11–20 of 126 posts
No, let's not. Let's keep the original style so that future generations can experience it the way it was originally intended. Modernization is not always the best idea, especially with historical architecture.
Did you read the article, or are you just responding to the title? It sounds like the latter.
It's a really unique occasion to try to improve a worldwide-known monument with a very strong identity: every one expects getting a certain gothic experience when they come to visit it. Deviating too much from that is both a risk and an opportunity. Out of the multitude of kitschy ridiculous high-concept pool-on-roof design sketches, a few will emerge as timeless and delivering what people expect. I bet it's easy to…
No, let's not. Let's keep the original style so that future generations can experience it the way it was originally intended. Modernization is not always the best idea, especially with historical architecture.
What does 'original style' means, though? Notre Dame was refurbished and changed in the 19th century (and at various other times) . For example, the famous gargoyles are not 'original' at all but date from that time.
“Their project involved primarily the facade, where many of the statues over the portals had been beheaded or smashed during the Revolution. They proposed two major changes to the interior: rebuilding two of the bays to their original medieval height of four stories, and removing the marble neoclassical structures and decoration which had been added to the choir during the reign of Louis XIV [. . .] Instead, he proposed to rebuild the original medieval spire and bell tower over the transept, which had been removed in 1786 because it was unstable in the wind.”
No, let's not. Let's keep the original style so that future generations can experience it the way it was originally intended. Modernization is not always the best idea, especially with historical architecture.
It's a really unique occasion to try to improve a worldwide-known monument with a very strong identity: every one expects getting a certain gothic experience when they come to visit it. Deviating too much from that is both a risk and an opportunity. Out of the multitude of kitschy ridiculous high-concept pool-on-roof design sketches, a few will emerge as timeless and delivering what people expect. I bet it's easy to…
In this case I’m a conservative. Imagine the Parthenon, GP of Giza or Kyoto Golden Temple being modernized. It would ruin the character and further make into Disney-esque tourist attractions.
That's what I would have done with the WTC. Just keep the wreckage, and make it look like people ascended to heaven. Replicate a fire burning, and suck the smoke down, then have steam rise for heat or water.
No, let's not. Let's keep the original style so that future generations can experience it the way it was originally intended. Modernization is not always the best idea, especially with historical architecture.
Even beyond that, there's a practical argument to be made: Why go to great expense to install another disaster waiting to happen, when you can instead spend a lot less money on a roof structure that will more reliably and safely preserve the main structure and its contents?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does 'original style' means, though? Notre Dame was refurbished and changed in the 19th century (and at various other times) . For example, the famous gargoyles are not 'original' at all but date from that time.
The 19th century restoration had a goal of restoring the original style and character of the church. The 19th century spire, for instance, was a replica of the one that had to be removed in the 18th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugène_Viollet-le-Duc “Their project involved primarily the facade, where many of the statues over the portals had been beheaded or smashed during the Revolution. They proposed two…
If you want to restore the original style then we should remove the gargoyles, as mentioned, but also other elements that were added.
Even the spire was not a 'replica' as it was taller than the original.
There is no point seeking to restore "as it originally was" for an 800 years old building.
Certainly not using any lead anymore would be welcome. it's also debatable whether timber should be used at all as it's not even visible to anyone.
There's another very old building in Paris that was recently refurbished (collège des Bernardins). They remade the roof using steel and titanium tiles. It's lighter, does not burn, and will last centuries without any problem.
No, let's not. Let's keep the original style so that future generations can experience it the way it was originally intended. Modernization is not always the best idea, especially with historical architecture.
The kind of modernization proposed by the TFA seems reasonable to me, though. The author makes some interesting points on this subject - namely, that the actual roof structure is never visible to anyone but work crews, and that it's apparently something of a centuries-long standard practice to replace burnt cathedral roofs using contemporary materials and technology. Even beyond that, there's a practical argument to…
No. Don't fall for this. This is the siren song that leads you down the dark path to Penn Station.