Yes, it can be rebuilt. Anything can be rebuilt with enough money. There are plenty of people with the skills and knowledge to do this.

The wooden part burned is essentially a cap over the center part of the church. It pretty much was a loss from the time the fire started. The efforts were to protect the substantial masonary from heat damage, rescue the art, etc...

Shouldn't this be in the "Rebuilding a Cathedral" category of the Gardenweb Discussions??

Yes, it can be rebuilt.

Such a sad loss. It's been years since I've been there, but I remember being in awe of it.

re: restoration: I read that the wooden beams used in the roof are not replaceable and another material will have to be used:

The cathedral's roof was built using a lattice of giant beams cut from trees in primeval forests in the 12th and 13th centuries. Experts say France no longer has trees big enough to replace the ancient wooden beams that burned in the Notre Dame fire. Feydeau told France Info radio that the cathedral's roof cannot be rebuilt exactly as it was before the fire because "we don't, at the moment, have trees on our territory of the size that were cut in the 13th century." He said the restoration work will have to use new technology to rebuild the roof.

Can you imagine being the owner of the restoration company that burned Notre Dame?

Can you imagine being the insurance company that insured the restoration company that burned Notre Dame?

It can be rebuilt, but it will never be the same. It is a tragic loss.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/04/15/fire-was-scourge-medieval-cathedrals-they-rebuilt-ashes/?utm_term=.7484b19ca44a

A helpful tweet linking to the article below,

https://twitter.com/grouchybagels/status/1117852841530368000

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150622-andrew-tallon-notre-dame-cathedral-laser-scan-art-history-medieval-gothic/

Nostalgia is over rated.

“The building was so overburdened with meaning that its burning feels
like an act of liberation,” says art historian Patricio del Real of New York University.

I sense an HGTV series in the making: "Reno time with del Real!" Sponsored by Houzz.

Virgil, of all the people on Houzz you are the last one I would expect to answer this post in such a cavalier manner..

It feels like your just saying that this can be recreated, replaced, fixed. No biggie.

It feels like you are saying that a giclee of the Mona Lisa is as good as the original.

Can you help me understand your perspective as both an architect and an artist?

My husband called the house immediately when he heard that Our Lady of Paris was on fire. And he *never* calls the house (he normally just emails me).

I couldn't bring myself to watch *any* news videos of the fire.

I cried upon learning that the Crown of Thorns was housed there, as well as a Nail and a piece of the Cross. The building and art being in grave danger was terribly sad, but I totally lost it when I learned of the relics. (The three relics I just mentioned are now believed to be safe.)

I am a devout Catholic. Our Lady of Paris -- my husband visited her twice, not 2 months ago -- meant more to me than it does to some others. If she was a secular building, more/different folks would care more, is my guess. Nothing necessarily wrong with that... After all, I would not be as emotionally invested if something happened to an important mosque or Buddhist temple or something, you know?

For some of us, yes, Our Lady of Paris Cathedral is something super special, and her losses sustained in the fire are heartbreaking. The absolute BEST news, though, is (to my knowledge) no human lives were lost. PRAISE BE TO GOD!

I believe it can and likely should be re-built. I've seen some projections stating 5 years to re-build. I can see the debate about how to re-build lasting 5 years. At what point will practicality outweigh authenticity? Trees that formed the timbers of the roof no longer exist. At the same time, newer technologies like steel, reinforced concrete, laminated timbers etc. are much stronger and fire resistant. How important will authenticity be for a portion of the cathedral, only a tiny portion of visitors have ever seen?

It can be rebuilt, of course. It won't necessarily be the way it was, but most of these great Gothic cathedrals aren't as originally envisioned anyway. They grew and evolved over time, just as cities and people do. One of my favorite cathedrals is Wells, in Somerset. It was begun in 1175, and finished around 1235, but then extended several times. That created a major structural problem which threatened to bring the cathedral down, so, in the mid 14th century, a master stonemason came up with an engineering solution never envisioned by the original builders - the "scissor arches" to buttress the walls and keep them from falling in on themselves.

Was this the way the cathedral was meant to look when built? No. Is it wonderful architecture? Yes.

Notre Dame will not fall into ruin, it will be rebuilt, though possibly not entirely restored to the original. I think newer, better materials might give it another 900 years of life. And that, in the end, is what matters.

I can't wait to go see Notre Dame when the reconstruction is finished. (tongue lodged in cheek)

According to Trump, this all could have been prevented if they had only raked the Forest.

I joke, but I found this near tragedy very moving, even though I am not at all religious. Notre Dame took nearly two hundred years to build, and the roof (the Forest) took around 5,000 oak trees. This, and the very idea that with the tools and techniques then available they were able to build such a work of art, is mind-boggling.

Plus, I have a thing for flying buttresses...