Notre Dame (Paris) on fire?

I am amazed at how intact the inside looks. I know there are doubts about the structure, but there are candles on the wall there not even melted.
I was surprised at that. Hopefully the small altars I liked around the back of the main altar are still in decent condition too.

Looks like the stone inner ceiling seems to have protected the Church well.
 

DH1

Full Back
Surely the Vatican aren't short of a euro or two to restore one of their own churches without pocketing donations from and taking advantage of good natured people?
Church are absolutly minted, they could build ten of these grand cathedral's tomorrow if they wanted from scratch.

Being made to welcome our new Norman overlords was no doubt the reason for building Durham Cathedral and Castle, and the Tower of London and a host of others across the country. But time has transformed them into the repositories of our identity and history. When I visit Durham Cathedral, and see (amongst so many other wonderful and moving things), Bede’s tomb and coffin, the miners’ memorial, the DLI memorial, and the memorial to 607 (County of Durham) squadron, the Conyers falchion, the Frosterley marble and on and on, I know who I am.
Aye, also how many people have tried to wipe the cathedral off the map up here over the century's. Yet it still stands, doesn't have all its original features but the structure tells its own tale and that's enough for me. Class.
 
Last edited:

Pacific

Striker
how much money do they need to rebuild it like. hundreds of millions pouring in all over the shot and they're going to have an international fundraiser aswell
 

Churchlanelad

Full Back
Being made to welcome our new Norman overlords was no doubt the reason for building Durham Cathedral and Castle, and the Tower of London and a host of others across the country. But time has transformed them into the repositories of our identity and history. When I visit Durham Cathedral, and see (amongst so many other wonderful and moving things), Bede’s tomb and coffin, the miners’ memorial, the DLI memorial, and the memorial to 607 (County of Durham) squadron, the Conyers falchion, the Frosterley marble and on and on, I know who I am.
I have a connection to the cathedral in that my grandfather is recorded in the Book of Rememberance in the DLI chapel. This is the only place that I have found his name recorded.
 
How as a nation, are we going to support the reconstruction of the Cathedral, as May has said?

If it is supplying some of the workforce then fair enough. If it is financial support, how much? We have issues of our own to fund first, like homelessness for a start.
We better not give a penny of public funding. It is a shame that such an iconic building of historical value has suffered such a thing, but I agree, the homeless should get this as funding, if the government are going to give out cash.

The money will be provide elsewhere anyway, if we don't contribute.
 
Last edited:

janiep

Striker
The view of the Norman cathedral and the castle keep from the train station is one of the best in the whole country. I’d say Durham is the most impressive cathedral in the UK.
St Pauls, St Pauls. I can't decide between the two. St Pauls is staggering, the masterpiece of a genius. Durham has that astonishing location though.

Didn’t go mad! You cannot be more wrong. As I have said in previous posts, it was constructed in only 40years using only muscle power, a great achievement. This means that it is built in one style, Romanesque or Norman which gives it that cohesive style. If anyone has visited Canterbury, it feels like 2 buildings stuck together, the styles are so different.
Durham was constructed using revolutionary techniques, it was the first major church to use the Gothic arch and flying buttresses. The reason that Durham looks plain from the outside is that it was “improved” some centuries ago and excess decorations were removed.
Bill Bryson said it is the best building in the world, I don’t disagree.
You're right about Canterbury. It's an oddity. Another oddity is St Albans as it's built of brick, seemingly by the fella who built Battersea power station. But then you find out it was built a thousand years ago out of bricks that were already a thousand years old at that time.

 
Last edited:

janiep

Striker
My mate always goes on about St Paul’s and how amazing it is. I’ve never seen it myself. It’s old and iconic obviously but Durham pisses all over it in my book.
Get into London and take a look. It hits you in the face. Very, very hard to find a photo that does it justice as everything is so built up around it even though they try to preserve the sight lines. Impossible to get a 'whole building' perspective from a distance. Not taking anything from Durham, it's astonishing. But as a building St Pauls is a one off and I've never seen anythign like it, not even Durham. Sorry.
 

Kent_Mackem

Striker
Get into London and take a look. It hits you in the face. Very, very hard to find a photo that does it justice as everything is so built up around it even though they try to preserve the sight lines. Impossible to get a 'whole building' perspective from a distance. Not taking anything from Durham, it's astonishing. But as a building St Pauls is a one off and I've never seen anythign like it, not even Durham. Sorry.
No, I don’t mean I have never seen it. I have walked past it hundreds of times. Just that I don’t see the fuss.
 

janiep

Striker
I was told yesterday that the French stonework in the great medieval window at Canterbury which had been installed in the C13th was rebuilt in Dorset stone in the C19th. By 2000 the window had to be rebuilt again using French stone as the stone used in the C19th has deteriorated so much. It is only in recent years that restorationists have really begun to research what they were proposing to do before getting stuck into it. Botched restorations have done so much damage.

By the way as impressive and historical as Canterbury is in my view it does not match the breathtaking magnificence of our 's at Durham. I have yet to find a cathedral in the UK that does.
The thing about old buildings is that you really, really have to respect the original building technology and materials. I posted upthread about a fifteenth century house I owned - a modest one, but an old and delightful one. It looked a bit like one of these but smaller:



It was fine for 500 years. And then in the 1960s someone knocked out all the lime plaster white infill panels between the black timbers and replaced them with panels made of cement :neutral:. They also painted the black timbers with shellac-like paint. Result: moisture was trapped in the black timbers, couldn't escape, and they rotted from the inside. Outcome: house started falling down. Effect on me: expensive. But the repairs I did, using original techniques and materials, should make the house good for the next 500 years as long as future owners respect the technique and materials that the house was built with: no modern impermeable paint, breathable whitewash only; only lime plaster or wattle and daub in the panels (also breathable); let the house be a bit draughty, it was meant to be draughty because that's a vital damp control.
 
Last edited:

Churchlanelad

Full Back
The thing about old buildings is that you really, really have to respect the original building technology and materials. I posted upthread about a fifteenth century house I owned - a modest one, but an old and delightful one. It looked a bit like one of these but smaller:



It was fine for 500 years. And then in the 1960s someone knocked out all the lime plaster white infill panels between the black timbers and replaced them with panels made of cement :neutral:. They also painted the black timbers with shellac-like paint. Result: moisture was trapped in the black timbers, couldn't escape, and they rotted from the inside. Outcome: house started falling down. Effect on me: expensive. But the repairs I did, using original techniques and materials, should make the house good for the next 500 years as long as future owners respect the technique and materials that the house was built with: no modern impermeable paint, breathable whitewash only; only lime plaster or wattle and daub in the panels (also breathable); let the house be a bit draughty, it was meant to be draughty because that's a vital damp control.
A lot of architectural crimes were committed in the 60s, it was a shame that your house suffered, but it’s good that you repaired it sympathetically, but I bet it wasn’t cheap!
 

janiep

Striker
Look at this:



An old wall 'restored' with modern, impermeable mortar. Result - the moisture gets trapped in the bricks and crumbles them.

A lot of architectural crimes were committed in the 60s, it was a shame that your house suffered, but it’s good that you repaired it sympathetically, but I bet it wasn’t cheap!
It absolutely wasn't! But hey, it happened on my watch, that's life. In a way I'm proud to have made it good for the future. When you own a house like that, while it's your home and has to operate as such (so I had no qualms about sticking a sky dish on the back even though we weren't supposed to, or drilling through the newly and authentically rebuilt front wall to put a broadband cable in), you realise you are only a custodian of it, and it's only yours for a while.
 
Last edited:

Top