I saw last week a documentary about the carpenter working on the spire. They all say it's an immense honour and pleasure for them, all "Compagnons du Devoir", a French organisation of craftsmen and artisans dating from the Middle Ages (carpenters, roofers, stonemasons, stained glass artists, sculptors, and painters) who participate in this reconstruction. Nearly 1,600 oak trees have been felled to rebuild the roof structure and the spire identically. These oak trees are 50% from state and municipal forests and 50% from private forests, cultivated since the end of the 16th Century to provide at the time timber for the frames of the Royal Navy vessels. This explains why the roof structures of cathedrals in France look like an upside-down boat hull. They were built by shipwrights.

I would love to see a lengthy video from the companies involved, detailing their project and choices.

@@carolwiese6825 everything is on youtube. just use Google translate and search! hundreds of videos, but in french. Some have subtitles.

But they are using computers and machines.

Yes ! There is also (for shorter videos) the France 24 channel (on KZfaq in French English Spanish). They produce at least one documentary per year since the fire.

It would be a dishonor to me.

this will fall apart in 10 years like every modern construction so they will need to constantly repair it

​@@Chris-hw4mq how can it fall apart in 10 year,s when its getting built exactly the same as the original roof & spire. & the original lasted for 800 year.s,

@@michaelgoulding6609 if they rebuild it the same it will last but if they use modern materials it wont

😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣

I had the exact same interpretation.

Yep, looks like a Russian execution

The trees used were planted, many of them, at the time of the Ancien Régime (before 1789) for the King's fleet. They now find a use.

The trees were on 60-70 hectors of land. Yes, these should be replanted too

*craftsman

It would in France as well tbh. Just after the fire, most experts’ guesstimates were around 15 years, not the least because of bureaucracy. E. Macron made a point to have it done (most of it) in five years, and that’s the very reason he appointed an army general to lead the whole project. I assume he wants to show the French they should be more self-confident, more ambitious. It’s a technical challenge and a political bet, let’s see how it goes.

apprend a parler correctement tu te crois au macdo ou quoi wallah ca me casse la tete

I didn't see too many women roughing it on woodwork in the video but ok

From a French : That is a very good story, thank you to remind me this fact of history !

I depends on who your audience is as that's who the graphics would be aimed towards. Not aware of the "Today Show" being a staple in France.

It's better to use metric to describe anything.

@@TXnine7nine Imperial units are officially defined in metric (although most people using imperial units probably don't know that). So, it would be about time to "cut the middle man" and use metric, scientific units in the US too. As you know, US scientists already do, by the way...

It's rare that that any medieval building is original throughout. Changes and repairs are made, and restoration is always going on. The 19th century spire this one is replacing was itself a replacement of the original from the 13th century. The second spire was not a replica of the first.

As answered below, there has been a lot of restoration for 8 centuries, but for me, the biggest loss remains the frame which dated from the 13th century, which had managed to cross 800 years 😢. The work planned to restore the interior of the cathedral to its original color which had disappeared over time. This report is very brief on the work that has been launched, it is planned to redo everything identically, scrupulously respecting the methods used in the Middle Ages, it was necessary to relearn skills that have disappeared, nothing is left to chance, like the acoustics of the cathedral for example. The energy and the means deployed for this restoration will, I am sure, allow you to relive this magic if one day you are led to revisit this heritage which belongs to all of us.

@@guillaume5156 Agreed, thank you for the reply. It will be beautiful once again.

@@guillaume5156 Bonjour Guillaume. Je suis 100% d'accord avec vous ! Néanmoins je ne pense pas que les savoir-faire soient actuellement perdus et qu'il faille les réapprendre. Car nous avons en Europe (et surtout en France) les Compagnons du Devoir (tailleurs de pierre, charpentiers, etc.) qui ont toujours entretenu la connaissance de ces méthodes de travail. Merci à eux...

Yes, all of the hungry people in the world will rejoice that there is an ugly monument to hatred, bigotry, and depravity in Paris. And I bet every one of the "at least 316,000" children sexual abused by priests in France - according to the pope - will be so happy to see this huge pile of wood and stone, rather than reparations and help for the pain inflicted on them by this church.

Il n'y a aucun effort transversal sur les piliers. C'est justement le rôle du tabouret en bois de recevoir tout le poids de la flèche. Il est posé sur les quatre gros piliers de la croisée du transept. Les piliers reçoivent donc chacun 1/4 du poids de la flèche via le tabouret et donc, les forces sont verticales sur les piliers.

From year 1163 to year 1345

Also, not starting fires in the church in the first place would help.

Don’t you think they’ve considered all of that and will likely be doing exactly that?

i would think every option has been explored

Agreed...

Well, actually, something will be placed in the cathedral with the names of all the people who took part in the restoration 🙂

George Soros too.

So are the French

there is no "company" who burnt anything,,, this is an electrical accident probably linked to a bell command. and if you think about Lebras freres who did the metallic structure, it is still this company doing the structure today

@@vincentchabert3312 As far as I've been able to understand anyway, they don't know how the fire started... A short circuit because of a botched electrical connection to power the bells is one possibility, but it's not certain and a discarded cigarette butt could also have started the fire; again, according to what I've read.

@@vincentchabert3312 👍Exactement, Mr. Chabert ! Cette entreprise est irréprochable. Ils possèdent d'ailleurs un haut degré de certification pour pouvoir travailler sur ces trésors architecturaux. Ils ont d'ailleurs été extrêmement choqués lorsque ce drame est arrivé. Bravo pour votre réaction, car il ne faut pas laisser écrire n'importe quoi... Quant à la remarque idiote de James Ricker, on peut aisément s'en passer (malgré que je sois belge, ce genre de commentaire qui s'adresse aux français est très insultant)

merci@@Mirage5BR

Earthquakes in Paris? LOL! (Sure, there are technically earthquakes everywhere, but in Europe and in France in particular, if some do occur they are so benign that usually they can't even get noticed by humans! That's Paris, not Tokyo!)

@@elchapito4580 yeah but im infering so it's designed and engineered to be overkill. So that the new structure will stand for hundreds of years more.

Nope, and that is the biggest problem with this restoration. The amount of time and money they spent doing this is a complete waste when they could've restored it in a much more practical, safe, and sustainable way without compromising the visual aesthetic. It's ridiculous.

@@Andrei-sg7lu I'm genuinely curious about what you think a "much more practical, safe, and sustainable way" would be, since not much can be inferred by this comment.

@Mick 92 Well, for one, they could have rebuilt the roof with modern materials that would be more fire resistant and wouldn't have required them to cut down a thousand trees.

The total amount of money collected throughout the world is about 900 millions euro. I don't know where you found this US billion…

This money comes from all over the world. The USA is not the center of the world...

Very true!

I thought I was the only one.

The problem is that modernism represents such a radical break with any previous architectural tradition, not only aesthetically but also technically, that any modern addition would risk appearing and being regarded as out of place, not only by contemporary eyes but also for several generations to come. Don't take me wrong, such modern additions have been made to heritage buildings around the world, sometimes with more and sometimes with less sensibility, with varying degrees of respect for preexisting construction and also varying degrees of success, but its always a risk, and bound to be scoffed at by the public. Even right after the fire several such proposals arised. They can still be looked up, some of them being extremely imaginative and beautiful to look at, others being quite radical and groundbreaking in their concept. And while I'm happy the tragedy was an opportunity for architects and artists around the world to be seized as a creative exercise and to spark debate, I'm also glad the restoration is being conducted the way it is. There's also the fact that, because of the break modernism represents, probably no buildings like these will be made ever again, so saving any bit of that constrained universe of existing pre-modern masterpieces is absolutely worth it, even if it's in the form and the technique rather than the tangible material itself such as in the case of the destroyed parts of Notre Dame. This is specially true when we speak of such an unique building, where not only the cathedral itself is part of our collective cultural heritage, but also the image of it as seen by people from all around the world. But I guess that's also a very modern conception as well.

It was impossible with this building. The last thing the French wanted was an architectural "upgrade", which would disfigure Notre-Dame, which is a very old symbol and an icon in the hearts of the French.

No one wants "modernism" injected into an iconic and classic Gothic building as Notre Dame.

I think they know what they are doing… I’m sure they want to keep everything as original as possible

@@VEJIm nobody questioned their building skillset, it was more a question of more fire retardant material so it doesn't go back up in a cinder like last time.

Yes they want to create it as original as possible. That's why they perform those old hand crafts and not by some machines

Yes, just waiting for a lightning strike to set it on fire

@@sussybaka3592 yet you see power tools being used, and modern fastening hardwares too.

Ive read that there are french forests preserved for the national heritage purpose. I know this to be true in Japan as well.

Eastern Europe

France has the largest deciduous forest in Europe and the third-largest stock of wood on the continent.

@@elouenmyas580 Russia has by a vast margin, you said Europe right?

I think the word is "logged" or "harvested" not "mined". and I'm pretty sure these are Oak variety. Japanese don't have Oak forest. Russia is mostly pine and fir.

Notre-Dame, un endroit déprimant ? C'est tout juste le contraire... Je vous plains...

Have you been there? There are plenty of lights inside and it's the exact opposite of depressing

@@terezar880 of course I’ve been there. Thus my comment.

@Nick Raschke Notre-Dame est un lieu de prière, de recueillement. C'est une des raisons pour les quelles les églises médiévales (cathédrales, basiliques, etc.) sont souvent relativement sombres, c'est justement le but recherché. C'est aussi grâce à cette pénombre que l'effet multicolore des vitraux est maximal et est tellement saisissant. Croyez-moi, rien n'est déprimant à Notre-Dame ! Ce n'est pas un "grand magasin"... Vous ne l'avez vue qu'avec des yeux de touriste, mais elle est bien autre chose que cela... 😉

And the ugliness progressed...

agreed. What burned down, especially the spire, was not even medieval, but for the most part a neo-gothic, nineteenth-century fantasy of Viollet-le-Duc. It served well, but it's a lost opportunity to give this monument a new aspect, worthy of our age. While this restoration is faithful to the matter, it isn't to the spirit of the object. The 19th century architects had no qualms impressing theor own idea on the old.

What missed opportunity ?! Speaking as a French, who lived for 8 years about 10 walking minutes away from Notre Dame, and visited it countless times, I can tell you that, as most French, I did not want any outlandish rebuilding project on Notre Dame ! I have seen some of the designs proposed by architectural firms, and oh boy... No, I think I speak for a vast majority of French when I say "give us back Notre Dame as she was !" I know that the spire was Viollet Le Duc's reinterpretation of the medieval spire, and that the iconic gargoyles are also his contributions, but who can now imagine Notre Dame without her stryges and her spire as we have known it for more than a century ? Besides, despite the horrendous effects of the spire, and the structural damage inflicted by the falling spire, most of the building was relatively untouched. The only missing parts are the roof, its wooden framework and the spire. I like the idea of using centuries old French oaks to rebuild the framework, just as it was done 800 years ago, it is so fitting. We are not talking about some fairly recent, modern building, that could do with a bit of makeover. We are talking about an 800 years old, iconic building, loaded with a huge amount of symbolic meaning. And we French love Notre Dame as she looked just before the fire. We are very much attached to our history and our traditions, and Notre Dame IS our history. When the pyramid was constructed in the Louvre's plaza, it was added outside, and the original buildings were not touched. And that addition got more than its share of criticisms at the time ! Even if it now is fairly well accepted and regarded. Besides the cathedral is being completely cleaned, its walls restored, and they discovered some beautiful paintings there, covered by centuries of repaintings and grime. Like a phoenix, it will be reborn from its ashes, and even more beautiful. Edit : I failed to mention that yes, a part of the arched ceiling had been destroyed, the fall of the spire having left gaping holes in it, endangering the structural balance of the whole cathedral, and it will be of course rebuilt, while external custom made wooden braces have been added to help the flying buttresses play their part in supporting the walls. Quite the engineering feat !

@@AB-li1eo AGreed, that spire that was there was a 19th century add-on, and Viollet-le-Duc had also irreparably altered and changed stained glass windows, another video shows how sections of the windows were moved around and changed and the proof can be seen in how the scenes and people depicted on the glass don't "fit" right, like a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle with pieces trimmed to fit the wrong spaces.

@@sylviecharlois1165 Merci pour votre commentaire, que je partage à 100%. Même si la remarquable flèche de Viollet-le-Duc était "néo" et n'était pas identique à l'originale, elle respectait avec rigueur le style médiéval. Les constructeurs de cette flèche étaient d'ailleurs des Compagnons du Devoir (Bellu en étant le maître d'œuvre) qui ne se seraient jamais permis de "trahir" leurs respectables ancêtres bâtisseurs de cathédrales. Je suis belge et si nous avions des responsables politiques aussi avisés que ceux que vous avez la chance d'avoir en France, notre patrimoine architectural médiéval se porterait beaucoup mieux... Qu'est-ce qu'on peut lire comme idioties dans les interventions précédentes...

shuddap

They know exactly what they are doing, you are not the expert so you are not one to judge. Even though the spire was added almost 300 years ago, it’s so iconic they are right to replace it. Just because they are saying that they are meeting their schedule, doesn’t mean they’re rushing it.

There is no original design. Like most of cathedrals/churches Notre Dame de Paris is the result of an addition of several phase of building (adding that, changing that). The XIXth century spire is part of Notre Dame and is now as legitimate as the other part of it. Rebuilding the spire as it was is as relevant as building a new one or not replacing it at all.

Notre Dame has had a spire since the 1200s. It decayed and became dangerous so it was removed in the late 1700s.

@@ParlonsAstronomie Very well said!

The recent "invention" of part of the cathedral is a legend that only exists in the English-speaking world. The spires of the cathedral have existed since its beginnings. The first was replaced in the 17th century. The second was destroyed at the end of the 18th century, for security reasons. It was rebuilt at the beginning of the 19th century by Viollet-Le Duc, who also restored the gargoyles...

?? that's the worst idea ever: plastic melt/change of form in heat, it's not as solid, not as strong, and bad for the planet.

@@johnperic6860 The heavens are his throne. The earth is his footstool. What temple could a man build him that would please him? Besides, God no longer dwells in temples made by hands. Notre Dame is built to glorify Roman Catholic priests and bishops.....wicked pedophiles. Better to have burned the residue than to rebuild it and to maintain the horrors of its inhabitants.

Imaginary friends need nice buildings, apparently.

@@johnperic6860 Your jesus is your imaginary friend. You know, the big strong man who is always with you, that you can talk to, and that is going - someday - to destroy all the bad people and take you to a special paradise. Every little boy has an imaginary friend like that; sad that you never outgrew the fantasy.

Peter, your life is even more sadder.

@@johnperic6860 obviously he did not read the bible. It clearly says, that God doesn't want disfigured, disabled people near his Temple, since they are unclean.

Trees are not immortal. They have a life cycle like everything else. They will eventually become diseased and die. These trees were from a carefully-managed forest and make room for young, healthy trees for the future.

And ND belongs to the French state, not the Catholic church.

🤡