21–30 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.
Agree 100% Historic Preservation is very important
Rebuilding in metal or concrete like Reims, Nantes etc. couldn't be done nowadays.
Building a timber structure like the one that burned being out of the question (because we lack the necessary stock of century-old oak wood that have been dipped into brine for 20 years before construction, as was the original), but most probably laminated wood will be use in its stead.
Natural light might be beautiful, but it is transposed through the use of the glass into a wholly religious artifact. You can even "touch" this visual representation of divine beauty by running your hands under the reflection of colored light. And anyway, it's much easier to examine the stories embedded in stained glass motifs with light coming from the outside in.
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.
This is a weird viewpoint. They used timber back then not out of "intent" but because it was the best they had. If they had concrete and steel, they would've used that instead.
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.
Agree 100% Historic Preservation is very important
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 question is moot. France signed the Venice Convention in the 70s, that forbids any significant modification of protected monuments. Therefore the roof must be reconstructed absolutely identically from a visual point of view, using techniques as similar as possible as the previous one. Rebuilding in metal or concrete like Reims, Nantes etc. couldn't be done nowadays. Building a timber structure like the one that b…
Doing the same for Notre Dame would be sensible.
They will do as they see fit, and rightly so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>The kind of modernization proposed by the TFA seems reasonable to me, though. No. Don't fall for this. This is the siren song that leads you down the dark path to Penn Station.
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.
Using a contrasting architecture results in "yea it's different but we meant to do that" rather than a "we tried to make it the same but it's still different". See the Louvre's pyramid entrance as an example--and yes, I know that was controversial in itself, but I like it.