Notre Dame

[xelasnave]

What will it cost assuming we use only Australian tradies.

I cant find a peep out of head office. .. maybe they will wave the bosses fee to perform the openning ceromony.

Bless each stone and charcoal beam ..anything in the pile and auction each bit off on ebay.
Alex

[julianh72 (Julian)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

And who will pay..the church? Mmmm was it insured? If not why not?
Should the world fund the fixup or only the church.

Well, the fire was probably an "Act of God", which the Insurers would use to deny liability - but the Church has a direct line of communication with God, so they will probably just get God to pay for the rebuild!

[Wavytone]

Dont suppose most of you are aware that in the 19th century Notre Dame was much unloved, not considered important and in disrepair - to the point demolition was imminent. The publication of Victor Hugo's "Hunchback of Notre Dame" brought it back into the popular culture of the period and it was restored and remains since.

I'm ambivalent about it. Cultural icon of Paris, yes. But also an ugly old pile, nonetheless.

I just wish people would think of the future and what we could make, instead of trying to reconstruct the past imagined through rose-coloured glasses. This applies to architecture as well as the environment.

Think Different™

[PCH (Paul)]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

Dont suppose most of you are aware that in the 19th century Notre Dame was much unloved, not considered important and in disrepair - to the point demolition was imminent. The publication of Victor Hugo's "Hunchback of Notre Dame" brought it back into the popular culture of the period and it was restored and remains since.

I'm ambivalent about it. Cultural icon of Paris, yes. But also an ugly old pile, nonetheless.

I just wish people would think of the future and what we could make, instead of trying to reconstruct the past imagined through rose-coloured glasses. This applies to architecture as well as the environment.

Think Different™

Wow! I’m so glad you’re only a distant outsider and not on the planning committee. “Ugly old pile...” is that what you think of it now, or your opinion of it before the fire? Either way, you couldn’t be more wrong in my opinion, and thankfully most other peoples’ As I understand it.

[Wavytone]

I've visited it 3 times.

While I do agree most religions perform social functions quite well that secular organisations struggle with, I'm not overly impressed, frankly, by the way various faiths squandered significant money drawn from their parishioners on monuments, religious icons, gilded decorations and on themselves, rather than applying rather more of it to the benefit of their parishioners.

There are more than enough gothic piles remaining - including several of rather more architectural significance than Notre Dame.

As I said, consider what could be, not what was. Forget about trying to recreate the past - if you really want to do that, eschew all that is modern - starting with the clothes on your back, electronics, cars, and return to living like nomads with little more than animals, skins and wooden tools.

[mental4astro (Alexander)]

Don't get too teary eyed about the old building. It was revolutionary for its time, and its existence was born out of MANY failed attempts as the design evolved over many years with other similar structures, at the cost of many hundreds of lives as structure after structure failed and collapsed. Notre Dame has a lot of blood on its floor too - work safety 1000 years ago when it was started was not what it is today.

I see it as a step backwards to attempt to reproduce an obsolete design, instead of ceasing the opportunity to create a new structure with better building practices that also reflects the ideas of today, exactly the same way that the original did in its own time.

It is an absurdity to remake a flawed structure by todays standards, only to satisfy the melancholy of the heartache we feel today.

Don't get me wrong, I was in awe of the old building after studying its architecture in high school, and of its importance not just in history but in art history too. And of course I also see the same lofty elements in our own St Mary's cathedral in Sydney, and I would also feel gutted if it was destroyed. But time for the Phoenix to rise again.

[raymo]

I have visited many of the world's most striking, ugly, beautiful, overrated, and underrated religious buildings, some of which are sublime; but Notre Dame is most definitely not [ IMHO] one of them. It was an inspired choice
for the hunchback to inhabit. I also am an atheist, but an admirer of beautiful buildings.
raymo

[astroron (Ron)]

I am in the camp of not spending 1 Euro on this building while there are thousands of Sick,Homeless,and destitute people in the world.
We have famine's massive drought's throughout Africa etc.
I wish there was such generosity when thousands to millions of people are starving throughout the world.
These type of buildings do not glorify "God" they glorify mans vanity and
Ego.
Henry the eight had the right idea,just go round Britain and see his handy work.
I don't see anyone rebuilding those churches.
Just my 2 penny worth.
Cheers

[RyanJones]

As I read though others replies I find myself agreeing with all sides of the discussion. So my views are as follows;

Is/was Notre Dame an exquisite example of gothic architecture ? I'd say no. But I would also say it has archtecural significance in its place. Do I think it can now be recreated with respect to its original form ? I'd say almost certainly not. I would argue that the craftsmanship used to join the timbers alone would now no longer pass building codes, despite standing for 100s of years. The irony of that can't be missed . So my question is if it can't be built exactly the same, then where is its significance ? I must then agree that a modern reconstruction is the way to go.

Nicks comments have really struck a chord with me also and he voices a belief that I've been developing my self a lot recently. I think we concentrate, in all facets of life, far too much on either the preservation or a return to the past. Moving forward and creating new history should be our concentration if we wish to continue to evolve as a species.

Finally to Ron. I'm sorry but this is one comment I can't agree with. Unless you are living in self imposed poverty until the poor folk in Africa are on a level playing field then please be careful where you throw stones in your glass house. It is mearly a nice thought to think that Africa could be saved by money alone. I would argue that 99% of " money " given to Africa is given to make the payer feel good about them selves rather than the recipient. No different an ego driven behaviour than building an extravagant monument to celebrate a belief system that professes to care for all man kind.

[Ukastronomer (Jeremy)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I suppose it would be rebuilt even if there were only two stones left standing.

But then one wonders why if everything has to be built afresh is there any point.

The questions that present...
Replace old with new materials and method or build it again exactly as it would have been done 800 years ago...use steel or wood...the window glass? make it like they did originally or use modern methods...or make the ruins safe and treat them as a reminder of how it once was...

Its a funny thing..I am not religious and think spending time energy and money on religious building to be an absolute waste and yet for this building I find myself leaning to rebuild it using ancient tools methods and materials.

And who will pay..the church? Mmmm was it insured? If not why not?
Should the world fund the fixup or only the church.

And how much money to repair it...heck if broad band cost billions you could think it could be more than that☺
Alex

Just MY opinion but why should anyone other than the church pay.

I have home insurance/ car insurance/ camera and so on, if I lose anything it pays, if I didn't have insurance TOUGH on ME why should anyone else pay.

I see the French government has pledged millions, and yet they have

"Homelessness in France is a significant social issue, one that is estimated to affect over 140,000 people, including 30,000 children"

Who needs the money more, sorry not the Church

[skysurfer]

Originally Posted by mental4astro

Don't get too teary eyed about the old building. It was revolutionary for its time, and its existence was born out of MANY failed attempts as the design evolved over many years with other similar structures, at the cost of many hundreds of lives as structure after structure failed and collapsed. Notre Dame has a lot of blood on its floor too - work safety 1000 years ago when it was started was not what it is today.

I see it as a step backwards to attempt to reproduce an obsolete design, instead of ceasing the opportunity to create a new structure with better building practices that also reflects the ideas of today, exactly the same way that the original did in its own time.

It is an absurdity to remake a flawed structure by todays standards, only to satisfy the melancholy of the heartache we feel today.

Don't get me wrong, I was in awe of the old building after studying its architecture in high school, and of its importance not just in history but in art history too. And of course I also see the same lofty elements in our own St Mary's cathedral in Sydney, and I would also feel gutted if it was destroyed. But time for the Phoenix to rise again.

Rebuild is not the biggest issue, there is already 800 million Euros (A$1.2 billion) funding offered by billionaires. But should it be ?
Well, it is one of the major heritages in the world. But with modern methods, steel structures for the roof and the spire, and can yet be restored that it looks almost the same.
I'd rather spend this money to this than the very many prestige projects of governments, big companies, like the football stadium in Qatar to be used only once, or large airports which are rebuilt and even Berlin Airport which is left abandoned for years and is doubtful it will ever be opened. Or the prestigious EMAAR projects in Dubai for large buildings and penthouses for the super rich.

[Malcolm]

Anyone know if the Hunchback got out ok?

[xelasnave]

I think all funds should be invested in time travel research that hopefully will produce a means to go back in time and prevent the fire in the first place and when that is done to then go back in time and prevent the church rejecting the work of a certain astronomer and keeping him on the black list for centuries..heck there is so much to tidy up one could probably rank building saving way down on the list.

And although Ron is somewhat idealistic I think his sentiment is the most decent that I can think of...and I recall what a wise man told my next door neighbour when he was confronted with a difficult swiming pool instalation.."there is nothing that a dollar cant fix" and I expect although the problems of poverty involve many issues I would be surprised if its irradication is beyond the capabilities of humans but it is something that probably requires much more than prayer and charity.

I cant help but wonder if military budgets or the budgets associated with sports could solve poverty..If F1or football, for starters, could be directed to solve the problem of poverty we would I suspect have the problem at least a little more under control.
Maybe address the fact that the worlds wealth is in the hands of a very select few.

However idealisms prime requirement is that it will always be under funded.

Still the church remains silient and one can only wonder why.

There are those who will say "of course because they dont want to be drawn into any question of funding but I say they are probably just too busy engaged in prayer to save the souls of sinners.

We can only take the bright side which will be different for each person ..for me I must say one less church is a good start, for contractors there is the hope of a life long contract for the poor there is the hope that the church can save their soul and that the after life it does promise is not just some unfounded statement designed to keep them from wanting the basic necessities of life.

I wonder how these matters are dealt with by other species on other planets...

I wonder if they have churches.

I wonder if bovins are in control and humans are raised as their food sourse.
I wonder what to have for breakfast.
Time for some George Carlin as well.
Alex

[mynameiscd (Andy)]

I had goosebumps watching the fire destroying history like thst. I have been a stone mason for 37 years and have seen a lot of history destroyed or modified which ultimately shortens the life of these buildings.
I was lucky enough to be taught by some real masters and carry that tradition on esp on the lime mortar side of it.
The heat from the fire would have fractured the stone and also turn the mortar to powder.
I only get to work on buildings 150 years old so what a privilege it would be to work on such a restoration like this.
Maybe i should learn french, I think they'll need all the help they can get.
Cheers
Andy

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by RyanJones

As I read though others replies I find myself agreeing with all sides of the discussion. So my views are as follows;

Is/was Notre Dame an exquisite example of gothic architecture ? I'd say no. But I would also say it has archtecural significance in its place. Do I think it can now be recreated with respect to its original form ? I'd say almost certainly not. I would argue that the craftsmanship used to join the timbers alone would now no longer pass building codes, despite standing for 100s of years. The irony of that can't be missed . So my question is if it can't be built exactly the same, then where is its significance ? I must then agree that a modern reconstruction is the way to go.

Nicks comments have really struck a chord with me also and he voices a belief that I've been developing my self a lot recently. I think we concentrate, in all facets of life, far too much on either the preservation or a return to the past. Moving forward and creating new history should be our concentration if we wish to continue to evolve as a species.

Finally to Ron. I'm sorry but this is one comment I can't agree with. Unless you are living in self imposed poverty until the poor folk in Africa are on a level playing field then please be careful where you throw stones in your glass house. It is mearly a nice thought to think that Africa could be saved by money alone. I would argue that 99% of " money " given to Africa is given to make the payer feel good about them selves rather than the recipient. No different an ego driven behaviour than building an extravagant monument to celebrate a belief system that professes to care for all man kind.

I would love to know how you come to your 99%?
The difference between the people and the stone,is one is a living breathing creature not an inanimate object.

[RyanJones]

Originally Posted by astroron

I would love to know how you come to your 99%?
The difference between the people and the stone,is one is a living breathing creature not an inanimate object.

99% is derived from a figure of speach. And you've missed the point I was making. What I'm saying is that we all have our indulgences. Us with our astro gear probably more than others. I think it's wrong to condemn people for wanting to spend money ( regardless of the amount ) on a building rather than the unfortunate people of the world when we ourselves are spending money on life's pleasures instead of the poor.

[Rob_K]

Just to correct a misunderstanding that appears consistently through this thread - the Roman Catholic church does not own the Notre Dame Cathedral (and indeed hasn't through a number of phases of the cathedral's history). It's now owned by the French Ministry of Culture and they are responsible for its maintenance. That is, the French people own it!

However due to the high cost of its maintenance, the Friends of Notre-Dame de Paris organisation was set up as a charity by the Archbishop of Paris & the diocese to raise money for its upkeep.

Cheers -

[AndyG (Andy)]

Originally Posted by mynameiscd

I only get to work on buildings 150 years old so what a privilege it would be to work on such a restoration like this.
Andy

I like that way of thinking. It must be a whole other level of appreciation you have, being in the trade.

Originally Posted by astroron

I would love to know how you come to your 99%?
The difference between the people and the stone,is one is a living breathing creature not an inanimate object.

It may appear mean, or inhuman, but it's very easy to value a stone over a human being. A collection of stones can shelter my family, or others inportant to me. "starving Africans" (or starving anybody), are irrelevant to me, when I work 3 jobs just to feed my family and pay the bank until I'm 65 to retain my own form of shelter. Perhaps people further in life's journey, who have overcome this, can relax and spare concern for people they'll never meet. Perhaps I envy that. Not sure, only time will tell.

Originally Posted by Ukastronomer

Just MY opinion but why should anyone other than the church pay.

I have home insurance/ car insurance/ camera and so on, if I lose anything it pays, if I didn't have insurance TOUGH on ME why should anyone else pay.

The largest company on earth could pay cash for 2 Notre Dames tommorrow (one just as a spare), and then some. Needless to say, they won't. I wouln't be surprised if deep down, the Catholic Church underwrites one of the world's primary insurance underwriters. Where are you Clive? He'd know the answers .

As Mental said, I personally hope they build something beautiful, that makes history from today. Maybe a fusion of Stone, wood, steel, glass, and graphene...

Perhaps it could be multi function, like a church/school/soup kitchen, meeting the needs of many. Even if the "social welfare" geared sections were in the basement, as to not compete with the tourist driven sections above.

[xelasnave]

Its a pity, maybe maybe not, that thru history it is the temples that are the best examples of building art and organisation...you would think that such a role would fall to universities or libraries.
Now would that not be better... a promotion and exhaltation of learning and the accumulation of tested knowledge.
If aliens visit you can bet they followed such an approach and that is why they became so advanced that they could visit a planet that places superstition before science and education.
So knock it down and put up a library using the best of modern technique materials and talent that looks to the bright future rather than remind us of our superstitious beginings.
There can be a place for religion but perhaps that place should be in the privacy of ones home.
Alex

Alex

[AndyG (Andy)]

Originally Posted by Rob_K

Just to correct a misunderstanding that appears consistently through this thread - the Roman Catholic church does not own the Notre Dame Cathedral

Thanks Rob, didn't know that. I guess it's just a historical and cultural association, rather than a legal title of ownership/responsibility.