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

81–90 of 126 posts

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

#81

Post by pastor_elm »

titzer wrote: post #73
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…

Why not replace it with a hologram?

would be amazing to get some 3-d projections on the ceiling

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

#82

Post by logfromblammo »

theoh wrote: post #64
icebraining wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The standard interpretation of this is something like the following: If you replace an element (e.g. a brick) with a new brick, you should aim for it to blend in discreetly and convincingly with the existing structure BUT you should not try to conceal the fact that it is a repair (by distressing it, for example).

I think it would suffice to place a block somewhere in the reconstruction engraved with the date of the fire and the fact that the fire collapsed a portion of the structure, which was then rebuilt with modern techniques and materials appropriate for preserving the building as a public monument.

The danger is that more ephemeral records of the fire are eventually lost, and then a future archaeologist uses evidence from the structure to make conclusions about construction materials and methods of a particular era.

Besides that, the flying buttresses were not an original feature of the cathedral. If those could be added later, and become part of the historic character of the building, why not steel structural beams and reinforced concrete supports now?

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

#83

Post by anoncake »

titzer wrote: post #73
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…

Why not replace it with a hologram?

For the same reason we don't replace cars with teleporters.

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

#84

Post by anoncake »

theoh wrote: post #64
icebraining wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The standard interpretation of this is something like the following: If you replace an element (e.g. a brick) with a new brick, you should aim for it to blend in discreetly and convincingly with the existing structure BUT you should not try to conceal the fact that it is a repair (by distressing it, for example).

Why didn't anyone tell David Chipperfield?

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Berlin_Neues_Museum_001....

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Neues_Museum_06b_Treppen...

This is the first time I've heard of your interpretation. I'm afraid it's not as standard as you think.

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

#85

Post by [deleted] »

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #75
anextomp wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people with the power to change the treaty don't materially care about the restoration and the people in change of the restoration don't have the power to change the treaty. Without some huge effort to range awareness in favour of changing the Notre Dame for the better, the treaty will remain and those in charge of the repairs will have no say in how they go ahead.

The thing is nothing is stopping them from ignoring the treaty and just doing the restoration anyway; no one is going to embargo or declare war on France over medieval architecture

[deleted]

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

#86

Post by anoncake »

ihuman wrote: post #29
LiquidSky wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

But unlike Penn Station they're just suggesting modernizing the hidden sections the public doesn't see.

And they aren't suggesting tearing down anything.

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

#87

Post by anoncake »

logfromblammo wrote: post #82
theoh wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard interpretation of this is something like the following: If you replace an element (e.g. a brick) with a new brick, you should aim for it to blend in discreetly and convincingly with the existing structure BUT you should not try to conceal the fact that it is a repair (by distressing it, for example).

I think it would suffice to place a block somewhere in the reconstruction engraved with the date of the fire and the fact that the fire collapsed a portion of the structure, which was then rebuilt with modern techniques and materials appropriate for preserving the building as a public monument. The danger is that more ephemeral records of the fire are eventually lost, and then a future archaeologist uses evidence fro…

> Besides that, the flying buttresses were not an original feature of the cathedral.

Do you have a source for that? I thought a gothic cathedral without flying buttresses was like a skyskraper without a steel skeleton. The load-bearing structure isn't generally added to a building after the fact.

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

#88

Post by anoncake »

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.

The historical roof cannot be preserved anymore. A newly-built roof made of concrete and steel has no more historical value than one made of wood. But the rest of the cathedral does. But it was damaged by the fire and can be damaged again. To protect and preserve the historical fabric of the cathedral, its artwork and artifacts, we should avoid fires in the future. By building a non-historical roof made of concrete and steel rather than an equally non-historical roof made of wood.

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

#89

Post by ceejayoz »

anoncake wrote: post #87
logfromblammo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would suffice to place a block somewhere in the reconstruction engraved with the date of the fire and the fact that the fire collapsed a portion of the structure, which was then rebuilt with modern techniques and materials appropriate for preserving the building as a public monument. The danger is that more ephemeral records of the fire are eventually lost, and then a future archaeologist uses evidence fro…

> Besides that, the flying buttresses were not an original feature of the cathedral. Do you have a source for that? I thought a gothic cathedral without flying buttresses was like a skyskraper without a steel skeleton. The load-bearing structure isn't generally added to a building after the fact.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/world/europe/notre-dame-c...

> After construction had begun, flying buttresses were added to the design of the cathedral.

IIRC, they also upgraded the first set with sturdier ones in the 14th Century.

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

#90

Post by jdsully »

quotemstr wrote: post #34
krastanov wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Who would have thought Nashville is where the replica would be. It’s not on my list of things to see.
Post reply on HN