Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let’s fix up Notre Dame with concrete and steel, but let the sun shine into it

stainedglassattitudes.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 126 posts

Re: Let’s fix up Notre Dame with concrete and steel, but let the sun shine into it

#31

Post by chadash »

A lot of the comments here are assuming that the author is proposing something that he is not (perhaps making this assumption from reading the title not the article itself). So I'll summarize.

He's arguing that rebuilding the internal structure of the roof with wood beams would inevitably lead to another fire. Concrete and steel would last longer and be more structurally stable and resilient to fires.

What he's not arguing for is changing the visual character of the building. The steel and concrete he proposes would be in internal areas that people don't see. The ceiling which is what people see from the inside would remain visually the same. So would the exterior. The part that would use concrete and steel would be the interior section of the roof which is only seen by maintenance crews.

Separately, he makes the argument that much of the stained glass installed during the 19th century was "severe and flat" rather than "delicate and jewel-like like genuine medieval glass". He's arguing that we should install glass more closely resembling the original medieval glass, which would allow more light into the structure.

I think all of this is very much in line with trying to keep the character of the building the same.

EDIT: Reading the end of the article again, it's actually not clear to me whether he is proposing to put in clear glass or a stained glass that's a bit lighter than what was there before the fire. I think I initially misinterpreted and the former is what he's getting at.

Re: Let’s fix up Notre Dame with concrete and steel, but let the sun shine into it

#33

Post by [deleted] »

chadash wrote: post #31

A lot of the comments here are assuming that the author is proposing something that he is not (perhaps making this assumption from reading the title not the article itself). So I'll summarize. He's arguing that rebuilding the internal structure of the roof with wood beams would inevitably lead to another fire. Concrete and steel would last longer and be more structurally stable and resilient to fires. What he's not a…

[deleted]

Re: Let’s fix up Notre Dame with concrete and steel, but let the sun shine into it

#34

Post by quotemstr »

krastanov wrote: post #15
mc32 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Parthenon was mostly destroyed in an explosion more than a century ago. Restoring it in a respectful manner would be culturally (and yes, touristically too) valuable.

The Parthenon wasn't even destroyed all that long ago --- 1687. Prior to that, it had survived largely intact. Restoring it now to its intact state would be okay by me.

That said, if you want to see what the thing would have looked like intact, you can always go to Nashville [1].

[1] https://www.nashville.gov/Parks-and-Recreation/Parthenon.asp...

Re: Let’s fix up Notre Dame with concrete and steel, but let the sun shine into it

#35

Post by syphilis2 »

This is a great informative article. When I tour historical structures I realize I'm never upset at renovations or reconstructions from long ago that changed the building. The changes become a part of the building's history. After all, these are not museum pieces preserved behind glass, they're functioning structures and still in use.

Re: Let’s fix up Notre Dame with concrete and steel, but let the sun shine into it

#36

Post by PostPost »

otabdeveloper1 wrote: post #32

Yeah, let's. And as long as you're already uglifying important buildings to rile up people for shits and giggles, put a giant statue of a dildo on the roof as well.

Someone definitely didn't read the article.

Re: Let’s fix up Notre Dame with concrete and steel, but let the sun shine into it

#38

Post by astine »

rayiner wrote: post #26
mocha_nate wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree 100% Historic Preservation is very important

No it's not. It's stealing from the future, locking up prime real estate to be a monument to the past. Take a picture, raze the structure, and build something modern out of glass and steel. Then in 100 years we can do it all over again.

"It's stealing from the future, locking up prime real estate to be a monument to the past."

Stealing what from the future? Are you assuming that people from the future would rather have a shopping mall or something on the Île de la Cité rather than a monument to the past? Personally, I'm rather grateful that people in the past have taken the time to preserve buildings from their time and earlier so I and others in my time can appreciate them rather than tearing them down and building some disposable modern structure that would be gone now. Not only is Notre Dame in particular a great work of art and much more attractive than any glass and steel structure (of which we have far too many imho,) its connection to the past is something that becomes more valuable as time passes. If we were to tear it down today, you can bet that future generations of Parisians would be cursing our generation's arrogance and self-involvement.

Re: Let’s fix up Notre Dame with concrete and steel, but let the sun shine into it

#39

Post by bitL »

sopooneo wrote: post #7
derp_dee_derp wrote: post #2

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.

Cathedrals are alive. At the scale of centuries, change is a constant for them. A great deal of Notre Dame is not "original" anyway. For instance, those famous gargoyles, I was surprised to read are actually pretty recent additions (relatively). All that said, I do agree with you for the most part. Let's not have some arrogant hotshot architect do his flavor of the day on and add the "nosql" of architecture on there.

NoSQL has its use, but architects do ugly things to advance their personal brand and market themselves; old buildings that can't protect themselves are wonderful hosts for their agendas.

Re: Let’s fix up Notre Dame with concrete and steel, but let the sun shine into it

#40

Post by rayiner »

LiquidSky wrote: post #20
bunderbunder wrote: post #17

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.

The problem with Penn Station is not that they razed it. It’s that they built an cramped and gross underground station to replace it. If they had put in a modern glass and steel station in the lobby of a skyscraper, only architecture nerds would be complaining.
Post reply on HN