constantine), which also served as a Christian
| church, was also used the parish of the Pope, was also the
| location of papal coronation and so on. And still, no one
| would say "St Peter's Basilica was built by Saint
| Constantine", because the current basilica is universally
| recognized as a new building, despite serving the same
| function.
|
| A building is recognized for the beauty and specifics of
| its structural and painterly elements, not for its role. If
| it is destroyed and rebuilt in almost the same size and
| shape, then it is recognized as the same building;
| regardless of entirely changing its purpose.
|
| Conversely, if a building is rebuilt into a completely
| different shape, even a universally admired as beautiful
| one, it is considered a different building, even if keeps
| serving the same purpose.
| anon291 wrote:
| The Pantheon no longer exists. It is now the church of St
| Mary and the Martyrs. And this is the difference I'm
| getting at.
|
| The Pantheon is a temple dedicated to all the ancient
| Roman gods. It cannot be both that and the Church of St
| Mary and the Martyrs. When the Church took it over, it
| ceased to be the Pantheon.
|
| There's no doubt the building is the same, and we can
| argue about how 'true to form' it is. But that's the
| point. When it stopped being what it originally was, its
| 'form' is now a goal to never deviate from.
|
| Whereas, the various depictions of the martyrs present
| within the Church of St Mary and the Martyrs, for
| example, has no such ideal yet. The Church can (and does)
| shift that around. However, if it were to _stop_ being
| the church of st Mary and the Martyrs, then it would have
| an ideal form that any restorer may want to restore it
| towards.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| You could try doing a search for the Pantheon vs the
| Church of St Mary and the Martyrs to see which is alive
| in the general consciousness and which isn't. Ultimately,
| the Pantheon is not a temple to the Roman gods, it's a
| particular building in Rome. It used to be a temple, now
| it's a church, maybe 100 years from now it will be an
| exhibition space. It will still be the same building. And
| the building is far more culturally important then the
| current parish inhabiting it.
| matt-attack wrote:
| For what's its worth, this conversation has been a treat
| to read. Not sure who I agree with.
| bane wrote:
| The videos I've seen of the people who did this remarkable work
| show such a sense of pride, as they should have. It's an
| amazing testament that France was able to do this work,
| relatively quickly, in traditional ways. Maintaining that kind
| of expertise on the scale needed is astonishing.
| brabel wrote:
| I was wondering exactly about that: how did they keep this
| expertise? Even in France, I don't think anyone is building
| medieval-style buildings anymore. Is the work done in
| restaurations enough to keep the know-how for actually
| building things almost from scracth?
| mahkeiro wrote:
| It may surprise you but people are still building medieval
| castle in France: https://www.guedelon.fr/en/ (youtube has
| numerous video from them showing medieval technics of
| building) And France keep some of the building tradition
| through something called "compagnonnage"
| https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnonnage (sry but there
| no en page for this article).
| skywal_l wrote:
| Something close in en:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnons_du_Devoir
| realusername wrote:
| The answer is simple, there's an endless amount of churches
| and castles to maintain in France, so many of them that
| it's actually impossible to maintain them all. As long as
| the state cares about maintainance, there's going to be
| jobs for it.
| Neonlicht wrote:
| I know that the bells were made in the Netherlands- which
| has a long history with church bells.
| chiph wrote:
| If you're in the US, you can apply to attend the American
| College of the Building Arts.
|
| https://acba.edu/aboutacba
|
| They were established in Charleston SC after Hurricane Hugo
| when it was discovered that the US did not have enough
| craftspeople to repair all the historic homes that had been
| damaged. You can get an accredited Bachelors degree in
| architectural ironwork, plastering, timber framing, and
| stone carving.
| kergonath wrote:
| > with an extra spire and a few other things
|
| With a different spire. Notre Dame used to have a spire until
| it was removed early in the 19th century.
|
| > Notre Dame has been restored. Not to how it was in 2018,
| prior the fire ... but to how it was intended when built, with
| a bit of sympathetic interpretation.
|
| This is quite important. It was difficult to reconcile texts
| talking about how gothic cathedrals were full of light and
| colours with the aspect of a lot of these cathedrals, which
| felt dark and dull with their walls and windows blackened and
| covered in grime. The renovated interior is properly
| breathtaking.
|
| > Well done!
|
| Indeed.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'll be interested to visit when I'm probably in Paris next
| spring. Notre Dame always seemed to me more impressive on the
| outside than the inside where, as you suggest, it felt pretty
| dark and dull compared to a church like Sainte-Chapelle.
| pcl wrote:
| Hopefully a fire detection and suppression system was added
| along the way!
| eastbound wrote:
| Well, it survived 700 years without, and it survived the
| 1960ies where everyone was smoking everywhere, and it
| survived two revolutions where the police wasn't active. So a
| working fire detection system isn't the problem.
|
| Yeah, I don't buy the official investigation that concludes
| with spontaneous combustion.
| usrnm wrote:
| I'm actually still disappointed that they did not chose some
| bold and modern solution. France has no shortage of gothic
| cathedrals, many of which are much more interesting than Notre
| Dame of Paris, this was a once in a century chance to do
| something completely new and interesting, and they got cold
| feet. Such a shame. It's still very good work, but it will
| forever feel like a missed opportunity to me.
| cm2187 wrote:
| You mean to replace the whole building with a beautiful
| brutalist structure made of dark concrete?
| usrnm wrote:
| You know that brutalism is long dead, don't you? At this
| point it's just a scapegoat, if you cannot see beaty in at
| least some parts of modern architecture, you clearly
| haven't been paying attention. Just look at some of the
| alternative designs for the restoration of Notre Dam and
| tell me that they're ugly and not interesting
| cm2187 wrote:
| > _You know that brutalism is long dead, don 't you?_
|
| that's kind of the point with modern architecture. It's
| at best lame, often outright ugly from day one, and aways
| never age well. The only merit is that it is made of non-
| durable materials (concrete, glass and steel), so no one
| will look down on our civilisation in 800 years since
| there will be nothing left.
| rainworld wrote:
| They are hideous and repulsive.
| wqaatwt wrote:
| You mean things like:
|
| https://www.demilked.com/notre-dame-reconstruction-
| designs/
|
| ?
|
| Because they are actually.. quite revolting. Even by
| modern standards, pretty disgusting. At that point you
| might just as well just bulldoze the whole building and
| put something new entirely there.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| Many brutalist buildings _are_ beautiful
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| That would be nothing short of cultural vandalism. It's
| certainly the prerogative of the French people to do that if
| they wish, but it would be an awful thing. The world doesn't
| need more ugly modern buildings.
| UberFly wrote:
| It was a restoration, not a grand re-imagination. When works
| of art (like a painting in a museum) are damaged, they
| restore them to their previous state.
| usrnm wrote:
| There are very, very few old buildings in the world that
| haven't been rebuilt and reimagined at least once in their
| lifetime, for the majority of them the parts that we find
| most esthetically pleasing are later additions
| atombender wrote:
| The French government held a design competition [1] [2] to
| gather proposals for a new spire, so the assumption at the
| outset was _not_ that it would be a mere restoration.
|
| > "The international competition will allow us to ask the
| question of whether we should even recreate the spire as it
| was conceived by Viollet-le-Duc," [prime minister] Philippe
| told reporters after a cabinet meeting dedicated to the
| fire. "Or, as is often the case in the evolution of
| heritage, whether we should endow Notre Dame with a new
| spire. This is obviously a huge challenge, a historic
| responsibility."
|
| However, the senate passed a bill explicitly requiring that
| the traditional design must be used [3].
|
| [1] https://www.archdaily.com/916723/the-peoples-notre-
| dame-cath...
|
| [2] https://www.archdaily.com/915355/france-announces-
| competitio...
|
| [3] https://archive.ph/HgTvo
| tgv wrote:
| I would like to add that France (probably) also has no
| shortage of modern churches, quite a few abandoned. There's
| no reason to build yet another one.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| The grossness of destroying culture aside you'd also be
| throwing away billions in tourist revenue.
|
| People don't travel to Paris to see something that looks like
| a mall.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| It was rebuilt to how it was restored in the 1800s, not how it
| was built in medieval times. It's a mixture of Gothic and neo
| Gothic.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| One of the most spiritual moments of my life was entering Notre
| Dame, and I was not expecting it at all, wasn't really excited to
| go there, and am not really religious. Honestly I expected
| Stonehenge to be more impactful but Notre Dame is a way more
| worthy visit.
| YZF wrote:
| I was more awed by Stonehenge than Notre Dame. There's just
| something mystical about it and it's also much more ancient.
| Notre Dame was another cool cathedral. It's famous but Europe
| has many.
|
| Either way sounds like an amazing rebuilding effort with many
| great passionate craftsman working on it. It goes to show that
| when we want to we can get stuff done. It's like a hackathon in
| a big company. Let's take from that and do more great things.
| Ylpertnodi wrote:
| >It goes to show that when we want to we can get stuff done
| _.
|
| _ I have read the EULA. * Terms and conditions may apply. *
| Not available in all regions.
| throwup238 wrote:
| I sort of feel the same way about Stone Henge and I think
| it's an exposure thing. It was maybe the tenth or so stop on
| my tour of ancient megaliths and after Gobekli Tepe, Easter
| Island, Avebury, the Baalbek stones, etc it just didn't feel
| as special.
| csomar wrote:
| I have the same view. Notre Dame just feels like a big
| regular church. The Cathedral of Cologne, on the other hand,
| is just something mesmerizing to me. It's like it belongs to
| another world/dimension and yet somehow fits with the gloomy
| sky of Germany.
| lttlrck wrote:
| I loved Koln Cathedral. It's a must see in Germany. Equal
| to any castle.
| scns wrote:
| 150 years ago it was the tallest building in the world.
| chx wrote:
| > I was more awed by Stonehenge than Notre Dame.
|
| Recommended reading: Dawn Of Everything.
| throw0101d wrote:
| > _Honestly I expected Stonehenge to be more impactful but
| Notre Dame is a way more worthy visit._
|
| I think people underestimate how much Beauty can be path to
| experiencing the Transcendent.
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty#Western_Middle_Ages
| Syonyk wrote:
| I haven't been to Notre Dame, but there are certainly what I'd
| term "thin places" in the world, where the spiritual is
| {closer, more accessible, more present}. I would expect a long-
| lived active cathedral to be one such place. It's not just the
| beauty, it's something about the physical location being a
| focus of prayer over time. I don't have a good sense for how it
| works. Just that it does.
| lisper wrote:
| You would love the old city of Jerusalem.
| Syonyk wrote:
| So I hear. I would love to tour it, some day.
| ridgeguy wrote:
| Definitely, do this. When you do, take the underground
| Western Wall tour. The stonework just beggars the
| imagination.
|
| https://thekotel.org/en/tours/western-wall-
| tunnels/2/?srslti...
| jajko wrote:
| Varanasi in India, more specifically Manikarnika ghat in 2008
| for me. I am a rational non-religious person but that place
| imprinted itself in my heart by exactly this... something
| else in the air and I mean everywhere I went in that place
| (apart from ashes of burnt dead which you breath in 24/7).
| Never felt anything similar anywhere else, not even in St.
| Peter's Basilica which is an engineering marvel on its own I
| can certainly appreciate its beauty.
|
| Which goes against whole concept of institutionalized
| religions and tells a lot about how humans are wired
| internally, and nothing (at least positive) about existence
| of god(s) and some made up bronze age rules accompanying
| those stories.
|
| BTW been to Notre dame before the fire and felt 0 nothing
| above usual cathedrals effect (compared to say Sagrada
| familia which wasn't that spiritual but wow effect
| definitely), but there were various parts to visit and I
| don't think I covered them all so maybe missed _the_ spot
| that worked for you.
| rosmax_1337 wrote:
| I saw a picture of the insides on another site, it looked like a
| Disney castle with the stone polished to look almost white. Why
| not just restore it to look like before the accident?
| netsharc wrote:
| Why shouldn't restoring it to "just like new" not be allowed?
| This reviewer says entering it now is like the medieval
| builders had just finished it, it's almost like time travel:
| https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/dec/06/notre-d...
| serf wrote:
| medieval builders would have relied on the use of flame and
| natural light.
|
| I think it all looks great with the exception of white-
| spectrum LEDs as far as the eye can see; the natural lighting
| of the past Notre Dame during early morning was _special_ --
| maybe it still is , but the white LEDs everywhere make it
| look 'clinical' to me.
| probably_wrong wrote:
| I wouldn't say "not allowed" because art is subjective, but
| there's a certain awe in visiting a place that shows clear
| signs of being many centuries old.
|
| I obviously haven't visited Notre Dame yet, but when I
| visited the fully rebuilt Berlin Palace last year I did get
| an impression of "this place needs to age a couple hundred
| years before it's done".
| lttlrck wrote:
| I wonder what that was _actually_ like given that it took 200
| years to build. A lot less pollution so maybe it really did
| look _all_ shiny and new :-)
| netsharc wrote:
| As sibling-comment said, no LEDs back then. They probably
| used soot-billowing torches, 200 years of that means the
| building must've looked pretty shabby already when done. So
| the state it currently is in is unrealistic after all.
| rosmax_1337 wrote:
| I have complete trust in The Guardian to publish incorrect
| opinions on this matter.
|
| The Notre Dame is a historical building. It's not meant to
| look like "new".
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Old buildings look so dark die to centries of dirt. Especially
| since industrialization and automobiles. But before that due to
| fires (for heating and light) For many of those old buildings
| there are light stones beneath the dark layer.
|
| Same for glass windows, which in old times haven't been as
| clear as today possible, but still lighter than after centuries
| of dust settling.
| bdndndndbve wrote:
| Such a sign of the world we live in that restoring a old building
| raises a billion dollars, but we somehow can't afford to house
| people who are freezing to death in the streets.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| If a billion dollars was all it took to solve homelessness, it
| would have been solved a long time ago. France spends tens of
| billions on it annually and as you noted, it's far from solved.
| paxys wrote:
| Heck a single city (San Francisco) spends over a billion
| dollars annually on homelessness, and the problem just gets
| worse every year.
| fsckboy wrote:
| if you pour money on a problem, you create all sorts of
| incentives for the problem not to go away.
| User23 wrote:
| Put more simply, spending money on something tends to get
| you more of it.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Does that mean Notre Dame is going to burn more often?
| krisoft wrote:
| They certainly increased the chances by replacing the
| burnt roof with an as of yet unburnt one. Not saying that
| that would have been the prefered solution. And of course
| they tried to mitigate this increase in flamability with
| a modern fire protection solution.
| User23 wrote:
| Who is spending money on burning it down?
|
| No, obviously, spending money on Notre Dame is getting us
| more of it, on account of one Notre Dame is more than no
| Notre Dame.
| alexey-salmin wrote:
| It's funny because the number of homeless people if I
| recall correctly is around 10k and total number of people
| receiving aid is double or triple of that. One may wonder
| where that billion goes.
| FpUser wrote:
| To pay salaries of people who debate how to "help"
| homeless
| Aurornis wrote:
| France's social spending is around $509 billion per year.
|
| France also has a form of guaranteed minimum income.
|
| Spending a billion to repair a historic national treasure is
| not only a drop in the bucket at the scale of a country, it's
| likely ROI positive due to the tourist revenue that would be
| lost if France were to abandon their national treasures over
| the centuries.
|
| Being angry about this is irrational.
| tgv wrote:
| > a drop in the bucket
|
| Don't forget it can be written off over 50 years or more.
| That's a paltry 20M/year.
| khazhoux wrote:
| I'll go a step further and say that we shouldn't spend a single
| penny on homelessness that could instead be donated to cancer
| research.
|
| In fact, cancer research should receive _zero_ funds that could
| instead be put towards care for needy children.
|
| And we shouldn't even waste money on those kids, when it should
| instead be used ito fight climate change.
| ks2048 wrote:
| The obvious compromise is build lots of gothic cathedrals for
| the homeless around the world.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| If the French welfare state, by far the most expansive on the
| planet (France spends around a third of its GDP on social
| expenses), is too small for you, you will be sour for the rest
| of your life, because your demands are unrealistic.
|
| In practice, most people including me prefer to spread public
| spending into various projects, and yes, that means that the
| homeless don't get an absolute priority.
|
| I suspect that you, in your private life, do precisely the
| same. If you wanted to live your preached values, you would
| have to live Mother Theresa-like life of ascetism, spending
| your days and your income to help the poor instead of buying
| yourself nice electronic gadgets and eating good food.
|
| Do you do that? If not, why do you complain about the rest of
| the world not doing it either?
| greatgib wrote:
| What I really would like to understand is what Musk was doing
| there? No relation with France or Notre Dame, supposed to be kind
| of an agnostic and not a "fervent catholic". And why he took the
| spot of anyone else that could be a fervent catholic just by
| being rich...
| paxys wrote:
| He spent $250M to elect Trump so now gets to be in the inner
| circle and travel with him, simple as that.
| breadwinner wrote:
| It's more than just traveling with him... he or his
| representatives are interviewing and hiring key government
| officials. (See link below.) Basically Musk is running the US
| government like it is another Musk company.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/06/us/politics/trump-elon-
| mu...
| Sabinus wrote:
| But remember, the same conspiracists who love Trump will
| decry politically active billionaires like George Soros
| _for decades_ but if it 's a Right Wing Billionaire
| actually paying for positions that is cool and normal.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >No relation with France or Notre Dame, supposed to be kind of
| an agnostic and not a "fervent catholic".
|
| True liberalism is a church opening its doors to anyone
| desiring to come in, and someone able to appreciate and pray as
| he desires. Freedom of religion. Musk might not be a "fervent
| Catholic", but is that really even relevant in celebrating the
| restoration of one of the greatest cathedrals?
|
| Identity politics like this truly waste all of our times and
| turn what are simple moments of happiness into artificial
| problems.
| paxys wrote:
| > a church opening its doors to anyone desiring to come in
|
| My invite got lost in the mail, I guess. Or maybe the
| criteria wasn't just "anyone desiring to come in".
| Dalewyn wrote:
| You and I both know this was a party for the powerful and
| the rich, if it wasn't Trump and Musk it was going to be
| Harris and Lady Gaga or something. The point I'm trying to
| make is that nothing is stopping you or anyone from
| visiting Notre Dame to celebrate its return and perhaps
| even pray there if you so desire, regardless if you're a
| "fervent Catholic".
|
| In fact, consider that Prince William is also present. He's
| a member of the British royal family and heir-apparent to
| the British throne. The British monarch is also the head of
| the Church of England, which is a friendly rival to the
| Catholic Church.
|
| It is pointless to argue for identity politics, only
| assholes wanting to cause strife do that. Let us not waste
| our time and happiness on them and that.
| anon291 wrote:
| Keep in mind the church doesn't own the building. It's
| owned by France and France gets to invite whom they want.
| The church just uses the building by arrangement.
|
| I only say this because you're not really supposed to be
| selling seats to a Mass. St Peters for example all masses
| are public. There are tickets but these are free if it's
| expected to be large.
| anon291 wrote:
| Because Europe wants space access?
| tjpnz wrote:
| Did strike me as a bit odd. Musk won't be president until
| January 20.
| UberFly wrote:
| Maybe he was invited.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| I am an unbeliever and I visited a lot of catedrals, basilicas,
| mosques and synagogues in my life.
|
| You can admire the art and the dedication of the builders
| without being religious. France itself is a secular state with
| a division of the State and the Church, and yet President
| Macron is there, because Notre Dame is a national treasure, not
| just a religious one.
|
| Also, don't kid yourself about the history of the Church and
| money. While always verbally pro-poor, in practice, it also
| always sought connections among the rich. Obscene riches of the
| high clergy were one of the triggers for the Reformation.
|
| Plus ca change...
| abrenuntio wrote:
| When a woman honored the Lord with expensive perfume, it was
| Judas who complained about this. "Why wasn't this money given
| to the poor?"
|
| Many flawed people belong to the Church. But the art of the
| Church does not belong to any individual. It exists to honor
| and glorify the Triune God from within material creation.
| wqaatwt wrote:
| If only we knew which church is the correct one..
| abrenuntio wrote:
| Napoleon: "don't you know that I can destroy the Church?"
|
| Bishop: "my colleagues have been trying for 1800 years
| and haven't succeeded."
| TomK32 wrote:
| Just my opinion, but the overlap of those admiring the
| artistry of gothic cathedrals and those actually building a
| car like the Cybertruck is zero.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Frankly, SpaceX rockets, ships and spacesuits are visually
| cool as hell.
| Neonlicht wrote:
| True story European monarchs used to have a veto on who gets
| elected as Pope... The church stopped being independent and
| became a political tool long ago.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| The attention w seeks attention. I guess no big surprise there.
| They should have banned him off the ground of course, as he is
| as un-christian as it gets. Maybe they hoped some holy water
| and crosses could drive out the evil spirits or something.
| wqaatwt wrote:
| Trump's +1? Since his wife probably didn't want to come
| julienfr112 wrote:
| So that he can build one when he goes to mars ?
| Xmd5a wrote:
| Kourou ?
| Zebfross wrote:
| We were very lucky to see Notre Dame before it burned. So glad
| it's been restored.
| henearkr wrote:
| And they rebuilt it with all the lead that posed problem when it
| burned.
|
| Lesson not learned. Go figure.
| Sabinus wrote:
| https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20241205-how-lead-exposur...
|
| I was very surprised to learn this is indeed true.
|
| "As the flames engulfed the cathedral, a whopping 400 tonnes of
| lead from the roof and spire went up in smoke, according to
| French authorities."
|
| "The decision to rebuild the spire and roof of Notre-Dame
| exactly as they had been in the 19th century by covering them
| in lead deepened the anger already felt by the members of
| Notre-Dame Lead and raised the eyebrows of politicians, non-
| profits and local residents.
|
| To justify the decision, the institution in charge of restoring
| the cathedral, Rebuilding Notre-Dame de Paris, ruled out any
| danger of direct exposure to the substance. "Covering the roof
| structures of the nave, the choir and two arms of the transept
| with lead does not expose any member of the public to lead, as
| they are located some forty metres from the ground and are
| inaccessible," the institution told French daily newspaper La
| Croix in a December 2023 article, assuring it was taking the
| matter "very seriously"."
| canucker2016 wrote:
| Later in that article: "But Notre-Dame was
| not the only location to be affected," Toullier pointed out.
| "Lead levels were very high all around the cathedral, on
| metro platforms, in bookshops on the Place Saint-Michel and
| even in surrounding schools." At the end of
| summer 2019, Notre-Dame Lead reported levels of up to 123,000
| mg/m2, which represented 25 times the "standard" threshold of
| 5,000 ug/m2 set by the regional health authority ARS, at the
| Place Saint-Michel, a 10-minute walk from the cathedral. "Yet
| no significant clean-up operation was carried out. It was as
| if the problem didn't exist," Toullier lamented.
| "But what about run-off water from the roof, which will be
| laden with lead?" asked Thebaud-Mony. In a notice published
| in January 2021, the French High Council for Public Health
| estimated that "the roof of Notre-Dame alone ... would emit
| around 21kg of lead per year (about two tonnes per century)
| in run-off water". "Lead could have been
| replaced by another substance like zinc or copper," said
| Thebaud-Mony. "When alternatives exist, why choose lead and
| risk human health?" This was the case for the Chartres
| cathedral, destroyed by a fire in 1836. The original
| structure had lead roofing, which was replaced by copper when
| it was rebuilt. Though perceived as less stable, copper is
| significantly less toxic.
| lostlogin wrote:
| > Though perceived as less stable, copper is significantly
| less toxic.
|
| If have thought the reduced weight quite a bonus too.
| canucker2016 wrote:
| from https://aleteia.org/2024/11/04/how-does-notre-dame-of-
| paris-... In more detail, Notre Dame's new
| fire protection system rests on five pillars. The
| first is surveillance. "In addition to thermal cameras, an air
| suction and analysis system will be in constant operation,"
| explains the public institution in charge of restoring Notre
| Dame of Paris. "Any outbreak of fire detected by at least two
| pipes will automatically trigger the misting system."
| The system will release a mist consisting of fine droplets of
| water diffused into the wooden framework, which, if necessary,
| will considerably reduce the temperature in the space and
| smother the incipient fire. The third pillar is
| the thickening of the batten: the thin planks of wood that
| separate the trusses from the lead roofing. "One millimeter
| thick has a fire resistance of one minute: We added 15mm [0.6",
| editor's note], giving the fire a quarter of an hour less
| chance of spreading to the roof," explains the company.
| Fire-stop trusses have been installed to separate the spire
| from the choir on one side and the nave on the other. They
| divide the space in three, preventing or delaying the spread of
| fire from one to the other. Finally, the entire
| network of dry columns has been redesigned to facilitate
| firefighting operations. The flow of water that can be
| mobilized has been multiplied by three to reach up to 600m3
| (264 gallons) of water per hour.
| aeronaut80 wrote:
| 600m3 is 132,000 imperial gallons. Seems a more likely order
| of magnitude.
| maxnoe wrote:
| 1m3 [?] 264 gallons, so it seems they forgot to multiply by
| the 600.
| chiph wrote:
| What were the choices they had when picking a roof material?
| While lead has it's disadvantages, it was probably the best
| choice of them.
|
| Lead - the traditional material using for cathedral roofing is
| easy to work with, easily soldered to prevent leaks, but is
| heavy and is toxic when burned.
|
| Copper - Also a traditional material that is easy to work with,
| also easily soldered to prevent leaks, is lightweight and non-
| toxic. But the roof would be green afterwards (once it
| oxidizes) not dull gray.
|
| Steel - Lightweight, can be cut & bent to fit around
| crenelations. But can't be soldered - any waterproofing would
| have to be done with caulking & crimping other steel over
| joints. Available colors to match the original lead. Won't last
| as long as some other choices (it eventually rusts).
|
| Composite asphalt shingles - just no.
|
| Wooden shingles - Moderately difficult to work with. Easily
| burns. Will get moldy unless treated with chemicals.
|
| Slate tile - Very difficult to work with, but inflammable.
| Heavier than lead and is brittle. But it would have a similar
| color to the lead its replacing.
|
| Concrete tile - similar pros + cons as slate, but cheaper and
| doesn't last quite as long.
| henearkr wrote:
| Copper is the best choice from your list.
|
| Color is ok. Anyway the original color of the outside of the
| cathedral was nothing comparable with the monochrome stone
| white of today (that's right, churches and cathedrals were
| artistically painted, in the Middle Ages).
|
| And there are plenty of copper roofs everywhere in France,
| including on cathedrals.
|
| Also you forgot to mention zinc.
| unit149 wrote:
| Unlike the Mycenaean Lion's Gate, constructed with stone, using
| technical dry-stone masonry, Notre Dame was susceptible to
| sabotage. Post-2019 conflagration, reconstructing its arches,
| colonnades, spires, and stained glass windows - much of which
| survived high temperatures is a testament to Gothic architecture.
| In the Bronze Age, temples, remnants of sacrificial tombs
| dedicated to resurgent sacrificial rites in satiating Baal, still
| stand in the outskirts of Jerusalem. Depending on the materials,
| stone structures will whether incineration, even retaining
| frescoes prefiguring Christ.
| ggm wrote:
| I have very fond memories of a vrml model with textured surfaces
| distributed as an .exe for unreal engine. Flights through the
| inferior and up into the vaults.
|
| I still have the exe but it seems to be very fussy about running
| and I haven't managed to make a virtual Windows it will tolerate.
|
| https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/throwback-thursday-vr-notre-d...
| DiscourseFan wrote:
| I had the privilege of seeing the old Notre Dame right before it
| burned. It was very cool, but the new one looks like an
| obsessional desire to remain true to the old form. At one point
| there was talk of Gehry redesigning it: that would've been
| interesting! Because when the Notre Dame was rebuilt last, it
| reflected the architectural limits of its time, the height of the
| medieval ability and imagination. It is strange to simply
| replicate that today, when we could do so much more, when the
| Sagrada Familia, for instance, represents with more force the
| modern condition.
| aubanel wrote:
| Why would you want Notre Dame to represent modern condition ?
| I'm very happy it was not the way you suggest, because that
| would have been a high risk of getting a ugly/huge/provocative
| addition by a modern fame-craving architect, a la Le Corbusier
| or Jean Nouvel.
|
| This is a 1000 years old church that has hosted France's
| history, not a company office in Manhattan.
| kmlx wrote:
| an argument could be made that this was a once in a few
| generations chance to do something different, or at least
| change/add to the existing design. another argument is that
| the building saw many changes from ~1180 to today, so change
| was actually part of the history of the building.
| wqaatwt wrote:
| > to do something different
|
| Entirely just to do something different? Or for any actual
| reason?
|
| I mean things like:
| https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/france-notre-dame-
| gree...
|
| are just outright plain ugly due to many reasons and this
| is one of the nicer looking alternative proposals that I
| could find.
| DiscourseFan wrote:
| If there's one reason the French can't compete in the
| modern economy its because they are so painfully
| conservative in their culture. Elon Musk might be a cook
| with reactionary tendencies but he is a far more
| imaginary cook than anything the French can come up with.
| Did it really all end in 1848?
| kmlx wrote:
| they cancelled the design competition and went with an
| identical reconstruction:
| https://www.thelocal.fr/20200710/macron-gives-blessing-
| to-re...
|
| part of the reason was to have it ready for the olympics
| since a design competition would take a long time.
| whazor wrote:
| The original creators would have intended the cathedral to be
| grandest as possible.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| That would have cost probably even more than restoring it.
| It might have been extremely criticized by the public, as a
| funding grave, a bottomless pit swallowing a lot of funding
| for foreseeable future. The grandest these days is ... very
| grand. So grand, that there is no other building worldwide
| achieving it yet. We have learned a lot and would be
| capable of a lot, if there was a need to.
| DiscourseFan wrote:
| >there is no other building worldwide achieving it yet
|
| The Sagrada Familia, which is nearly complete.
| DiscourseFan wrote:
| There are many catacombs in Paris. Nobody knows how deep the
| system goes. They were there before Haussmann, before the
| Normans, before the Goths, before the Romans, perhaps even
| before the Gauls. Your idea of what is French, however, is
| not what is buried underneath in the collective
| unconsciousness of the city, what supports it, but instead
| the reproduction of what people want to believe represents
| the city. But the Notre Dame no longer exists, it was a
| symbol of the power of a Medieval state. Paris today is a
| city of malls, broad avenues and apartments. We kid ourselves
| to believe that putting it back will "continue" its history:
| the history is buried under the immediately visible surface,
| its waiting for you to get lost in it. If we could build
| something that might unearth that history, perhaps it might
| be possible to begin to remake the city of Paris once again.
| profsummergig wrote:
| I read somewhere that the catacombs were the result of
| needing cemetery land for building on.
|
| What an effort that must have been! Convincing people that
| their ancestors could be extracted from the ground and
| stored as skeletons in caves underground. What a massive
| amount of land that must have freed up!
| DiscourseFan wrote:
| Def not what really happened, since the arrangement down
| there more closely resembles macabre interior decorations
| than any reasonable funerary arrangements. The catacombs
| are the result of Paris being built on top of numerous
| underground tunnels that have existed at least since the
| Roman era but were massively expanded in medieval times.
| aubanel wrote:
| I'v been a lot down the Catacombs, and still go sometimes,
| but I think you have a too grandiose view of their
| significance.
|
| Their most ancient existence is as stone carries, the
| storage of bones only started late, in the XVIIIth century.
|
| They never really held big significance for Parisians.
|
| Source: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carri%C3%A8res_sout
| erraines_...
| arnaudsm wrote:
| Modernizing was the least anachronistic option indeed!
| Cathedrals used to evolve and expand over time. Now they are
| frozen in time. Just like the political state of the church.
|
| Major conservative donors blocked any attempt of modernization
| of Notre Dame. They insisted on reusing lead for the roofing.
| Highly inflammable wood for the hidden frame.
| atombender wrote:
| I'm a big fan of modern architecture, and I understand where
| you're coming from. That said, I think the main argument for
| sticking to the traditional design that architectural
| consistency trumps modernism.
|
| There are countless examples of old buildings being retrofitted
| with a modern one, and it rarely works well. You usually end up
| with this kind of cyberpunk Borg look of old tech merging with
| new tech, with some futuristic augmentation sticking out like a
| sore thumb rather than blending in organically.
|
| Of course, maybe someone could have come up with something that
| would have worked, if given time. The one design submission I
| quite liked was Vincent Callebaut's faceted glass roof and
| spire, but the other submissions were not great.
|
| The Sagrada Familia is church built completely from scratch, so
| it's not really a fair comparison. It's also not a _modern_
| design; Gaudi was pretty unique even in his time, but design
| was ultimately a product of a particular age.
| RadiozRadioz wrote:
| Wow that's great! I'll be totally honest, I completely forgot
| that fire happened until now. It was really big news and at the
| time I thought it would be the defining moment of 2019, then
| COVID happened and I pretty much forgot anything else that had
| happened that year.
| nikolay wrote:
| This modernization ruined it. I've seen it in 2000, I have no
| interest to see this "restoration".
| mocamoca wrote:
| I'm french. Live in Paris. I do not understand the excitement the
| world has for Notre Dame. Question for you, reader: what does the
| fire and/or the rebuild means to you? Why do you care?
| ghaff wrote:
| For a lot of cultural/literary reasons, I think it's just
| iconic in a way that many other (at least equally beautiful)
| cathedrals--that most people probably couldn't even name, even
| the ones in Paris--are not.
| snakeyjake wrote:
| I consider it to be a more recent (but still very old) entry in
| a category of human constructions that also includes the
| Parthenon, the Colosseum, the Taj Mahal, Angkor Wat, Machu
| Picchu, and Stonehenge.
| dmoo wrote:
| I visited Notre Dame the first time I was in Paris, stood in
| the queue, climbed the stairs and took the photos everyone
| takes and have positive associations of the trip. The age,
| location and the view all help make nice memories that I guess
| many visitors feel. Victor Hugo & Disney probably add to that
| for others.
| daghamm wrote:
| If you are in Paris, there are probably 10 other places with
| more historical relevance.
|
| Notre Dame got to hold the French record for number of selfie
| sticks per m^2.
| sneak wrote:
| Reminder: the original burned down because of cigarette smoking.
| zawaideh wrote:
| Meanwhile Israel is destroying churches and mosques much older
| than notre dame and the world shrugs..
| hilbert42 wrote:
| It's just so great to know Notre Dame been restored successfully.
|
| Decades ago I took a tour into roof/rafters and I took many
| photographs because I was interested in the woodworking and
| construction. I'd dearly love to do that tour again and compare
| the old with the new.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-08 23:02 UTC)