There are no easy answers to questions surrounding the restoration of Notre Dame de Paris. For a start, those seeking a faithful recreation of the cathedral’s wooden roof and spire will need to source over 1,300 giant oak trees. According to UC Berkeley, this amounts to the equivalent to 52 acres of trees from dense woodland, which is a natural resource lacking in France.
The restoration team will also be acutely aware of wider structural issues brought about by saving a largely limestone structure that has undergone the rigours of extreme heat and the brave attentions of the Paris Fire Brigade. Such a combination of extreme heat and water can lead to calcification and weakening of the limestone, which will need replacing.
Then there’s the small matter of gathering those with an intimate knowledge of gothic and medieval architecture to oversee the considerable task of restoring Notre Dame de Paris.
Andrew Tallon of Vassar College performed a complete 3D laser scan of the cathedral before his passing in November 2018, and this could prove invaluable regardless of the architectural style – and methods used – in Notre Dame de Paris’ restoration.
But what do Engineer readers think about rebuilding damaged sections of the cathedral? According to 41 per cent of 735 respondents, the structure should look as if it’s medieval, but modern techniques and materials to recreate this look should be hidden. A third (33 per cent) wish to see a faithful recreation of what was lost, followed by 18 per cent who favour completely and visibly contemporary structures. Eight per cent opted for ‘none of the above’.
In the Comments that followed, James Stewart wrote suggested that there are enough oak trees in Texas to build Notre Dame 10 times over.
Peter added: “Laminated oak beams can be reproduced to any length, any angle and any size. It would be very easy to reproduce the roof to original specs. The cost however would be another matter.”
“The 19thC tower was originally intended to show off what the very original cathedral designers would have done had they’d had the technology to do so,” added Jon. “With that in mind, I think a new tower should be using cutting edge materials to make something beautiful and delicate that will last centuries. Carbon fibre, glass, titanium… It could look amazing.”
Ian Buglass chipped in with a suggestion that the site is levelled with a school or hospital built in its place.
What do you think? Keep the conversation alive by leaving a comment below, but familiarise yourselves with our guidelines for the content of comments before submitting.
Two important aspects I believe; 1. The funds should come from the Catholic Church and the sudden recent donations either given back or diverted to restoring nature. 2. There should not be any felling of oak trees to replace that which was burnt.
The Catholic Church doesn’t own Notre-Dame; it’s owned by the French state.
Demolish it and build a school or a hospital.
It is a very complex topic that cannot be simplified in a few lines. My opinion is that a monument like Notre Dame should undergo a critical restoration.
It’s not just Catholics who visit –and marvel at–at Notre Dame. The stained glass is quite wonderful……..breathtaking almost, in its magnificence. There is no need to be a Christian to appreciate the irreplaceable structure that it is. Why there should is needed to replace those lost in the fire-it’s not a crowded place as England is. Just drive down the centre. Medieval religous buildings are history writ large and were built by the efforts and offerings of the population of the period, willingly given in their gods name, in a lost time. I am not religous in the slightest-but I know a work of irreplaceable art when I see one
I agree. Although the stained glass at Sainte-Chappelle is even better, in my opinion.
@John Kent: Perhaps not felling oaks in England, but France is felling oaks all the time for new wine barrels, surely you jest. By the way, we have enough oaks in Texas to build Notre Dame (and stone) over again 10 times.
We are all entitles to our opinions, but it is a building, owned by the Catholic Church in France. Although it will cost a lot to rebuild it, that will be tiny compared to their annual budgets. In fact some people might say it will boost their economy because of the employment it will create.
We need to leave them to get on with the job as indeed they didn’t interfere with the restoration of Windsor Castle. I have every confidence they will do an excellent job.
As I said above, it isn’t owned by the Catholic Church.
P.S. The more oak trees it takes to rebuild it, the better for the environment.
People used to be worried that the navy were consuming all our oak forests, but that caused them to be replanted as a matter of urgency. Now that oak is a luxury, not a necessity, there are hardily oak forests. If oak is necessary for restoration work, it will only increase the number of oak trees in the long term.
There are better things to spend such large sums of money on than restoring such an edifice.
We need investment in eco projects not buildings which serve little purpose.
It’s part of the worlds heritage, I’m not religious but it should be fully restored and should use Frence Oak.
Too much of Western mankind is obsessed with looking backwards for precedent, rather than forwards with inspiration. How else to those in power -the rich, in-place and powerful or RIPs as I call them retain that power? That said, I subscribe to its repair, albeit with modern techniques applicable. My post on your ‘sword’ piece might be relevant!
Everyone has the right to spend their own, legally acquired money any way they wish, so the fact donors have voluntarily raised the funds to restore Notre-Dame is fine by me. Despite President Macron’s promise to rebuild in 5 years, perhaps there is nevertheless time to have a design competition? Any oak used in the restoration will at least be sequestered carbon – hopefully for centuries to come, as I’m sure whatever the final design is, it will contain a state-of-the-art sprinkler system!
Rebuild it as a mirror of its former self, but use modern techniques where feasible to save money and time, ie use laser 3D stone cutters rather than hand carving each piece. Keep the trendy modern architects well away – if they want to build a cathedral on three legs with white windows go and do it somewhere else. As for the Catholic Church – of course they should contribute to the costs, but as has been said they don’t own it or have exclusivity so let them share the costs with anyone else who wants to contribute to this. And I agree about using oak – its a renewable material after all. Five years though – we shall see.
Laminated oak beams can be reproduced to any length ,any angle and any size.
It would be very easy to reproduce the roof to original specs .
The cost however would be another matter.
First of all; why was there no automatic sprinkler system put in place to prevent this happening. The Glasgow museum went up twice during restoration work. No one seems to learn from previous disasters like this.
Second, it should be restored to it’s previous condition to show the previous technology in building such huge monuments and show what the engineers of that era could accomplish. After it has been restored it should also have modern fire detection systems put in place to prevent this happening again, as should all similar buildings around the world.
They must be preserved for all to see in the future!
Such a fuss about Notre Dame. I feel sorry for the people of Christchurch, NZ, they lost their cathedral and have received no help to rebuild it – hypocrisy or what ?
Let the idle rich, the church and the coffin Dodgers fund Notre Dame’s rebuild, there should be no state money.
First, whether one has religious beliefs or not, the important point is that the Cathedrals in France belong to the State, not the Church.
The vast wealth of the humble Church is not directly the point, but it could certainly afford to fix Notre Dame many times over.
As with all cultural buildings, funding has been reduced and therefore sprinklers have not been fitted, despite the lessons of similar fires at The Glasgow School of Art, Windsor, York etc. We have to decide what matters, our culture, whether patrimony, heritage or contemporary structures or other subjects which matter to us such as defence, airports , railways or the Environment.
We are apparently content to waste vast sums on projects such as Garden Bridge reports, mainline railways, airports etc, yet we then complain about air quality, lack of soul in our cities, leading to crime etc. and let our own back yard decline.
There is room for both old and new; I am pretty sure that the original Cathedral didn’t have electricity or running water, but the poll selections are not exclusive; new techniques can be included, they should not impinge on the outward appearance , but blend with the existing structure.
Regarding Ian Buglass’ comment about demolishing it and building a hospital or school, these only last 20 years with current designs, so what will replace that building in 20 years? There are plenty of other places to put such buildings.
To get back on topic – the 19thC tower was originally intended to show off what the very original cathedral designers would have done had they’d had the technology to do so. With that in mind, I think a new tower should be using cutting edge materials to make something beautiful and delicate that will last centuries. Carbon fibre, glass, titanium… It could look amazing.
“No state money?” … et voilà ! https://www.publicfinanceinternational.org/news/2019/04/notre-dame-donations-expected-exceed-funds-needed-restoration
I must be missing your point, because none of the funding mentioned in your link is state money. the City of Paris and Catholic foundations are mnentioned.
Totaly agree with this comment, the coffers should support the refurbishment which in my opinion should be a modern structure celebrating modern materials – preferably recycled.
What do you have against people being free to spend their money as they see fit? Also why are you suggesting that said money is diverted away from what the donors wanted it to go towards?
Do you work in government?
I think that’s their point. To all the people complaining about state funds being used. Well, the solution may have presented itself.
Could always hold a referendum to decide….what could possibly go wrong