Notre-Dame de Paris and risk analysis

[j_M007]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47941794

I wonder if anyone thought about the ramifications of renovating shoddily this massive piece of living (albeit now sadly crippled!) patrimony. 

Wood from the time of the 14th century; stained glass windows that are irreplaceable, artwork and masonry that are lost.

Why?

Due diligence and due care anybody? Physical, administrative and technical security controls? 

On the one hand I grieve for the loss; on the other hand the laxness infuriates me.

Comments, criticisms anyone? 

[denbesten]

---

@j_M007 wrote:

---

President Macron says he wants it rebuilt in 5 years. Hmm. experts are forecasting double or triple that time.

Management and technicians likely have a different definition for "rebuilt".

Management likely sees "rebuilding" as the return of tourists and the ability to hold mass.  This could happen with the removal of dangerously weakened materials and the installation of a temporary canvas roof.  This seems achievable within 5 years.

Technicians, on the other hand likely will focus on the hiring stone masons, glass artists, lots of big lumber and building a permanent roof with a towering spire.  Using this definition, rebuilding will take substantially longer. 

So, if this question comes up on the CISSP exam, the "best" answer is 5 years. 

[dcontesti]

So are you saying the best answer is "Management" 

[j_M007]

Although. If it has to do with human safety, we need to err on the side of caution and say as long as it's safe for life and limb. 😉