Re:The Notre Dame fire and the future of history
by rootusrootus on Tuesday April 16, 2019 @12:47PM
(#19675192)
Modern techniques certainly can be used to build crap, but that is hardly a requirement. I bet they built plenty of crap a thousand years ago, too. I am very confident that we can build structures today that are better than anything ever built, when we choose to. Thing is, for most utility structures there is no particular benefit to building for that kind of longevity.
Re:The Notre Dame fire and the future of history
by pyrale on Tuesday April 16, 2019 @02:02PM
(#19675817)
A good share of notable cathedrals have burned in recent history, and some of them have been rebuilt using modern techniques (e.g. Chartres, one of the most notable french cathedrals now has a metallic structure to bear its roof). These new techniques are both elegant and a better fit, as they protect the building from a (likely) fire in the future.
Arguing that cathedrals' wooden roofs are built to last while we don't know how to build longer-lasting work is a very curious take on the situation.
Re:The Notre Dame fire and the future of history
by netsharc on Tuesday April 16, 2019 @02:55PM
(#19676271)
> The question is for a building which actually struggled to raise the $7m used for the initial repair project, are people going to be patient enough to spend the $700m and 10/15/20 years to rebuild it with anything approaching the care, quality, and craftsmanship of the original?
I'd wager yes, this probably woke people up that they've let their country's icon crumble, and money (and time) will now be no objects.
Re:The Notre Dame fire and the future of history
by dragonwriter on Tuesday April 16, 2019 @10:36PM
(#19679260)
> The question is for a building which actually struggled to raise the $7m used for the initial repair project, are people going to be patient enough to spend the $700m and 10/15/20 years to rebuild it with anything approaching the care, quality, and craftsmanship of the original?
Something like 10 hours ago I was seeing a headline that €650 million had already been pledged for rebuilding from various private sources, so, yeah, I think it's reasonable to think that the money will be there.
Re:The Notre Dame fire and the future of history
by zaroth on Tuesday April 16, 2019 @05:54PM
(#19677697)
Too late to edit, but early estimates on the repair costs are actually $8 billion.
The roof that burned was called the Forest because it was made from 13,000 whole oak trees (the number varies depending on source) spanning 52 acres of forest.
Re:The Notre Dame fire and the future of history
by gambiting on Wednesday April 17, 2019 @09:43AM
(#19682453)
Then I'd be ok with replacing it with an identical "forest" made out of a modern material like carbon fibre, representing the original forest lost in the fire. Maybe we can even dedicate some area of land for oak growing so that in 300 years the trees will be ready to remake the original roof.
Re:The Notre Dame fire and the future of history
by fennecfoxen on Tuesday April 16, 2019 @08:59PM
(#19678735)
Apparently one of the major challenges in replacing the roof in the old style is that the typical oak used to construct it would have been ~300-400 years old and they just don't have a lot of those around anymore.
Modern construction techniques are of very little use to repair a building which was itself built over the course of 150 years.
“Modern” gets you the $200mm staircase to nowhere at Hudson Yards in NY.
The question is for a building which actually struggled to raise the $7m used for the initial repair project, are people going to be patient enough to spend the $700m and 10/15/20 years to rebuild it with anything approaching the care, quality, and craftsmanship of the original?
The reconstruction should be the life’s work of a great master (or several great masters, when you consider the art and ornamentation that goes along with the architecture).
Do we still even do that sort of thing anymore?