How should Notre Dame be restored?

They should take their time and not rush to meet an arbitrary 5-year deadline.

See PopularMechanics.com for the answer. They have a new article on the subject, and they're certainly more knowledgeable than me.

Interesting article, thanks.

But it is also quite dark inside. I know this will probably not
happen, but I hope they find a way to make the interior lighter --
perhaps replacing the damaged parts of the vault with glass? Sacrilege
I know.... Will they strictly adhere to replacing everything as it
originally was, or perhaps modernize it a bit to bring it into the
21st century. I'd like to see it made greater for the ages. Great
minds need to work on this.

I don't think it's up to anyone but the French citizens to decide how it should be restored but IMHO, retaining its original Medieval atmosphere/character as closely as possible would be my vote. Churches of that era are darker than we're used to but it's part of their authenticity: originally illuminated only with candles and daylight through the windows.

There are plenty of modern churches but fewer extant structures of this noble lady's age.

I agree whole heartedly with Kathy. I would absolutely hate to see some architect ruin the building by trying to modernize it in any way. Skylights in a Gothic cathedral??? You've got to be kidding. This is an iconic building, a national treasure and a World Heritage site. It needs to be restored as much as possible to its original (pre fire) state. If they modernize anything, I hope it will be a modern fire suppression system.

Yes, I know they will attempt to restore it to it's "original" state -- or I guess at least how it looked before the fire, which is the result of a lot of remodeling throughout its 850 years

I have not been there, but I would like to think it will be restored as faithfully to the original as possible and with care to incorporate lighting that is "invisible" but effectively shows off its grandeur.

I see no reason it has to be dark or be blighted by bare bulbs hanging on wre from the ceiling

A five year schedule sounds incredibly ambitious and likely to result in a job poorly done.
The focus should be on doing it right, not doing it fast

Agree joe32F!

When we visited York in 2015, we saw the restoration they were going through on all of their stained glass windows. Whenever a piece of the glass became loose or break, new solder was added to the edges of the glass and over time there was less and less glass showing and more dark solder filling in the gaps. The restoration went back to the original drawings and replaced the soldered frame structure with larger pieces of glass and the amount of light inside was dramatically increased.
I've heard that the stained glass windows weren't damaged, but if the rest of the building is being restored, perhaps they could update the windows to get more light inside.

I loved Notre Dame when I saw it in 2017. I loved the architecture, the stories about the facade. Especially, how people looked at the images of Satan and figured out that believing in Jesus was a lot better than Hell. Architectural history classes taught me that the great grandchildren of the people who started the building process only saw half of the completed structure. What a faith these people had to even start a project so immense. I pray that fire safety features will be integrated, so that this doesn't happen again. Prayers for the Paris people who lost some of their identity yesterday .

I agree with Kathy and CJean. Well said.
It was perfect as it was, and very dear to my heart.
An expert on restoring heritage sites was interviewed on France 24 today. She said, with enough money, 5 yrs is absolutely do-able.

An art historian's view on restoration.

https://www.vox.com/world/2019/4/16/18410806/notre-dame-fire-restoration-history-q-a

Turn it in to Paris' hottest new discothèque! 😎

An art historian's view on restoration

Thanks BG for posting the link, very interesting discussion.

Restored to what period? How we’ve seen it in Modern times, based on 19th Century restoration without the interior paint, or how it was in Medieval and Renaissance periods with wall paint, frescoes and straw on the floor? What does originally mean? It’s been an organic structure whose latest incarnation may seem original to us.

As for the roof: others that have burned have had metal braces installed rather than oak beams.

Agree Bets. There’s no right or wrong answer right now. The French people and government will have to decide what they want.

Well, this is one way that will make it easy to fix should some disaster happen again.....

https://www.reddit.com/r/lego/comments/67poa2/lego_notre_dame_cathedral_in_paris/

Seriously, it should be reconstructed exactly the way it was. But perhaps a sprinkler system?

....install a sprinkler system.

a sprinkler system is unlikely to have helped - the fire was above, in the roof. Sprinklers spray down from the ceiling.

The space above the vault will collect the water with the risk of collapsing as a result more damage, that was one of the problems fighting the fire.

What will make sense to my opinion is adding an architectural element that symbolizes the fire, an event that will be without doubt part of Notre-Dames history in the future. Maybe replacing that spire where the fire started but a bit different as the original, a project for a talented architect. It’s a bit like the Louvre Pyramid designed by M.I. Pei, first most will hate it but after years it will be accepted.

a sprinkler system is unlikely to have helped - the fire was above, in the roof. Sprinklers spray down from the ceiling.

If we can send people to the moon, we can also design a sprinkler system that sprays up.

The French people and government will have to decide what they want.

But the Cathedral is the property of the Catholic Church, isn't it? Won't the Catholic Church have the final say on what happens?

The church is owned by the French Ministry of Culture. It's an unusual arrangement - where Catholic churches go - and my guess is that the French government will have more say in final restoration plans than the Diocese, although the church may be part of the team. The largest donors may even have seats at that table?

It will be interesting to see how the plan develops and who will oversee/execute the master project.

What will make sense to my opinion is adding an architectural element
that symbolizes the fire, an event that will be without doubt part of
Notre-Dames history in the future

Good idea, Wil.

Thanks Kathy - I was curious about that.

All religious structures have been owned by the State but run by the religious entity since 1789.
There was no sprinkler system due to the danger of electricity near the charpente timbers.

Edit: per NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/world/europe/why-notre-dame-fire-spread.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

Sprinkler systems don't use electricity. Heat breaks a seal on each individual sprinkler head, and the water is sprayed out via gravity.

Thanks Kathy.

For outsiders any solution looks easy and logic but as soon you know more it’s completely different. Today on tv an expert in stonemasonry said it will take about a year and a half for having an overview in detail of all the damage caused by the fire and the fire extinguishing water. After that actually the restoration can begin. Things from the outside can look undamaged but due to the heat a stone can have lost it’s integrity inside, so everything has to be examined very carefully. You have to do this in detail with expertise and that will take a lot of time. With every step you have to decide to replace or repair elements or not considering it’s historical and emotional significance too, that will be a serious amount of work.

With monuments extinguishing fires is a delicate job, for instance once old stones have sucked up the water you must remove it ASAP as there is a risk that fungus will grow at places you can’t reach causing more damage as the fire itself. But the stones need time to dry, meaning years in a natural way as forced drying techniques likely doesn’t work in this case. They must certainly have discussed placing a sprinkler installation, but I have the idea it will not work selective enough with the risk the surplus of fire extinguishing water will go to places you don’t want. It looks oldfashioned and outdated regarding all the techniques we can use today, but think the teamwork with all the firemen was the best they could do.

The decision part of the restoration itself requires so much expertise, no one is able to do this on it’s own, it’s teamwork. The experts will analyse every step and discuss every option looking for the best solution, that’s a necessary time consuming proces if you want to do it right. President Macron saying the job will be done in 5 years is a political statement, how realistic future will tell.

I'm guessing that the easiest plan is to restore it to the way it was before the fire. No research about original design, no arguing about restoring or renovating. But I do agree with Michael about installing some sort of fire suppressant system. I'd be willing to bet they have ways of hiding so it is less visible. Just a thought for this fun topic.

Opinion only. I'd do it like previous church restorations. Let various artists submit their ideas and pick the best. As an example, some churches lost stained glass windows in WWII and they were replaced with works by Marc Chagall. I'm not really excited by most of today's art. I think it's better to create a new work of art, that can be celebrated in the years to come for it's own merits, than simply recreate a copy of what was there.

Assuming the Catholic church can not fund the restoration itself, restore Notre Dame only by keeping the bones that are there now, make it structurally sound... It will still be a poignant landmark. Take all the private money raised and put it towards resolving climate change, because if we don't resolve climate change there's no point in having a restored cathedral.

Take all the private money raised and put it towards resolving climate change, because if we don't resolve climate change there's no point in having a restored cathedral.

An idealistic point of view to be sure and I certainly agree that we have to resolve the issue of climate change one way or the other. However, the realist in me needs to point out that taking private donations made for one purpose and using them for another purpose would be unethical and most likely illegal misuse of funds - even if done for a good cause. And for the multitude of people donating, both large and small amounts, to restore an iconic and historic property like Notre Dame it's their chosen cause. There's also the issue of who owns Notre Dame - the Catholic Church or France, so maybe it's not up to the church to foot the cost for restoration, even if they are fiscally able to do so (which, by the way, I have no doubt).

Regarding the question raised by this post - It's not going to be up to any of us to decide how to restore the cathedral, but it's fun to speculate and voice our ideas on what could or should be improved in any restoration.

Regarding restoration funding and where it will come from, these are sort of interesting reads. Sounds like finding $ for repairs the building was in dire need of BEFORE the fire was a challenge. In some ways, it's possible that a high profile, near disaster and the considerable donations it is rallying may have spared the thing from having to perilously limp along on bandaid fixes?

http://time.com/4876087/notre-dame-cathedral-is-crumbling/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-crumbling-notre-dame-cathedral-hopes-wealthy-americans-will-help-save-it/

I find it unbelievable that Notre Dame was allowed to deteriorate for so long. Amazed to hear the stones are porous and crumbling. Why did the church and the French government allow this to happen? Not wanting to spend the money was a major consideration I'm sure, that's why they did the "band-aid" restorations. They better do it right next time. I guess they can't use the lack of funds excuse now.
I recommend the article below from the Guardian. It's political, so avoid it if you don't want to hear some possibly controversial thoughts -- but it's interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/18/billionaires-donations-notre-dame-france-inequality

Just saw this article today. It's dated yesterday so at least it's current.