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

41–50 of 126 posts

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

#41

Post by CydeWeys »

wazoox wrote: post #22

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…

I'm not really seeing how something signed in the 70s is going to prevent France from repairing a devastated building, that is French to the core and located in the French capital, however they see fit. If they come out and say it makes sense to use non-flammable materials for the reconstruction (which would make sense), who in the world is going to stop them exactly? Notre Dame was already damaged by the fire (which this treaty couldn't prevent), and now it's about repairing it.

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

#42

Post by nnq »

Am I the only one actively disliking this light fetish? Dunno about others, but the semi-darkness was crucial to the awe and spiritual depth & mystery that NDC made me feel when visiting it.

Otoh it's probably in line with over-lighting that I saw common at least in Paris lately - restaurants and caffees used so powerful lights that I wanted to wear sunshades inside. I mean... wtf?!

I get it that LED light allow you to flood everything with light at nighttime without spending too much electricity, and that glass and polycarbonate are cheap and easy to use, but... some of us love shade and semi-darkness and even actual darkness! Even phones and laptop screens are luminous now that you need to keep them at 50% or smth if you're not using them while sunbathing on the beach.

I almost wish I lived in a time where candle light was the only available source of illumination, and glass windows were too expensive to worth having them too big!

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

#43

Post by crazygringo »

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…

Thank you for writing that, totally agree. One thing is unclear to me, though:

> He's arguing that we should install glass more closely resembling the original medieval glass, which would allow more light into the structure.

I did a little research, and as far as I can tell, the windows were originally stained glass, then many were replaced with clear glass in the 17-18th century, then re-replaced with stained glass again after that.

So there's nothing "original" about clear glass, and I fail to see any evidence that the original stained glass was particularly lighter (the author calls the newest glass "gaudy bubblegum 19th-century stuff" but bubblegum doesn't mean "darker", and he calls the original glass "delicate and jewel-like" but that merely describes surface texture, not how deep the colors were). Stained glass keeps an interior pretty dark no matter what. So his suggestion to:

> let the sunlight continue to fall across these stones and get the endless Parnassian passages of Victorian-Era glass out to let the clerestory do what it’s supposed to do – be a clear story

Doesn't make any sense. I just don't think you can have all the clear sunlight (like it is right now, as beautiful as it may be) and stained glass. You just have to pick one or the other.

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

#44

Post by thrower123 »

rayiner wrote: post #25
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.

> Let's keep the original style so that future generations can experience it the way it was originally intended. 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.

Rome is proof that you can build with concrete and not wind up with a godawful fugly bunker. Likewise, the first skyscraper era shows that you can build with steel and produce things of beauty.

I'm not sure an eyesore can be avoided if you allow a modern architect within a hundred miles, though.

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

#45

Post by rayiner »

astine wrote: post #38
rayiner wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Building a mall would be more in keeping with the original intent. Remember, Notre Dame is on prime Paris real estate because the church served a critical role in peoples' everyday lives back then. Today, Parisians are increasingly irreligious, so it no longer serves that purpose. So that prime land was dedicated to an important civic institution. Now, it's dedicated to what is primarily a tourist attraction.

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

#46

Post by chadash »

crazygringo wrote: post #43
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…

Thank you for writing that, totally agree. One thing is unclear to me, though: > He's arguing that we should install glass more closely resembling the original medieval glass, which would allow more light into the structure. I did a little research, and as far as I can tell, the windows were originally stained glass, then many were replaced with clear glass in the 17-18th century, then re-replaced with stained glass…

Thanks. I probably misread that and I edited my comment above accordingly.

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

#47

Post by icebraining »

wazoox wrote: post #22

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…

From what I can tell, nothing in the Venice Charter says the reconstruction must be identical. On the contrary:

Article 12. Replacements of missing parts must integrate harmoniously with the whole, but at the same time must be distinguishable from the original so that restoration does not falsify the artistic or historic evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_Charter

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

#48

Post by Nasrudith »

I find myself wondering if going half and half for lighting styles (original radiant and the darker version of later) would be a good approach. It certainly would be an educational contrast like showing bleached and restored original bright flat color Greeco-Roman statues side by side and highlighting both the "true original" and the "traditional" depiction from its wear. Perhaps a bit gaudy in some ways so I can see why that contrast approach wouldn't be favored for aesthetic reasons.

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

#49

Post by javagram »

NotPaidToPost wrote: post #18
javagram wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I always like when people ignore the comment they are replying to... 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.…

I was not ignoring you. My point is the 19th century changes were made in a spirit of restoring the church to its original design. The current gargoyles may have been carved in the 19th century but gargoyles were placed on cathedrals starting in the 13th century and certainly fit well with the medieval gothic style. The original gargoyles of Notre dame, according to Wikipedia, were removed in 1726 so again this is an example of the 19th century changes being a restoration to the original state.

Bolting on visible concrete, steel, transparent glass is a clear discontinuity from the medieval design.

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

#50

Post by icebraining »

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.

How is it stealing from the future? The future can raze it if they want. Razing it now is stealing that option from the future.
Post reply on HN