Ebay Classic organs

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Notre Dame in Paris on Fire

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • jbird604
    replied
    I happened to catch that show too, Michael. And was disappointed to hear no mention of the organ! Interesting story though. So amazing how these structures were built to last without today's machinery.

    Leave a comment:


  • myorgan
    replied
    Update–the show was mostly about the initial building and re-building in the 1800s, and nothing about the organ. We did hear organ music at some point during the show, but (presumably) not the Notre Dame organ.

    Michael

    Leave a comment:


  • Victor Jules
    replied
    Sounds great -- I don't have a TV, mebbe it will show up in Youtube. The N-D subject has caught on there -- here's an awesome survey of the cathedral's history featuring lots of amazing VR
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7W9PwzZtzU

    ....and half an hour on the organ's restorations -- subtitles are available
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIkZ2nDvGm4&t=2s

    Leave a comment:


  • myorgan
    replied
    As a follow-up to this thread, PBS is airing a show on the building of Notre Dame de Paris on its series, Secrets of the Dead. Watching it right now.

    Michael

    Leave a comment:


  • AllenAnalog
    commented on 's reply
    Here in the USA, most fire and burglar alarm systems go to a paid central monitoring station, which then can call the fire department or police department based on the automated information they receive. Sensitive buildings are treated as a respond-first, ask questions later basis, as noted by Michael.

    I think the whole response sequence at Notre Dame should be the basis of a major overhaul in the thinking about how fire alarms are dealt with in historic buildings in France. Human error = lost time = potential lost lives and buildings. Time is of the essence in such matters, even if it results in the first responders finding no source for the alarm, canvassing the building and then categorizing it as a false alarm if an inspection yields no problems - with appropriate follow-up to determine the cause of the false alarm.
    Last edited by AllenAnalog; 07-21-2019, 05:04 PM.

  • Victor Jules
    replied
    The inside story is bad -- very bad

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lB5QbMxvac

    Leave a comment:


  • myorgan
    commented on 's reply
    I would think, though, that there are certain locations that supersede non-attendance at AFAs. I know of a high profile art gallery that was on the city's automatic response system. The fire department would show up, then ask questions.

    One would think Notre Dame would be one of those locations.

    Michael

  • RogerM
    replied
    Originally posted by AllenAnalog View Post
    What puzzles me is that they had to call the fire department.
    I don’t know about France but in the UK it is not uncommon for fire services not to attend automatic fire alarms (AFAs) unless there is a call confirming a fire. Others respond with a reduced attendance. This is because of the number of false alarms triggered by AFAs.

    Leave a comment:


  • AllenAnalog
    replied
    Wow! What an article. I know those smoke sniffing systems well, having assisted with the engineering for an art museum. When properly maintained and tested they provide an early warning - potentially long before any regular smoke detector.

    We had multiple meetings regarding the nomenclature for the the fire alarm and security systems so that a quick glance at the front panels would provide as clear a description as the 32 character display allowed. The display included zone numbers and a simple map on the wall next to the unit showing the areas covered by each zone. We needed concise information for someone in a panic trying to figure out where the smoke was detected if the building was occupied when the alarm occurred.

    What puzzles me is that they had to call the fire department. Fire codes in the USA for commercial buildings require an automatic call from the fire alarm system to a monitoring station with dispatchers. And that call includes zone information from the fire alarm panel so the firefighters know where to look first.

    Protecting the workers' jobs by preventing them from testifying in the investigation seems... counterproductive.

    As with all high-tech equipment, it always comes down to the humans that interact with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • voet
    replied
    There is an excellent article in today's New York Times that gives a detailed description of the Notre Dame fire. I have included the link if you would like to read it. The brave souls who fought to extinguish the blaze expended heroic efforts. As the piece explains, things were perilously close to a complete loss of this treasure.
    A baffling alert. A race to the wrong building. Notre-Dame still stands only because firefighters decided to risk everything, a New York Times reconstruction has found.

    Leave a comment:


  • voet
    replied
    Two thoughts on your post, Papus.

    First, I would not get too worked up about this. These are ideas that people have submitted responding to the call for submissions. This is intended to engage people in the process as various proposals are discussed. Some of them are pretty wild and some are undoubtedly tongue in cheek. One suggestion has been to make the roof into a parking lot. Anyone who has ever lived in a crowded urban environment gets the joke. Another idea is to turn the roof into a swimming pool.

    Second, it should be noted that when I.M. Pei proposed the glass pyramid for the Louvre, there was strong criticism. While there are still people who do not like it, it has become an iconic symbol loved by many people.

    Leave a comment:


  • RogerM
    commented on 's reply
    Couldn’t agree more. Never heard such a ridiculous idea.

  • Papus
    replied
    It is worth considering that many of the "progressive" architectural proposals to rebuild Notre Dame feature an almost entirely glass roof. This means the 900 year old stone vaulted ceiling will be removed.
    The effect this will have on the acoustics of the space, and the voice of the organ, will be devastating.
    Furthermore, anyone who has experienced the space will attest to the wonderful optical effects when entering and traversing the dark stone and wood interior, illuminated primarily by candle light and stained glass windows - even during the day.
    A glass ceiling would utterly destroy the ambient experience of entering the mystical chamber and looking in wonder at the windows, streaming their colourful patterns throughout the space.

    I have zero tolerance for the majority of architects - they seek only to get the photo spread in the glossy magazines and win a few industry awards at swanky international awards dinners.

    Leave a comment:


  • RogerM
    commented on 's reply
    All Gothic cathedrals are unique but that spire was peculiar to Notre Dame and, I think, set it aside from all else in the world - so full marks to Viollet-le-Duc. I have mixed feelings about a ‘modern’ replacement. On balance I think a replica of the original is probably best but maybe we should allow the building to evolve, as it surely has already over the last 850 years.
    Last edited by RogerM; 04-21-2019, 12:43 PM. Reason: Correcting typos

  • myorgan
    commented on 's reply
    Even though it was from the 19th century, I wouldn't mind a similar replacement. I did wonder if the spire was what caused the hole in the vault ceiling. Perhaps that could be rectified with lighter materials that would melt (like the lead) under similar circumstances vs. causing damage as it fell? Just speculating out loud.

    Michael
Working...
X