Jump to content

Notre Dame is burning to the ground


Fakenews

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 308
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 minutes ago, NaptimeAgain said:

Personally I suspect fire is related to the renovation work. Not an uncommon cause. Welding or grinding sparks, electrical shorts, heat guns, halogen lights too close, tar fires, etc. And that wood has had centuries to get really dry.

I saw the renovation comments after my first thoughts. A Milwaukee church burned in the last 1/2 year for the same welding or grinding or such.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mainsheetsister said:

Lit a candle and said a Hail Mary there for Catherine last week.

 

56956524_342078029777084_2128957598626480128_n.jpg

56887168_339340340050632_6644275004882026496_n.jpg

57232201_309158246368314_633099147460739072_n.jpg

57032149_296809864547624_3830913719097884672_n.jpg

 

7 minutes ago, DA-WOODY said:

did you leave it on a wood sill or counter top ?

 

5 minutes ago, Rasputin22 said:

Woody, you have gone over the top with this...

Pretty sure MSG would consider it Funny (the post Not the Fire)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Nah, that's what they said about the White House.

nah bullshit, it's the composite of hundreds of years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DA-WOODY said:

 

 

Pretty sure MSG would consider it Funny (the post Not the Fire)

She would. 

She'd have told me that the fire was all my damn fault for leaving a fucking candle burning unattended. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very sad. But wood burns.

 I don't care about it's religious icon status. I really didn't think it was/is an attractive building, but I find it to be a great example of architectural/engineering exploration, and daring.... So..... I hope that it is rebuilt as close as possible to original. Certainly there are artisans all over the world who will now have an opportunity to show that the "old arts" are not mundane, or obsolete.

 I also think that the Vatican, and any other individual who wishes to donate, should cover the costs, not the entire population of France, the EU, or the world. This is after all..... A Catholic church.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NaptimeAgain said:

Personally I suspect fire is related to the renovation work. Not an uncommon cause. Welding or grinding sparks, electrical shorts, heat guns, halogen lights too close, tar fires, etc. And that wood has had centuries to get really dry.

Well, the French do have a rather casual attitude about electrical wiring.

The spire (or flechette) was rebuilt in the 19th Century by Violet le Duc after collapsing i 18th Century.  So this will be it's third incarnation.

In the meantime, Selma Hayek's husband has pledged 100,000,000 euros to help with the reconstruction.  Those dang Mexicans.  Always helping.  Have they no sense of their place?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

It's very sad. But wood burns.

 I don't care about it's religious icon status. I really didn't think it was/is an attractive building, but I find it to be a great example of architectural/engineering exploration, and daring.... So..... I hope that it is rebuilt as close as possible to original. Certainly there are artisans all over the world who will now have an opportunity to show that the "old arts" are not mundane, or obsolete.

 I also think that the Vatican, and any other individual who wishes to donate, should cover the costs, not the entire population of France, the EU, or the world. This is after all..... A Catholic church.

Well, aren't you special.  Bless your heart.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Well, aren't you special.  Bless your heart.

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Left Shift said:

It may take 50 years, however.  The current (disastrous) restoration was planned to take 25 years.  

Well it took almost 200 to build it so......

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Well it took almost 200 to build it so......

Well they used to do things correctly.... Now they rely on engineers....:P

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

I think it’s going to be redone in magnificent style.  Money will pour in from all over the world. In fact it already is.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/skbaer/notre-dame-fire-rebuild-pinault-donation-french-billionaire

I just hope Frank Gehry isn't involved.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

In the meantime, Selma Hayek's husband has pledged 100,000,000 euros to help with the reconstruction.  Those dang Mexicans.  Always helping.  Have they no sense of their place?

They say you can't buy your way into heaven, but damn, that has to be one hell of a down payment!

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

They say you can't buy your way into heaven, but damn, that has to be one hell of a down payment!

free dry storage parking in purgatory  

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

I think it’s going to be redone in magnificent style.  Money will pour in from all over the world. In fact it already is.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/skbaer/notre-dame-fire-rebuild-pinault-donation-french-billionaire

I'm sure it will.  But it will be a clash of pre-fire or post-fire.  I was there in '87.  It was a cold rainy day in October and I only shuffled through with the other huddled masses, lit two candles for my dad's parents, and shuffled out.  It was big, dark, and no more impressive than a half dozen churches I have been in.  The historical significance is immense and I respect it as such.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, VWAP said:

Frank could do a great job

He is also a sailo.... oh wait you are from pa, not relevant to you

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-ca-cm-frank-gehry-90th-birthday-20190221-story.html

Of all the starchitects on the planet, Frank Gehry should quite possibly be the first out in the first cut for this project.  (And if you've seen Frank Gehry's boat, you would weep for the waste of beautiful wood.)

I expect it will be a meticulous reconstruction.  This is a job not for an ego, but for an imaginative and skilled restoration architect.  I would hope that they don't fall into the trap of trying to insert "modern" elements like dreadful interior of the Musee d'Orsay, where Aulenti stuck in drywall shapes that were dated the minute they were installed.  

The French have plenty of design firepower of their own, but I might like to see what Renzo Piano would toss into the mix for subordinated supporting public structures. 

 

340px-Paryż_orsay.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, this morphs into a interesting discussion. So although I love architecture I know very little about it nor do I have any sense of architectural style. I look at something and appreciate it’s beauty but have no idea how they got there.......therefore the first question that comes up for me is....they know EXACTLY what it looked like....why wouldn’t they simply replicate it exactly? Seems like they simply need some engineering type folks familiar with building construction methods and modern materials etc. Not somebody to “improve” or “reimagine” the original. It seems quite different than “creating” something beautiful and appealing that’s “new”. That’s when you need and appreciate the starchitects. 

Am I missing something? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Point Break said:

Okay, this morphs into a interesting discussion. So although I love architecture I know very little about it nor do I have any sense of architectural style. I look at something and appreciate it’s beauty but have no idea how they got there.......therefore the first question that comes up for me is....they know EXACTLY what it looked like....why wouldn’t they simply replicate it exactly? Seems like they simply need some engineering type folks familiar with building construction methods and modern materials etc. Not somebody to “improve” or “reimagine” the original. 

Am I missing something? 

unless there is a whole lot of behind the scenes action (very likely) it is unlikely that they will be allowed to replace like with like.  Engineering standards etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding who should/can pay for a rebuild (if there is a rebuild..), can a fellow Frenchman correct me here? If I remember well, I believe that in France, the churches (the building themselves) are owned by the state, not the Catholic Church... A consequence of the French Revolution, when the Republique seized all belongings of the Catholic Church... and did not give it back. But on the other hand, it means it is the state that is responsible for the maintenance of all those old buildings.

Can someone please correct me if I am wrong?

 

I am not a pious person, but churches, by their beauty, and the amazing human endeavor they represent, always bring the Divine to light.

It is a sad, sad day...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Point Break said:

Okay, this morphs into a interesting discussion. So although I love architecture I know very little about it nor do I have any sense of architectural style. I look at something and appreciate it’s beauty but have no idea how they got there.......therefore the first question that comes up for me is....they know EXACTLY what it looked like....why wouldn’t they simply replicate it exactly? Seems like they simply need some engineering type folks familiar with building construction methods and modern materials etc. Not somebody to “improve” or “reimagine” the original. It seems quite different than “creating” something beautiful and appealing that’s “new”. That’s when you need and appreciate the starchitects. 

Am I missing something? 

It is possible to recreate the structure and form but the difficulty may lie in the sourcing of materials and in recreation of the crafts employed to construct the building originally.

One of the most interesting research projects I’ve been involved with was visiting Havana with a team of restoration specialists and learning  about the craft schools the government set up to train craftsmen in the 17th and 18th century building  technologies that built Old Havana dating back to 1650.  That’s what may be needed for Notre Dame.  But going back to the 13th Century.

Fortunately Paris is in a very inactive seismic zone, so contemporary bracing may not be involved.  Additional good news comes from the likelihood that the buttresses were not superheated and may not be compromised.

Would love to be involved but 0.00% chance of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well how about that. 

The medieval design seems to have saved most of the outer structure. It kinds of held itself up.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-16/notre-dame-medieval-design-innovation-saved-gothic-cathedral/11020228

In the end, Paris fire chief Jean-Claude Gallet and a French official said the cathedral's iconic towers had been saved, and authorities later confirmed the cathedral's structure was "saved from total destruction".

According to architectural historians, the cathedral's medieval stone vaults — which served as a buffer for the fire after it burned through the wooden roof — had a hand in this.

Innovation and exploration in the Middle Ages resulted in the creation of wider vaults that would better allow for elaborate windows than previous Romanesque churches, he explained.

 

"It was a time of a lot of structural experimentation as architects looked to increase the height of buildings, and the amount of light that could get in through bigger windows, and thankfully most of those vaults have held up well, even in Notre Dame today," Dr Bork said.

"When the spire crashed through [the cathedral], that was a problem obviously and in some places the fire got through, but most of the vaults seem to have survived, which is a testament to how well they were put together in the 12th century."

The general principle of a vault, Dr Bork explained, is the same as that behind an arch, which sees lots of stones that are relatively small work to span a large space.

"So, in Notre Dame, [these stones] cross the span which is about 14 metres across on the inside, and they're all essentially wedged together so that when gravity pulls down on each of those little stones, [the structure] is held into place by the friction of its neighbours in a kind of wedging action."

What this means, Dr Bork said, is that the complete arch or vault will weigh heavily down as well as pushing outwards, and this is where buttresses — which work to reinforce walls — come in to restrain the outward push.

Had Notre Dame not had these stone vaults, Dr Bork said it was "quite likely" we would be looking at an almost completely destroyed cathedral.

"The vaults are designed to be in dialogue with the buttressing system of the building … and if [Notre Dame] didn't have them, the buttresses would have just had brick walls and in cases where you just have a timber roof building and the roof burns off, frequently those walls will collapse."

Flames and smoke billow out as stone vaults are seen saving cathedral from total destruction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

$300 million in pledges from the wealthy French to rebuild. Remind me again why the ultra-rich are bad people?

Was there in March of 1995. Notre Dame was magnificent and it certainly had a scent of death about it. Incredible loss to the human race. May it rise again.

Saint Stephen shall remain, all he lost he shall regain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BillDBastard said:

 

Was there in March of 1995. Notre Dame was magnificent and it certainly had a scent of death about it. Incredible loss to the human race. May it rise again.

Saint Stephen shall remain, all he lost he shall regain.

It's not so bad

The vaulting saved most of the interior..Water damage..another matter.

https://www.theartnewspaper.com/comment/gothic-vaulting-saves-notre-dame-from-total-destruction

So far, it seems the fire has destroyed the roof, but, apart from the stone vaulted crossing which collapsed when the flèche above fell, the interior has not been scathed by fire. There will be, of course, considerable smoke and water damage and it will take years and decades to restore the roof. We have the 13th-century builders’ and masons’ stone vaulting to thank for the preservation of, among other things, the rose windows of the transepts and the statuary of the chancel, not to mention the structure of the church.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

I just hope Frank Gehry isn't involved.....

It’s inconceivable they wouldn’t rebuild as it was - the Germans did the same (with minimal additions) for their bombed out churches. Europeans (unlike Americans) revere heritage

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Point Break said:

Okay, this morphs into a interesting discussion. So although I love architecture I know very little about it nor do I have any sense of architectural style. I look at something and appreciate it’s beauty but have no idea how they got there.......therefore the first question that comes up for me is....they know EXACTLY what it looked like....why wouldn’t they simply replicate it exactly? Seems like they simply need some engineering type folks familiar with building construction methods and modern materials etc. Not somebody to “improve” or “reimagine” the original. It seems quite different than “creating” something beautiful and appealing that’s “new”. That’s when you need and appreciate the starchitects. 

Am I missing something? 

Sky boxes for corporate entities?  Concessions, memorabilia, etc.  It really should be branded so who will be the title sponsor?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Skilled craftspersons to replicate medieval construction don't come cheap, and aren't necessarily available in great numbers. Though this will take so long it may be worthwhile to train a generation locally. The minor 2011 earthquake that damaged the National Cathedral in Washington DC was trivial compared to the ND fire, but even the reconstruction there has been quite expensive and time consuming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Sky boxes for corporate entities?  Concessions, memorabilia, etc.  It really should be branded so who will be the title sponsor?  

TOTAL or maybe LVMH the gift shop would be epic..

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Sky boxes for corporate entities? Concessions, memorabilia, etc.  It really should be branded so who will be the title sponsor?  

In a way there were/are sky boxes....on both sides of the cathedral floor are small individual chapels  ....the replica rebuild can be accomplished much faster with modern techniques..much of the ceiling/roof is symmetrical and repeating. These wooden roof beams can be built/carved with CNC 5 axis routers and craned into place once brought on site, same with many other architectural elements, ridiculous notion that it needs to be rebuilt with 600 years old techniques using with modern artisans. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to drift slightly, I have some experience regarding safety procedures at construction sites.   There has been some speculation the cause of the fire is related to renovation (construction) work.  So I will add to this speculation.  

First, to do any cutting, grinding or welding on a site like this, it should be required to obtain something called a 'hot work permit'.  That permit spells out how to do the work safely, requirements for fire watches, etc.   It is usual when doing hot work to have one guy stand and watch while holding a fire extinguisher, and that guy stays there for 30 minutes after the job is done.  That should mitigate the hot work hazard.  

Second, any wiring should have been reviewed, approved, inspected, etc.  That should mitigate the risk of fire from electrical circuits. 

Third, there should have been continuous and on-going inspections and oversight of ALL work activities specifically looking for potential fire hazards. That oversight function is typically independent of the construction company executing the work.  

So, while it is too early to draw any conclusions, construction hazards causing fires should have been identified and managed.  I wouldn't want to be the construction site safety rep right now.....or the construction site project manager.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, bugger said:

Just to drift slightly, I have some experience regarding safety procedures at construction sites.   There has been some speculation the cause of the fire is related to renovation (construction) work.  So I will add to this speculation.  

First, to do any cutting, grinding or welding on a site like this, it should be required to obtain something called a 'hot work permit'.  That permit spells out how to do the work safely, requirements for fire watches, etc.   It is usual when doing hot work to have one guy stand and watch while holding a fire extinguisher, and that guy stays there for 30 minutes after the job is done.  That should mitigate the hot work hazard.  

Second, any wiring should have been reviewed, approved, inspected, etc.  That should mitigate the risk of fire from electrical circuits. 

Third, there should have been continuous and on-going inspections and oversight of ALL work activities specifically looking for potential fire hazards. That oversight function is typically independent of the construction company executing the work.  

So, while it is too early to draw any conclusions, construction hazards causing fires should have been identified and managed.  I wouldn't want to be the construction site safety rep right now.....or the construction site project manager.  

The "renovation" possible cause .....is the one too early to draw conclusion that stuck, but is as baseless as any other and the cause ...unless an eye witness comes forward actually in the location and seeing a fire start we will never know with certainty. The fire erupted sometime after 6 local time which is probably 1-2 hours after workers called it a day....I'd like to find out if any workers or staff were in those extreme upper levels and when they last came down that day...that would only be a handful of names

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

$300 million in pledges from the wealthy French to rebuild. Remind me again why the ultra-rich are bad people?

France’s two richest people -- luxury titans Bernard Arnault and Francois Pinault -- added $22.3 billion to their fortunes this year, (2018)

So if those two alone ponied up the entire $300 Mil it would amount to 1.3% of just last years increase in their wealth.

You just don't get it do you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6926807/Devastating-aftermath-Notre-Dame-inferno-leaves-world-mourning.html

very interesting collection of photos...one thing I did not realize was that the roof and supporting wooded timber that was %100 lost and seen in the fire yesterday were above the vaulted stone ceiling which prevented the worst of the fire from entering the interior volume of the cathedral.  The large candles near the altar did not even melt of bend from the burning debris that crashed onto the floor... 

ND.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

How the vaulted ceiling protected the interior from the blazing roof which was 100 % destroyed .... Point Break...interested to hear your thoughts on the Frenchie fire helmet design....I kind of like the thought behind it, seems more helmet design with a little ducktail for neck protection..can't tell if the airmask seals against the helmet or face  ......another thought and that was that this fire could have been the last day,week,month of a career firefighter and the first day,week,month of a young firefighter....what a way to start or go out...

ND2.jpg

ND3.jpg

ND4.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Point Break said:

Okay, this morphs into a interesting discussion. So although I love architecture I know very little about it nor do I have any sense of architectural style. I look at something and appreciate it’s beauty but have no idea how they got there.......therefore the first question that comes up for me is....they know EXACTLY what it looked like....why wouldn’t they simply replicate it exactly? Seems like they simply need some engineering type folks familiar with building construction methods and modern materials etc. Not somebody to “improve” or “reimagine” the original. It seems quite different than “creating” something beautiful and appealing that’s “new”. That’s when you need and appreciate the starchitects. 

Am I missing something? 

Modern materials???? That would be worse than just letting it sit as-is. I am sure it will be rebuilt with stone or what would be the point? Note that the original construction has lasted nearly 1,000 years. There was nothing wrong with the materials or engineering of the original.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternate causes if not renovation related?

Lightning - unaware of any there at the time

Arson - part of the local investigation underway - terrorism is a subset of arson in this context

Act of God - such irony

Meterorite or plane strike - should have made a bit of noise coming in 

Careless smoking - maybe but would seem loosely related to the renovation activity 

Metastatic from another nearby burning building or airborne embers - no

Pre existing electrical fault unrelated to any renovation - heck of a coincidence 

Air Force drops incendiary device in target practice gone awry - no

Flaming pigeon flies into the church - not apparent

Gas leak - seems unlikely on the roof

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Modern materials???? That would be worse than just letting it sit as-is. I am sure it will be rebuilt with stone or what would be the point? Note that the original construction has lasted nearly 1,000 years. There was nothing wrong with the materials or engineering of the original.

I don't really know anything about the French building codes, but I presume there are requirements for certain elements that would not be met by methods and materials 800 years old. Fire resistive construction in a public occupancy as only one example. Further one could make a case that the 52 acres of untreated wood that enthusiastically fed the fire would contradict the assertion that it was built to survive. We still don't know about the effect of the intense heat on the masonry either. Thermal degradation of masonry, especially the mortar is a real possibility. Hell, concrete spalling can begin around 600 degrees F and temperatures up around 1500 F are disastrous. I'm guessing the stone should be fine but I would think the "connective tissue" that is the mortar is far more vulnerable given the materials of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Fakenews said:

I think it’s going to be redone in magnificent style.  Money will pour in from all over the world. In fact it already is.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/skbaer/notre-dame-fire-rebuild-pinault-donation-french-billionaire

Rebuilt and replaced are two different things.  I fear that a lot of what they will have at the end is an ecclesiastical version of my grandfather's axe. I am glad they recovered some of the relics and artwork, in only for the sake of posterity.  Much of it, including the crafted woodwork itself, cannot be replaced and yet still be the same.  Regardless of your personal beliefs, to lose (much of) this testament to human achievement cannot be understated.  

I am reminded of another old joke I heard in graduate school: a tourist is looking at the cell St. Paul escaped from while being held by the Romans.  The guide points to the window and says it's the very one he climbed out of.  The tourist, a historian, says, no, the window they're looking at is Byzantine in style and cannot be the one Paul escaped from.  The guide, not missing a beat, replies, Ah, yes, the window is different but the space is the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, NaptimeAgain said:

Alternate causes if not renovation related?

Lightning - unaware of any there at the time

Arson - part of the local investigation underway - terrorism is a subset of arson in this context

Act of God - such irony

Meterorite or plane strike - should have made a bit of noise coming in 

Careless smoking - maybe but would seem loosely related to the renovation activity 

Metastatic from another nearby burning building or airborne embers - no

Pre existing electrical fault unrelated to any renovation - heck of a coincidence 

Air Force drops incendiary device in target practice gone awry - no

Flaming pigeon flies into the church - not apparent

Gas leak - seems unlikely on the roof

 

 

 

Rumored to have been people confessing to haveing left Lit Candles burning unattended 

Link to post
Share on other sites

for those wondering why the tweet of your prez was not followed, sending in airplanes or heli's, our local chief of firefighters gave the answer : apart from the fact that firefighting airplanes in France are mostly located to the Med, for obvious reasons, the idea of dropping loads of water from the air would have been potentially disastrous to the building, the vaults and potentially also the walls would have collapsed, "if it was the idea to kill the fire by killing the whole building, sending in airplanes or heli's would have been the right option"

on the other hand, what is weird is that there was no internal high pressure water system, as a comparison : our main cathedrals overhere which are very comparable to the Notre Dame, the cathedral in Brussels and Antwerp, both have an internal high pressure water system leading to the wooden roof, with several outlets. Reason, and that was very visible yesterday in Paris, is that the highest ladders go up to 50 meters, so if you need to go higher, you need something else, which they did not have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SailBlueH2O said:

 Point Break...interested to hear your thoughts on the Frenchie fire helmet design....I kind of like the thought behind it, seems more helmet design with a little ducktail for neck protection..can't tell if the airmask seals against the helmet or face  ......another thought and that was that this fire could have been the last day,week,month of a career firefighter and the first day,week,month of a young firefighter....what a way to start or go out...

 

I wore that style helmet for a while quite a number of years ago when we were evaluating different helmet designs. Standing up I liked it and it was pretty comfortable. Crawling I did not like it because the very deep bill in the back so close to the neck/back hindered my ability to look up from a prone or crawling position as it impacted the back of my neck & upper back very quickly. All FD helmets have a bill in the back to keep embers/steam/hot water from getting down your collar but the US versions are not built so close to the neck/back. I'd rather not wear one.

Also....never underestimate the impact of tradition and aesthetic appeal in helmet (or any equipment) choice. I'll confess I don't like the way they look. That wouldn't stop me from choosing it if it performed better though. Over my 37 year career I had 4 major helmet redesigns to improve thermal resistance and impact protection. The third design we implemented about 20 years ago really improved impact protection but it added weight to the helmet - about 1.5 pounds I think - and it was hotter to wear because instead of the webbing suspension inside it became a sort of molded insert. I sniveled like a rat eating onions and refused to give up my old helmet till we were threatened with disciplinary action for anyone caught wearing their old helmet. We got used to it, and the trade-offs were worth it.

The breathing apparatus they are wearing are MSA's with 1 hour bottles as well. Our standard is generally 30 or 45 minute bottles with 1 hour bottles reserved for special applications (Haz Mat incidents etc). I go through a 45 minute bottle in about 28-32 minutes when working at maximal exertion and a 30 minute bottle only goes about 18 minutes for me. I wonder if they wear the 1 hour bottles all the time. They are heavier and bulkier so there is a trade-off there as well. The technology in breathing apparatus has increased by leaps and bounds as well....mostly driven by the US market. You can now have a facepiece with a heads up display in the mask that shows ambient temperature, how much air you have left and even thermal imaging built in. That is if you can afford them. Big improvement from when I started where the air gauge was like the old scuba stuff with an analog dial you had to shine your fashlight on to see how much air you had, and you didn't know you were low till the vibrating alarm went off at 500 lbs. Then you'd better hustle out for a bottle change cuz 500 lbs didn't last all that long. The switch from pure demand to positive pressure was a good one as well. Keeps contaminants out of your mask much more efficiently. Oh....and the mask is face sealed.

I like the red turnouts though because it seems they might be more visible in low light/low visibility conditions. If they are not, I'll stick with yellow........tradition again. :D The trend (which started in Europe) to turnout coats that are high waisted is a good one. The ones you see in the picture are sort of middle of the road. The coat I started with went down to my knees. It sometimes hindered crawling as well. I think the US protective clothing is evolving to that European style which is a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Innocent Bystander said:

20 years since I was there. A massive loss. Report I saw says they are writing off everything but the frame and expect the lose the entire wood interior. Efforts to save artwork is the priority at the moment. 

Damn. 

Yeah, about the same for me.  I think I was there in like 95 or so.  Very sad.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Albatros said:

for those wondering why the tweet of your prez was not followed, sending in airplanes or heli's, our local chief of firefighters gave the answer : apart from the fact that firefighting airplanes in France are mostly located to the Med, for obvious reasons, the idea of dropping loads of water from the air would have been potentially disastrous to the building, the vaults and potentially also the walls would have collapsed, "if it was the idea to kill the fire by killing the whole building, sending in airplanes or heli's would have been the right option"

on the other hand, what is weird is that there was no internal high pressure water system, as a comparison : our main cathedrals overhere which are very comparable to the Notre Dame, the cathedral in Brussels and Antwerp, both have an internal high pressure water system leading to the wooden roof, with several outlets. Reason, and that was very visible yesterday in Paris, is that the highest ladders go up to 50 meters, so if you need to go higher, you need something else, which they did not have.

Yep on the aerial question. Water weighs about 8.35 pounds per gallon so imagine 1000 gallons moving at a couple hundred mph.........even if you take out the forward momentum of fixed wing and go to helo hover drop its quite the impact load. I shuddered when I saw his tweet.....but not knowing about something isn't often a deterrent for him.

So far as reach for the fire streams you are also correct. In fact 50 meters is an unusually tall one. Plus there is height and effective height. If your aerial is 50 meters, and you have to park some distance from the building, you aren't always going to get the full height. Then its a matter of BTU's..........even if you can deliver some water to a needed height, is it enough water to overcome and cool the BTU's being given off by the fire. If the water stream is evaporating before it reaches the seat of the fire........you're not making progress. That was an awful lot of fire in that roof system. It looked to me like there were only a couple elevated streams which I would judge didn't make a dent. I'd say the fire ran out of fuel as the wooden structure was consumed before any of those fire streams were able to be effective. Of course we don't know how many and what capacity interior streams were working as well. Looking at the pictures of the underside of the roof system, I'd say none that made any impact on the fire. Frankly I think it simply burned itself out while they worked to keep it from extending into some of the unburnt portions. That would be tough enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NaptimeAgain said:

Alternate causes if not renovation related?

Lightning - unaware of any there at the time

Arson - part of the local investigation underway - terrorism is a subset of arson in this context

Act of God - such irony

Meterorite or plane strike - should have made a bit of noise coming in 

Careless smoking - maybe but would seem loosely related to the renovation activity 

Metastatic from another nearby burning building or airborne embers - no

Pre existing electrical fault unrelated to any renovation - heck of a coincidence 

Air Force drops incendiary device in target practice gone awry - no

Flaming pigeon flies into the church - not apparent

Gas leak - seems unlikely on the roof

 

 

 

given that everyone there seems to be required to smoke, that's the first thing I thought of. ... or that combined with errant pigeon delivering an unintended incendiary cigarette butt ....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NaptimeAgain said:

 

Pre existing electrical fault unrelated to any renovation - heck of a coincidence 

 

 

That's a good list.  

Maybe not a coincidence if, say, the renovation work caused an overload on a circuit (e.g. additional lighting installed) or the renovation work somehow damaged some wiring (scaffolding material rubbing against a wire somewhere created a short?).  Also, additional wiring could be added to support the renovation work (to support additional lighting and power tools needed for the renovation.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bump-n-Grind said:

given that everyone there seems to be required to smoke, that's the first thing I thought of.

Yes, but you don't set a wooden beam (or most any wooden structural component) on fire with a cigarette butt. It would have to find some finer fuels and enough of it to sustain some heat long enough to get some of those bigger things going.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Point Break said:

Yes, but you don't set a wooden beam (or most any wooden structural component) on fire with a cigarette butt. It would have to find some finer fuels and enough of it to sustain some heat long enough to get some of those bigger things going.

oh ... you and your experience in such matters LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:
13 hours ago, Point Break said:

Okay, this morphs into a interesting discussion. So although I love architecture I know very little about it nor do I have any sense of architectural style. I look at something and appreciate it’s beauty but have no idea how they got there.......therefore the first question that comes up for me is....they know EXACTLY what it looked like....why wouldn’t they simply replicate it exactly? Seems like they simply need some engineering type folks familiar with building construction methods and modern materials etc. Not somebody to “improve” or “reimagine” the original. It seems quite different than “creating” something beautiful and appealing that’s “new”. That’s when you need and appreciate the starchitects. 

Am I missing something? 

Modern materials???? That would be worse than just letting it sit as-is. I am sure it will be rebuilt with stone or what would be the point? Note that the original construction has lasted nearly 1,000 years. There was nothing wrong with the materials or engineering of the original.

It's going to be tough sourcing 13,000 quality oak trees to rebuild the roof. Each of those beams was one tree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ishmael said:

It's going to be tough sourcing 13,000 quality oak trees to rebuild the roof. Each of those beams was one tree.

IMO...there is no need to rebuild exactly as it was built originally (single tree as a roofing beam ) as long as it looks the same in great detail....the roofing structure  that burned is seldom seen ,it was above the vaulted ceilings which is what the visitors see from the cathedral floor...those wood timbers were between the vaulted ceiling and the metal roof. The new metal roof will not have the patina of the lost roof....fortunately most of the interior areas typically seen by tourists was not destroyed as most of the fire was above the vaulted ceiling ....

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Point Break said:
4 minutes ago, chester said:


"sniveled like a rat eating onions"...?  that's a new one on me PB:D

Another old FD maxim.........;)

One of my all time favorite sayings along those lines was uttered by an Alabama boy I met in flight school... "She's uglier than a buzzard on a gut truck".  I've never forgotten that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Modern materials???? That would be worse than just letting it sit as-is. I am sure it will be rebuilt with stone or what would be the point? Note that the original construction has lasted nearly 1,000 years. There was nothing wrong with the materials or engineering of the original.

There may be a problem with finding trees long/old enough for the main beams - I understand the original ones were 400 yrs old. In that case, epoxy bonding / carbon wrapping might be acceptable

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NaptimeAgain said:

Presumably the gov't will waive the fees on the permits...

Actually the country of France paid very little of the annual costs to maintain Notre Dame...they pushed virtually all of the maintenance costs onto the Catholic church and international donations ...  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our daughter is living in Paris, and she went to see the devastation for herself this afternoon.  She said that the streets nearby are crowded with onlookers and that the mood in the city is very somber.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Point Break said:

I don't really know anything about the French building codes, but I presume there are requirements for certain elements that would not be met by methods and materials 800 years old. Fire resistive construction in a public occupancy as only one example. Further one could make a case that the 52 acres of untreated wood that enthusiastically fed the fire would contradict the assertion that it was built to survive. We still don't know about the effect of the intense heat on the masonry either. Thermal degradation of masonry, especially the mortar is a real possibility. Hell, concrete spalling can begin around 600 degrees F and temperatures up around 1500 F are disastrous. I'm guessing the stone should be fine but I would think the "connective tissue" that is the mortar is far more vulnerable given the materials of the time.

Making some steel and reinforced concrete Disney cathedral simulation would never happen. I am sure everyone in France would rather stare at a half burned building.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Making some steel and reinforced concrete Disney cathedral simulation would never happen. I am sure everyone in France would rather stare at a half burned building.

 

I don't disagree. Hopefully they can achieve the restoration meeting the current codes and maintain the ambiance/spirit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Point Break said:

I don't disagree. Hopefully they can achieve the restoration meeting the current codes and maintain the ambiance/spirit.

This is an endless argument in Annapolis. No one wants to refit their 280 year old building with modern fire sprinklers and every now and then one burns up.

Replacing stone work with concrete would be a total fail. The roof is another thing, I sure hope they run some water lines up there and some kind of wood treatments or lamination might be in the spirit of it without being 100% identical. The spire that burned up was an 1840s addition, so maybe no great loss to not put that back.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Making some steel and reinforced concrete Disney cathedral simulation would never happen. I am sure everyone in France would rather stare at a half burned building.

 

I don't think the wood beams were visible to the public...they were between the vaulted ceiling and the metal roof...laminated oak beams would do in my book...nobody cared 2 days ago 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Point Break said:

I don't disagree. Hopefully they can achieve the restoration meeting the current codes and maintain the ambiance/spirit.

 

oh hell, just bring over a slew of those japanese woodcarvers, they'll have it done in a month or two and it'll be stronger than before..

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

One of my all time favorite sayings along those lines was uttered by an Alabama boy I met in flight school... "She's uglier than a buzzard on a gut truck".  I've never forgotten that one.

well if we're going to drift into homespun put downs:  dimmer than a two watt bulb in a power failure

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

This is an endless argument in Annapolis. No one wants to refit their 280 year old building with modern fire sprinklers and every now and then one burns up.

 

How many take a neighbor down at the same time?  Buildings that old tend to be in clusters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ishmael said:

It's going to be tough sourcing 13,000 quality oak trees to rebuild the roof. Each of those beams was one tree.

Even harder sourcing oak beams that have been cured in a swamp for 100 years.

Interesting article on Architectural timber in the middle ages

http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/architectural-timber/architectural-timber.htm

I read somewhere that Oak was often seasoned in ponds for 50-100 years for building cathedrals (they thought long term back then) Can't find the article now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this one it is heart wrenching, have spent so much times in Paris, and a walk to an through the Notre Dame was as they say : "de rigueur" (=obligatory) and knowing and being part of the traditional christian history, there are no words for this. BUT, going by the intel I see, knowing the froggies quite well -was once suspected of being one, help, grin- they are going to rebuild that one to a T , no matter what,  and if not possible, let's hope not, they will put something outrageously different, modernistic, outlandish in place that the whole world will firstly think them frogs have gone bonkers again, like Foster's Centre Pompidou our I.M Pei's Louvre, and next we'll come up in droves to check it out. go the frogs !

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Xlot said:

There may be a problem with finding trees long/old enough for the main beams - I understand the original ones were 400 yrs old. In that case, epoxy bonding / carbon wrapping might be acceptable

That falls into the same category as the "lost skills" mantra.

There are plenty of trees available - maybe not the same (presumably) French oak but we haven't wiped out the worlds forests quite yet.

They would just cost a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard a radio report this morning:  100 years ago a grove of oaks was planted in case Notre Dame needed restoration.  In addition, the Cathedral has been almost completely surveyed using laser tomography.  

Take away: It's really bad - but it could have been much worse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BillDBastard said:

$300 million in pledges from the wealthy French to rebuild. Remind me again why the ultra-rich are bad people?

Was there in March of 1995. Notre Dame was magnificent and it certainly had a scent of death about it. Incredible loss to the human race. May it rise again.

Saint Stephen shall remain, all he lost he shall regain.

Way to get a cheap political shot into the story of a cultural heartbreak.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2019 at 7:48 AM, Shortforbob said:

There's still Sainte-Chapelle on the Isle de la Cite. a jewel box of a cathedral..

 

Sainte Chapelle, the patron saint of Boogie Boards?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2019 at 11:49 AM, Cal20sailor said:

They say you can't buy your way into heaven, but damn, that has to be one hell of a down payment!

If he's banging Selma Hayek, he's already in heaven!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

always some bright spark makes a buck

https://www.minsterwoods.com/shop/minster-pens/york-minster-oak-fountain-pen/

Limited Edition, Handmade

Please be aware that these are a LIMITED item! These was only a limited amount of wood from the fire at York Minster.

An extremely rare chance to own a piece of history, reclaimed from the World famous York Minster Cathedral and dated by the Church to the 13th Century (c 1250) the wood is reclaimed from the South Transept, which caught fire in 1984

The wood is taken from the beams and structure which supported the roof of the South Transept. Treated, preserved and hand made by local craftsmen into these pens.

[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]minster_fountain_flat.jpg[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I doubt a 100 year old oak would be large enough to replace the beams lost.

Nice. When York Minster went up, 260 oaks were donated for the new roof.

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/17579187.york-minster-was-restored-after-the-1984-fire/

AS prayers were being said across the land for devastated Notre Dame experts at York Minster who battled to restore that iconic landmark 35 years ago said raising it from the ashes is quite achievable.

Offers of help and advice have poured in. Damage at York was not nearly so bad, even though the wooden roof caved in and the precious Rose Window cracked in 40,000 places. It took four years to restore.

John David, a master mason at the Minster in 1984 said the two churches faced the same dilemma on reconstruction. He added: "At York Minster there were questions about whether we put an oak roof back on top or a steel roof or even a concrete roof. Some people think we can't do this sort of thing any more in traditional materials, we can, and so I think the roof will be reconstructed, it's quite achievable.

"There was a fear the whole minster would go up, but we were busy getting the valuables out. The next day people were in tears and very upset, but as craftsmen, the first thing we thought was 'let's put it back, let's rebuild it'."

Geoff Brayshaw, 62, one of 12 joiners who helped to restore the gutted minster estimates Notre Dame will cost hundreds of millions and take up to a decade. "The Minster's vaulting underneath the roof was wooden, but Notre Dame is made out of stone, that's the main difference"

"We also had an in-house work force; before the fire we had four joiners, in the year afterwards this went up to 12.They will need a big workforce which is what they will want to be concentrating on."

Bob Littlewood, former superintendent of works at the minster, was instrumental in replacing the vaulted ceiling and roof gutted in the blaze.The day after the fire he was offered 260 oak trees by people wanting to help rebuild it and was tasked with convincing the church authorities to let him rebuild the roof with timber, in keeping with the original design.

Top stained glass expert Sarah Brown, director of York Glaziers Trust, has already written to Parisian officials to offer her assistance.

The minsters governing body the Chapter of York said: "We are shocked and saddened by the terrible scenes at Notre Dame. Be assured of our love and prayers for our brothers and sisters in Paris."

Archbishop of York John Sentamu and the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby have appealed to cathedrals and churches throughout Britain to ring their bells on Thursday in solidarity with Notre Dame.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

France’s two richest people -- luxury titans Bernard Arnault and Francois Pinault -- added $22.3 billion to their fortunes this year, (2018)

So if those two alone ponied up the entire $300 Mil it would amount to 1.3% of just last years increase in their wealth.

You just don't get it do you?

I don't ? I get that a number of wealthy people have come forward to rebuild this iconic structure with a total of pledges being north of a billion euros.

I also get that some people are enormously wealthy. That they run companies that market products that are widely sought after and command a high percentage of profit. Now personally I don't care for such luxury items and what not but at the same time don't behoove to condemn those that do. Why you give a crap about the ultra wealthy I do find curious, envy is an odd emotion I guess.

Anyhow, back to my point. I am glad we live in a world where wealthy individuals can and will step forward to rebuild the likes of Notre Dame. I applaud them for supporting such a cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read in today's paper that Macron said it would be a quick rebuild ,5 year target, with modern material and techniques in the roof construction.I'd guess much of the new roof would be built off site and either trucked  or helo'd ...I had also heard yesterday that much of the masonary has been in a bad state even before the fire so at least now  the whole structure will get the proper attention. Also that the country of France had only been paying a pittance annually toward the maintenance of  Notre Dame as it was a Catholic church property something like 2 million a year,I could be mistaken on the amount. Fortunately  most folks never saw up close the details of the roof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to present a different, dissenting view of the event in Paris, from the perspective of an American who has lived in Europe for the past 20 years and have also lived here in the past.  In addition, my mother was from Rome, Italy and I made my first trip to Europe when I was a 7 year old child, and made subsequent visits into my teen years, visiting family there.  I also lived in Japan for 3 1/2 years and 2 1/2 years in Korea.  I am not showing off, just establishing that I have some experience to support my views. 

The following is only my opinion on the subject and I respect those that feel differently about the subject than I do than I do.

While the fire was certainly a terrible event, I believe that there has been a bit of hyperbole given the real tragedies that have befallen Europe over the centuries.  Obviously, in terms of mass destruction, WW II left scars on many European cities that will never disappear.  Just a couple of examples, the fire bombings of Hamburg and Dresden destroyed major parts of those cities, including many architectural and cultural treasures, not to mention the horrendous loss of life.   Nürnberg, Germany is one of my favorite cities in Europe, rich in Medieval history, as it was a major trade city in those days.  Eighty percent of the old city was destroyed by bombs late in WW II, including significant damage to 2 Gothic churches.  There was also the loss of life in Europe during WWII that went into the tens of millions, that is a genuine tragedy.  I could go on and on but I think you get the idea. 

Europe is rotten with historic churches and cathedrals, it seems every where you go there is something to see in one church or another.  I have been to Paris several times and it is one of the most beautiful cities in Europe in my opinion. While it's historically interesting, I never really found Notre Dame that amazing, but again, that's just me.  From my perspective, I think I will puke if I go into another famous or not so famous church to see some renowned fresco, statue, or relic, but again, that's just me.  Obviously St. Peter's cathedral in Rome is a must see landmark of incredible significance and beauty. 

A good part of my cynicism stems from the proliferation of the hordes of tourist that flock to European cities nowadays (as well as cities all over the world) due to the easy availability of relatively cheap air fares.  Having seen Europe for the first time in the early 1960s, the Europe of today from a tourist's point of view is a completely different experience, and not one for the better.  I long for the day when you could walk straight into St. Peter's in Rome without waiting in a long line to pass through metal detectors.  Or walking straight into the vast Vatican art galleries without either waiting in a long line or booking tickets in advance.  The same goes for the Louvre, or the Quay D'Orsay museums in Paris, the Academia and Uffizi galleries in Florence, etc.  In many European cities it is more and more difficult to find really good food because most tourists don't know any better and pay high prices for shitty food that is a shadow of the real cuisine.

I am guilty of having visited many cities in Europe as a tourist of course.  My problem with today's tourists is that in my opinion, many of them are what I call 'check list' tourists.  These folks don't often have a lot of knowledge of what they are seeing, they see a lot of it through the lens of a camera or smart phone, and their primary interest appears to be to post photos on various social media sites, along with endless photos of whatever they ate on any particular day, rather than truly appreciate what they are seeing.  I don't take many photos when I travel nowadays because when you are concentrating on taking photos of something I think you lose a lot of the experience and appreciation of being there.  On my last visit to the Louvre a few years ago, I was almost trampled by people rushing through the main gallery in their haste to crowd into the small room to see the even smaller (and in my opinion unremarkable) Mona Lisa.  Then these people rushed out of the Louvre to hurry on to Notre Dame, or the Moulin Rouge or wherever to take more selfies. 

To me, a far greater tragedy than the fire in Notre Dame is what has become to, in my opinion, one of the most magical cities in the entire world, Venice.  I first went to Venice in the mid '70s and it was truly magical, beautiful and wonderful.  Good food and inexpensive lodging were plentiful. You could walk along the canals without fear of being knocked into the water by some Bermuda shorts clad overweight idiot and his loud wife, from Des Moines or somewhere, making a video and banging into the incredible crowds that now occupy Venice year round.  I truly feel bad for the 60,000 or so residents of Venice that have to put up with this.  Nowadays it is very possible to eat terrible and expensive food there while spending a couple of hundred dollars a night for a hotel room that would make a Motel 6 room look palatial in comparison. 

Yes, I understand that everybody wants to see Venice and other wonders of the world, but there has to be a better way.  I have lived in 2 tourist cities in Europe, Nürnberg and Heidelberg in Germany and I have to say it gets tiresome fighting the unwashed masses filling the often narrow streets as you try to go about your life.  I realize that the situation won't get any better, it will probably only get worse and that's too bad.  I understand I might sound like a bit of a cynical snob, but that's how I feel about the situation. 

In my opinion, the fire in Notre Dame was a terribly unfortunate event, but hardly the tragedy that some people feel it is.  I do feel empathy for the native Parisians that are used to seeing the landmark on a daily basis, it is a part of their lives.  Fortunately, while it might take a lot of time and money, it appears that Notre Dame will one day be reasonably restored to its former glory.  Then the tourists can once again flock there with their selfie sticks and show everybody back home that they saw that church that was in that Disney cartoon.  Then they can rush of to the Louvre to see that famous painting by that Italian guy.

TLDR:  The church caught fire, it isn't the end of the world, and there are too many tourists everywhere.

 

 

 

Rebuild.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ed Lada said:

I would like to present a different, dissenting view of the event in Paris, from the perspective of an American who has lived in Europe for the past 20 years and have also lived here in the past.  In addition, my mother was from Rome, Italy and I made my first trip to Europe when I was a 7 year old child, and made subsequent visits into my teen years, visiting family there.  I also lived in Japan for 3 1/2 years and 2 1/2 years in Korea.  I am not showing off, just establishing that I have some experience to support my views. 

The following is only my opinion on the subject and I respect those that feel differently about the subject than I do than I do.

While the fire was certainly a terrible event, I believe that there has been a bit of hyperbole given the real tragedies that have befallen Europe over the centuries.  Obviously, in terms of mass destruction, WW II left scars on many European cities that will never disappear.  Just a couple of examples, the fire bombings of Hamburg and Dresden destroyed major parts of those cities, including many architectural and cultural treasures, not to mention the horrendous loss of life.   Nürnberg, Germany is one of my favorite cities in Europe, rich in Medieval history, as it was a major trade city in those days.  Eighty percent of the old city was destroyed by bombs late in WW II, including significant damage to 2 Gothic churches.  There was also the loss of life in Europe during WWII that went into the tens of millions, that is a genuine tragedy.  I could go on and on but I think you get the idea. 

Europe is rotten with historic churches and cathedrals, it seems every where you go there is something to see in one church or another.  I have been to Paris several times and it is one of the most beautiful cities in Europe in my opinion. While it's historically interesting, I never really found Notre Dame that amazing, but again, that's just me.  From my perspective, I think I will puke if I go into another famous or not so famous church to see some renowned fresco, statue, or relic, but again, that's just me.  Obviously St. Peter's cathedral in Rome is a must see landmark of incredible significance and beauty. 

A good part of my cynicism stems from the proliferation of the hordes of tourist that flock to European cities nowadays (as well as cities all over the world) due to the easy availability of relatively cheap air fares.  Having seen Europe for the first time in the early 1960s, the Europe of today from a tourist's point of view is a completely different experience, and not one for the better.  I long for the day when you could walk straight into St. Peter's in Rome without waiting in a long line to pass through metal detectors.  Or walking straight into the vast Vatican art galleries without either waiting in a long line or booking tickets in advance.  The same goes for the Louvre, or the Quay D'Orsay museums in Paris, the Academia and Uffizi galleries in Florence, etc.  In many European cities it is more and more difficult to find really good food because most tourists don't know any better and pay high prices for shitty food that is a shadow of the real cuisine.

I am guilty of having visited many cities in Europe as a tourist of course.  My problem with today's tourists is that in my opinion, many of them are what I call 'check list' tourists.  These folks don't often have a lot of knowledge of what they are seeing, they see a lot of it through the lens of a camera or smart phone, and their primary interest appears to be to post photos on various social media sites, along with endless photos of whatever they ate on any particular day, rather than truly appreciate what they are seeing.  I don't take many photos when I travel nowadays because when you are concentrating on taking photos of something I think you lose a lot of the experience and appreciation of being there.  On my last visit to the Louvre a few years ago, I was almost trampled by people rushing through the main gallery in their haste to crowd into the small room to see the even smaller (and in my opinion unremarkable) Mona Lisa.  Then these people rushed out of the Louvre to hurry on to Notre Dame, or the Moulin Rouge or wherever to take more selfies. 

To me, a far greater tragedy than the fire in Notre Dame is what has become to, in my opinion, one of the most magical cities in the entire world, Venice.  I first went to Venice in the mid '70s and it was truly magical, beautiful and wonderful.  Good food and inexpensive lodging were plentiful. You could walk along the canals without fear of being knocked into the water by some Bermuda shorts clad overweight idiot and his loud wife, from Des Moines or somewhere, making a video and banging into the incredible crowds that now occupy Venice year round.  I truly feel bad for the 60,000 or so residents of Venice that have to put up with this.  Nowadays it is very possible to eat terrible and expensive food there while spending a couple of hundred dollars a night for a hotel room that would make a Motel 6 room look palatial in comparison. 

Yes, I understand that everybody wants to see Venice and other wonders of the world, but there has to be a better way.  I have lived in 2 tourist cities in Europe, Nürnberg and Heidelberg in Germany and I have to say it gets tiresome fighting the unwashed masses filling the often narrow streets as you try to go about your life.  I realize that the situation won't get any better, it will probably only get worse and that's too bad.  I understand I might sound like a bit of a cynical snob, but that's how I feel about the situation. 

In my opinion, the fire in Notre Dame was a terribly unfortunate event, but hardly the tragedy that some people feel it is.  I do feel empathy for the native Parisians that are used to seeing the landmark on a daily basis, it is a part of their lives.  Fortunately, while it might take a lot of time and money, it appears that Notre Dame will one day be reasonably restored to its former glory.  Then the tourists can once again flock there with their selfie sticks and show everybody back home that they saw that church that was in that Disney cartoon.  Then they can rush of to the Louvre to see that famous painting by that Italian guy.

Sadly this applies all over the world...whether big cities or small towns....don't get me started on what cruise ships have done ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SailBlueH2O said:

Sadly this applies all over the world...whether big cities or small towns....don't get me started on what cruise ships have done ...

Oh god, cruise ships!  When I went to Europe the first time in 1963 we went by ship both ways.  Real ocean liners, the Cristofro Colombo and the SS United States.  Those bloated high rises that they call cruise ships today would never cross the North Atlantic in October like we did on the SS United States from France to New York, in terrible weather and big seas.

Link to post
Share on other sites