Like you, I’ve watched in horror, Notre Dame de Paris, on fire. I cried but now I’m ready to look back at history and think of the future…
First I just wanted to share some personal thoughts… You can skip to the next part of course.
Some have beautiful stories about Notre Dame de Paris, I just have simple fond memories.
Like for most parisiens, Notre Dame is for me a stable figure. Not a place you go to on a regular basis, but a place you are happy to glimpse at when passing by. The sort of places, that make you raise your head, when you realize they are watching you ignoring them. The sort of places, that forces you to look at them, instead of your phone screen, whether they appear between 2 buildings or in the distance.
There is something magical about such grandeur, such strength and such beauty. I don’t think the fire, that partially destroyed it, changed any of that. Notre Dame still stands strong and magnificent, just a little battered but it will be there for a lot more time.
As I drove by on the quay de Seine, my gaze would always try to catch a glimpse of Notre Dame. On my way out of Paris for the week-end, just to say goodbye, or on my way back, to make sure everything was ok.
It wasn’t just Notre Dame though. It’s the whole Ile de la Cité and the Louvre, and the incredible landmarks around the Seine. Those buildings that have been there for centuries, are reinsuring.
I’m not a parisien anymore but I still do that when I go. Actually now that I don’t live in Paris anymore, I also happily go to those places, like a tourist, to admire them up close.
However, I had not visited Notre Dame for quite some time and deeply regret it, like everyone else. There was just too many tourists queuing whenever I went. Last time, I did visit the crypt and still have to tell you about them, although I doubt these will reopen for quite a while.
Like so many others, on Monday, I first watched in disbelief what was happening. It was just smoke coming from the roof, when I read the first news articles and saw the first pictures. Soon after, blazing flames were surrounding the spire. When I watched the video showing the spire falling through the vaulted ceiling, I cried.
It hurt me so deeply. Like so many others, I know.
I never really thought I would live through such an event although I know they happen all the time…
You see…
Cathedrals get destroyed all the time…
Being fond of cathedrals and Romanesque & Gothic architecture, having visited quite a few, I acknowledge that their long history is made of a cycle of destruction and reconstruction phases, a lot of of those!
Revolutions & wars, especially WWI & WWII did a lot of damage to a lot of European landmarks. The Reims cathedral received over 300 bombs and was mostly destroyed, during WWI. The Chartres Cathedral miraculously survived WWI & II but the Gothic cathedral we know, was built on the remains of a Roman style cathedral destroyed by fire.
Now, it’s hard to tell, but I’m not entirely sure that wars have caused more damages to these landmarks than the lack of interest they suffered from over time, and especially in the 18th century.
You’ve probably read about this in some of the articles published after the fire. Notre Dame was in a terrible state at the turn of the 18th century. So much that, at the time, some were considering its complete destruction a necessity.
Gothic style was not always à la mode…
You see, slowly form the 16th century on, gothic style lost its interest. With the Renaissance, came a total dislike for such architecture which was even considered as ugly and barbaric. The term Gothic was actually used as a reference to the Goths, the German tribes and Gothic was used as a pejorative description!
Gothic architecture was obsolete by the 18th century but luckily came back into grace in the 19th century! Thanks to the romantic period and their love for all things medieval and especial gothic architecture, cathedrals like Notre Dame were saved from their doomed fate.
Today, we admire Gothic style for its grandeur and impressive craftsmanship. But what about tomorrow?
Notre Dame was never going to burn to the ground
Like so many others I was watching the fire destroy the roof of Notre Dame, crying and still in disbelief that this was truly happening.
I was terribly worried, yet I was quite sure Notre Dame was not going to burn to the ground. Stone doesn’t burn that well, you know. The stone structure could have collapsed (more than it has) because of the structural defects caused by the fire, but it wasn’t going to burn down.
When the spire felt, you could see on some of the videos, that it went all the way through the stone vaulted ceiling. Light from the fire could be seen through the lower ground stained glasses. That got me really worried that too much of vaulted ceiling would collapse to keep the integrity of the stone structure, at least in part of the nave.
In addition, the scaffolding which was surrounding the spire represented a real danger. Luckily the firemen handled that brilliantly and it never felt.
When the fire reached the North tower, minutes felt like hours.
Despite this, the cathedral was not going to burn to the ground and I was upset that the news didn’t report more accurately on the risks ahead rather than just being sensational. They eventually did report more accurately on what happened but only after the fire was controlled. Not when it was happening and I feel they really added to the stress.
I’m certainly not trying to minimise what has happened. It’s devastating and incomprehensible in the 21st century. It almost seems that we are as incompetent preventing such events as we were in the past centuries. It’s definitively not the case, but it feels a bit like it.
So what now?
Reconstruction will happen! But first a phase of stabilization and consolidation will be needed. That has started already which is amazingly quick, really.
A protective temporary roof will be placed on top of the cathedral. Preventing more water to enter the already weakened stone structure, is one of the priorities.
However, I doubt they can do this before the removal of all the remains of the scaffolding that are still dangerously dangling above the roof. This is going to be a difficult phase and a tricky one, considering the damages caused by the fire to such scaffolding, the heigh and the conditions of the roof below.
Meanwhile a phase of audit and restoration of the surviving structure will start. It will take a long time to assess all the damages to the stone structure. Beside the gaping holes in the vaulted ceilings, the water damages could be significant and long to cure. The high temperatures caused by the fire may have affected some of the stone work as well.
This is a necessary phase, because, like with any construction, you need to be sure the fondations and walls are safe and strong, before you can start putting a roof on them.
One of the good news is that Notre Dame architecture is extremely well documented. We know everything that needs to be known to rebuilt it to an identical state. But…
Rebuilding to an identical state might not be the plan
It might come as a surprise but rebuilding Notre Dame, exactly how it was before the fire, might not be what the French government choses to do.
There are a couple things that could change significantly.
The wooden framework
As you’ve read already, the fire caught in the wooden framework which partially dated from the 13th century. The wooden framework has always been the weak point of medieval cathedrals.
In Rouen, after the damaged caused by WWI, the framework was rebuilt in reinforced concrete. In Chartres, the wooden framework burnt in the 19th century and was replaced by a metal structure.
I’m not particularly fan of either solutions but it’s not sure yet what option will be chosen, between metal and wood. I only retain those 2 because I seriously doubt they would dare put concrete in Notre Dame despite the success for Reims Cathedral.
Those are structural choices, the external appearance will not be affected and the roof will surely be covered in lead, like it was in the past. It might just take a while for it to have the same patina.
Notre Dame is a listed building, there is no way a glass roof garden is going to be built!
The spire
The biggest question reside in the reconstruction of the spire. The one we knew was designed by Viollet Le Duc in the 19th century. There was a spire on Notre Dame before that, but the one designed by Viollet le Duc was bigger although similar to the former one, designed in the 13th century.
The French government has already decided to launch an International architectural contest to redesign the spire, “a spire suited to the techniques and challenges of our time” as the Prime Minister put it in an interview.
It sounds weird to consider designing a complete new spire when the existing one was so much into the mind of people around the whole world and such a significant part of Paris’s landscape.
At the same time, France’s monuments always evolve and the question of a new design for the spire is worth asking.
It’s never going to be as ugly as some of the meme that have already circulated. (if you haven’t seen them, good for you!) The design selected is obviously going to be a gorgeous new element perfectly integrated into the gothic style of Notre Dame. Not some modern looking glass thing. At least that’s what I believe, at this point!
Would it be so bad if structural improvements were made? And would it be so bad, if for exemple, the spire was thereafter accessible to the public? Would it not be amazing to have the opportunity to access the roofs? And maybe even see inside the cathedral, from inside the spire?
Don’t scream at me for writing this. The damage is done, conservation and preservation can include improvements. But you can disagree. There really are 2 opposite schools to these sorts of issues.
Personally I will not support projects which would not ressemble Gothic architecture, but I would support some small changes like the one mentioned above, as long as these are perfectly integrated.
The time frame
The French president announced his ambitious plans to reconstruct Notre Dame, in 5 years.
The experts have warn him that this is too ambitious considering the curing of the fire and water damages could take that long and there could be a shortage of professionals to handle the work.
Nantes cathedral’s roof burned in 2015 and the Saint Denis basilica’s tower is supposed to get reconstructed. Those are already huge projects which are going to keep a lot of craftsmen busy.
Nether-the-less, it’s good to have an ambitious goal!
The organization of the reconstruction
The French President has already appointed General Jean-Louis Georgelin, a 70 years old retired military general as ‘Mister reconstruction’. That was probably the latest news that shocked me the most. Who is he to handle such a project? What are his competency in such matters? Time will tell.
He will of course be surrounded by teams of architects, historiens and professionals but I can’t figure out where and why this decision was taken.
The financing of the reconstruction
As you’ve already read, pledges of millions have already flooded in. The financing of the reconstruction is still going to be tricky.
Notre Dame is owned by the French Government which is its own insurer for most of the heritage sites it owns. This means there will be no insurance money, just government funds and donations.
With regards to donations, because of tax mechanisms, these will have a huge impact on the government finances and it is going to be a very difficult situation considering the current tense political environment France is facing.
Again, time will tell how this will unfold.
If you wish to donate, do use the official platforms in place.
*****
In any case, it is huge historical responsibility that falls on this French government to reconstruct Notre Dame de Paris. I sure hope they will be up to the task.
*****
If you wish to learn more about sacred architecture and medieval architecture, you can check my mini guides. They should provide you some useful basic information!
