French experts are combing the country’s forests for centuries-old oaks to rebuild the Notre Dame spire that was destroyed by fire. [...]
Last July, Macron announced the spire would be reconstructed exactly as it was. This is expected to require up to 1,000 oaks aged between 150 and 200 years old.
— The Guardian
Rebuilding the fire-damaged Gothic cathedral hasn't been easy: construction crews were impacted by COVID-19 safety measures, and since French President Macron decided to ditch the modern spire and restore it to its "last known visual state" based on Eugène Viollet-le-Duc's 19th-century design, finding the right wood fit for a historic structure is a logistical challenge.
According to The Guardian, the oaks must be "straight, 50-90 cm (20-36 in) in diameter and between 8 and 14 metres tall. They must be chopped down by the end of March before the sap rises, otherwise the wood will be too humid. Before being cut into beams, the trunks will be allowed to dry for up to 18 months."
50 Comments
Why not take a little bit of license with it and update to engineered wood products. In another 300 years they will just look back at it as a mark of history.
I would value a 1000 century old living oak trees more than rebuilding this the same way as it was done back then.
It took me a while to read this as "1000 century-old" and not "1000-centruy old" Those would be some *very* ancient trees indeed.
They should use Ents instead.
There is no reason to do this.
To destroy 1,000 ancient oak trees for Man's ego is unsustainable.
We need to petition this now! We cannot afford to loose another 1000 ancient trees. The church can be rebuilt using modern materials and still retain the same look. Probably with more fire resistance as well. This has got to be the most irresponsible decision within the Architectural community in the last century.
"The church can be rebuilt using modern materials and still retain the same look."
There's an unintentional irony here I really like.
While this has stupidity and ego written all over it, the last time I checked, trees.... grow. That's kind of what they do. And 1,000 oaks is NOTHING as a percentage of the oaks cut down worldwide every year. Probably a fraction of a fraction of a percentage.
Let's all chill a little bit. If you're so concerned, you can start by giving up your car and reducing pollution in the first place.
Yes, until you are perfect you have no right to a position on this. An old growth oak is exactly the same as an oak planted and raised for lumber. So chill, all you people. bowling has it figured out. I assume that means BB is perfect.
it may be "nothing" if squinted at from a grand point of view, but it remains a ridiculous waste of natural ressources of which their use is purely in sacrifice to the traditional/historical construction gods... conveniently absent, like the one this building was originally intended for, during the spark that ignited the blaze.
1,000 may be a small proportion of all the trees cut down worldwide, but as a proportion of old growth lost, it's much more significant.
You couldn't be more wrong, NS. 1) Locally sourced lumber is obviously going to be the lowest carbon footprint of any structural building material. This is true whether the lumber is 10 years old or 1000 years old. 2) The word "ancient" is being tossed around but in reality they can do with trees that are 100 years old. I literally have an oak tree, on my property, that is older. 100 or 200 years for a tree is insignificant. 3) If you knew your history, you'd be aware that oaks were typically planted at the same time as the cathedral was constructed, in anticipation of having to maintain the building over the coming centuries. So they may have to go to a different site, but it's still just... trees. The US alone builds about half a million wood-framed homes per year. I'm just saying, let's have some perspective.
Agreed, BB, they should use typical residential grade lumber instead.
What's your argument here? Besides being snarky
About 65% snark, 28% disdain for excessive measures to preservation of religious things, 8% wanting innovative ideas instead of appeals to history and 42% indifference of the outcome but heavily in favour of letting ruins be ruins.
Now, if this was something important, like the Guinness brewery, then. I would be demanding everyone from the Queen herself and down to roll up their sleeves and get to work.
Cutting down ancient trees has a huge negative impact on biodiversity, one that we cannot afford. How many bad examples of planting trees do you need to see, to understand that cutting down ancient woodland, even if just 100 years old, is never going to be the answer?
Isn't this getting really old now, attacking peoples personal choices if they dare to raise environmental concerns?
Have you been attacked?
While this has stupidity and ego written all over it, the last time I checked, buildings.... decay. That's kind of what they do. And 1 cathedral is NOTHING as a percentage of the buildings torn down worldwide every year. Probably a fraction of a fraction of a percentage.
Let's all chill a little bit. If you're so concerned, you can start by giving up your house and reducing construction waste in the first place.
Spare the 1000 Oaks, rebuild and restore the Church the way it was but use the best of modern wood technology. Since when have the French started to shy away from challenging situations? Don't start a crusade against a thousand oaks, in the name of the Church or Jesus!
Rumor has it that this is where the Kardashians live and spawn.
If so, I'll bring the chainsaw and lighter fluid.
At least they institute to protecting California native oaks that is state protected rather than the City of LA. They are terrible in protecting trees.
so you guys think it's more humane to kill young trees? or trees that were designated for slaughter? (e.g. christmas trees every year). killing old trees for architecture is way more noble if you ask me.
look, the solution is obvious. Let's get Tık TOK influencers to build this.
This is probably going to be unpopular, but I say cut them down and use them. The caveats are that you need to cut them selectively from healthy forests and replant young trees to replace them. All things the Guardian article addresses.
Cutting down a tree that has been alive for 150-200 years is no small thing, but Google tells me the average lifespan for an oak tree is 100-300 years. So these trees are potentially nearing the end of their lives anyway.
Cutting it down and letting the stored carbon be used in a structure is a good way to keep that carbon from releasing back into the atmosphere as the tree dies and decays. The other side of it is that you can plant more trees to replace it which will in turn take carbon out of the atmosphere for the next 100-300 years.
Google also tells me that oak is one of the better trees to plant to store carbon and that younger trees store more carbon than older trees. So I say go for it. It may seem counterintuitive, but cutting and using the trees might be better than simply letting them live and die naturally.
Could they do better with engineered lumber, etc. Probably. Are they going to do it ... I doubt it. I don't think the sky is falling because of this. I'm not saying this is sustainable for every building, but for a once-in-a-lifetime landmark building like this, I'm not worried about it.
How dare you come into this establishment with a well-reasoned and RESEARCHED counterpoint to our hot takes? HOW DARE YOU, SIR!
"Researched" might be a stretch. "Lightly Googled" would be more accurate.
How dare you ruin our fun.
Another way to look at it, this could be entirely sustainable. Some of the oak that will be cut, could have replaced the trees that were cut down for the spire when it was built around 160 years ago. As long as this new spire will last 150-200 years, we should be good to go.
NS, you can go back to your fun now.
Oaks can live for several centuries. Old growth trees sequester vast quantities of carbon over their lives (contrary to logging industry propaganda) and old-growth forests contain two to three times more carbon per hectare than the second-growth tree plantations that they are being replaced with. Also, tree-nesting animals depend on holes formed through maturity and decay (not woodpeckers) requiring standing old trees.
And then when trees are logged, that carbon is quickly released into the atmosphere anyway. But good luck trying to reason with "tradition."
hellothere1, what? How is carbon released into the atmosphere when trees are logged? That's not real. The carbon remains in the wood until it decomposes, the exact same as if the tree fell over in the forest and rotted, which would happen if not harvested. (Lots of environmental geniuses in this thread)
"It's not real" XD Since you're too lazy to look up anything, here's one little snippet: "All forms of logging generate carbon dioxide emissions because roughly 80 percent of the carbon dioxide stored in trees ends up being lost to the waste stream or burned in the manufacturing and consumption of lumber, paper, or biomass products." Here's another: "When forests are cut down, not only does carbon absorption cease, but also the carbon stored in the trees is released into the atmosphere as CO2 if the wood is burned or even if it is left to rot after the deforestation process." I won't be reading anymore responses from petty little trolls so use your time more wisely.
Took you 7 days to do this research and copy a retort? Perhaps it is you that needs to spend their time more wisely.
Those trees are significant and I know the church is valuable enough for the use. Additionally, the Catholic church has my donation of a correct parametric cradle for the Bentley Systems Generative Components solid for the spire to be sintered out of solid aluminum (with the Oregon Jesuits). The solid production needs solid modeling scans of the previous spire by Viollet Le Duc's roof to be added to the point grid, then have a production engineer review the tolerances to prepare it for final fabrication. The restoration is very achievable.
valuable enough? Oh for fuck's sake, it is not.
SHH, THE ILLUMINATI IS LISTENING.
Ha!
but who listens to the illuminati? That's the real rabbit hole we need to chase.
I think the cathedral should be preserved as a ruin. Symbolic of the religion it represents. No need to spend millions and cut down trees.
It’s a symbol of the crown of God almighty standing firm above France.
crown of am imaginary wanker, that's for sure but definitively not almighty.
god be like: “hey get off my trees I’ve been growing those fucking trees for 300 years you assholes, and I started that fire so we can have a new Walmart right there, what tf don’t you understand about ALMIGHTY!!!.”
this building really has a target on its back now and still, the moment it will reopen it will just be burned down again...
It is such a waste of resources to cut down ancient trees for this...if anything screams for an engineered timber/CLT update into the 21st century it is this building.
I think most lumber in Europe is coming from managed forest. The last spire lasted for 150 years, the trees in question may be nearing the end of their life and instead of falling to the forest floor to become mulch/compost these trees can become something else and their carbon will be locked up in a structure for a century or more.
I think the real question will be if they add fire suppression systems, fire monitoring as well as the lighting protection that was already in place. Europe has a bad track record of construction fires, think the Glasgow Library, which burned twice in 2 years.
I am OK with the lumber order if and only if they install sprinklers and fire risers into the attic so the next fire can be dealt with before any major damage.
Over and OUT
Peter N
they should install an arsonist suppression system
make the guillotine great again!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.