Aerial Photos of Notre-Dame de Paris

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 04/17/2019 at 14:10 • Filed to: None

4

32

Looks like more damage to the vaults than previously thought. Looks like at least one in the nave, the large one in the crossing under the spire, and another on the north side of the transept.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

For Sweden > ttyymmnn 04/17/2019 at 14:14

2

This should make the upgrades easier:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

For Sweden > ttyymmnn 04/17/2019 at 14:16

6

PS here’s a closer view from a firefighter

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

facw > ttyymmnn 04/17/2019 at 14:17

1

Definitely looks like the one in the nave was caused by the top of the spire falling, while the one in the crossing would be the rest of it coming down. Who knows what’s up with the North transept, maybe that vault was just a bit weaker.

I think this is actually encouraging as it seems to show there’s no holes in the vault between these three we’ve seen in the interior photos. I imagine they’ll want to reinforce the remaining vaults with temporary interior scaffolding  as the next step, to decrease the chance that any more fall when removing the burnt timbers or due to weather.

ttyymmnn > For Sweden 04/17/2019 at 14:27

0

Wow. I think I stood in that very place when we visited. 

ttyymmnn > facw 04/17/2019 at 14:28

0

Check out the video that ForSweden posted here.

farscythe - makin da cawfee! > ttyymmnn 04/17/2019 at 14:29

1

dutch news said about 70% of the interior was toast

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > ttyymmnn 04/17/2019 at 14:30

2

A picture of many French hearts today...

I look forward to seeing the proposals for the rebuilding effort. A project like this will bring out the very best from the best architects in the world.

Will be interesting to see if they go the way of the Bundestag, mixing ancient with modern, or stay close to the original. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > For Sweden 04/17/2019 at 14:30

1

Ugh, no. 

For Sweden > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/17/2019 at 14:34

1

I can understand that. The old-news towers do not fit with what a hip urban neighborhood should be. Something like this would better reflect modern audiences.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > For Sweden 04/17/2019 at 14:41

0

[puke]

ttyymmnn > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/17/2019 at 14:42

0

I would imagine they will keep it as close to original as possible, as far as they can determine what was original. That building has changed a lot in the last few hundred years, at least on the inside. That spire that fell was added just over a hundred years ago.

I can’t imagine they’ll rebuild the roof with more timbers. Hell, they probably can’t find timbers that size any more. I would hope they would go with some sort of metal construction, perhaps aluminum. Steel would probably be too heavy. 

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > ttyymmnn 04/17/2019 at 14:57

0

Yeah, I read that there just aren’t trees that big enough around to harvest anymore. Crazy. They said the trees they used must’ve been hundreds of years old.

ttyymmnn > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/17/2019 at 15:08

3

To kick off the project [to build the cathedral] , workers cleared 21 hectares of oak. Each beam of the intricate wooden cross-work was drawn from a different tree: estimated at 13,000 trees in total. To reach the heights the carpenters needed to build the structure, those trees would likely have been 300 or 400 years old, meaning they would have sprouted out of the ground in the eighth or ninth centuries . ( CNN )

“Hundreds” is an understatement. For some perspective, one hectare is about the size of a modern soccer/rugby pitch. I don’t believe hardwoods like that exist anywhere these days, at least not in that quantity.

For Sweden > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 04/17/2019 at 15:11

2

My guess is a steel frame with a wood or copper roof.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > ttyymmnn 04/17/2019 at 15:16

1

I’m guessing all that are left are protected. 

facw > ttyymmnn 04/17/2019 at 15:16

1

They’ve mentioned a contest for the new spire, which suggests they aren’t just going to try to make things exactly as they were.

Looking at Chartes yesterday, I saw this picture of the roof space there:

I think that might actually be a 19th century remodel, though you could imagine even a more modern take (with firewalls separating the vault bays.) Combined with a stone or metal roof, it would be a lot more fire resistant.

ttyymmnn > For Sweden 04/17/2019 at 15:20

2

I wonder if steel would be too heavy. I’m sure they’ve got top men working on it right now . Top. Men.

ttyymmnn > facw 04/17/2019 at 15:21

1

Looks like the inside of a Zeppelin. Any duralumin around these days?

facw > ttyymmnn 04/17/2019 at 15:22

0

OK, temporary plan, fly our blimps over to France and anchor them above the cathedral to help protect against the elements until a temporary roof can be put in place.

ttyymmnn > facw 04/17/2019 at 15:25

0

Trump tweeted that they should have flown water bombers over the cathedral to put out the fire. I can only imagine what hitting that ancient structure with a few tons of water at once would have done to it.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

facw > ttyymmnn 04/17/2019 at 15:26

1

Also, on the topic of roof timbers, I know on a smaller scale, this was an issue for the B&O Museum roundhouse after its roof collapsed. For that they ended using a sort of plywood timber, a composite of multiple sheets, in order to get the strength and appearance of larger planks which could no longer be sourced, certainly not economically.

facw > ttyymmnn 04/17/2019 at 15:29

0

Yep, if the weight of the water didn’t bring it down, the thermal shock to the hot rocks may well have done the job. But, hey, even a very stable genius is bound to be wrong occasionally ...

Cé hé sin > ttyymmnn 04/17/2019 at 15:33

3

It could have been worse, the area of vaulting over the nave that collapsed is less than I thought from some of the interior pictures. In the past, things often have been worse. ND de Paris had one of few surviving mediaeval wooden roofs and there’s a reason for that - most of the rest went on fire, often more than once. In the past year or so I’ve been in the cathedrals at Reims and Chartres, both of which look suitably old, yet Chartres was burnt out in 1836 and replaced by steel while Reims was burnt during WW1 and restored using concrete over a 20 odd year period. Reims was in a terrible state with all of the vaulting down, all the glass gone and most of the furnishings burnt. Surprisingly the concrete roof is lighter than its predecessor and less surprisingly there are no specific plans to protect it from fire.

Reims now

Paris, before. Some of the beams were a thousand years old.

The plan of action in Paris is to stabilise the gable end of the northern transept (which is a fancy way of saying dismantle and remove it) and take the debris off th e remaining vaults after which conservators will go in to remove paintings and oth er works of art.

ttyymmnn > Cé hé sin 04/17/2019 at 15:42

2

We went to Reims back in 2000, and I was absolutely stunned by that space. I think more so than Notre-Dame. To stand in the same spot as Jeanne d’Arc was truly humbling. I was also somewhat more impressed by St. Denis, considering its importance in the history of Gothic architecture.

In the past, things often have been worse. ND de Paris had one of few surviving mediaeval wooden roofs and there’s a reason for that - most of the rest went on fire, often more than once.

This is a very important point. It’s really a wonder that Notre-Dame hadn’t gone the same route.

Cé hé sin > facw 04/17/2019 at 16:27

1

Yes, that’s steel following the fire of 1836 which was “ dû à la négligence de deux ouvriers plombiers” or due to the negligence of two lead workers who were working on the lead sheeting. The current roof is copper covered.

Cé hé sin > ttyymmnn 04/17/2019 at 16:28

1

Steel’s fine. It would be lighter than wood.

ttyymmnn > Cé hé sin 04/17/2019 at 16:28

0

Really? Interesting.

Cé hé sin > ttyymmnn 04/17/2019 at 16:35

1

It has! T here was a fire in the 13th century during building works which is why much of the timber dated from about 1220 even though the building was started in the 12th century.

Cé hé sin > ttyymmnn 04/17/2019 at 16:44

0

Steel itself is more dense (it doesn't float...) but you can use less of it so the structure is lighter. So is concrete, surprisingly.

ttyymmnn > Cé hé sin 04/17/2019 at 17:00

0

So is concrete, surprisingly.

As the Romans discovered.

Cé hé sin > ttyymmnn 04/17/2019 at 17:35

1

Indeed. They used this property to build the Pantheon in Rome which at the time had the largest unreinforced concrete dome in the world.

Two thousand odd years on, it still does.

f86sabre > facw 04/17/2019 at 18:58

0

I think they could do something new with the spire. Maybe roughly the  same  shape and size, but different materials.