91–100 of 126 posts
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.
Unless of course they were to withdraw from the treaty ...
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…
The fire risk of timber roofs in medieval cathedrals is well-documented throughout history. Given that risk, the lack of fire breaks in the cathedral's attic, etc., there's an excellent argument to be made for deviating from the historical design for the reconstructed roof's internal structure. Reconstruction isn't about just restoring what's been damaged or lost, but also protecting the structure for future generations. Weighing possible increased fired safety over the course of centuries against restoring the original design is going to be a major point of debate during the planning stages, even in light of existing restoration guidelines. That's setting aside the possibility of design changes needed to use cross laminated lumber as a substitute for old growth oak timber that's no longer available, or worries about the adhesives in failing over the course of a few centuries in a load-bearing structure. That's a scenario with very unique challenges.
0. https://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-other-doctrinal-texts
1. https://www.icomos.org/en/about-the-centre/179-articles-en-f...
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…
Wood and a sprinkler system will be far better than concrete in this instance for aesthetics, cultural homage and many reasons. Rebuilding it in concrete would see the French in uproar. But one long standing issue we keep running across is how to fight fires in high buildings is an area that could do with some financial and invitation. Until then - sprinkler systems for such buildings should be a priority.
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).
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.
I know all about Chipperfield, at least to the extent of having seen him lecture about his work in Berlin. He was inspired by Dollgast's work http://www.prewettbizley.com/graham-bizley-blog/dollgast and to be honest I don't see the contradiction with what I said. Not everything Chipperfield did in the Neues Museum falls into the category of "restoration" but the parts that do absolutely follow this principle of discreet but identifiable replacement.
Chipperfield on Dollgast: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfizDUjvomA&t=36m56s
See especially the bit at 38:30 where he talks about not confusing the original with the new (in archaeological reconstruction).
Here also is a reference to a 2013 book that says almost exactly what I said: https://books.google.ie/books?id=ddTZAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT366&dq=br...
Please don't further pollute the already toxic environment on HN by assuming the person you are talking to is incompetent, acting in bad faith, or knows less than you do.
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…
> France signed the Venice Convention in the 70s Not only that, according to a friend the French laws about replacements are so harsh, that he: * would have to use handmade wallpapers * was not allowed to replace a very thin outer door with a slightly thicker one so that he could have steel bars run in the door to provide adequate security (he would not have been allowed to drill the holes the bars lock into on the o…
The official reason is to make it faster, but if he/the government wants to make it different, they can change the law as they control the Assemblée Nationale.
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…
In HN terms: Reimplement the interface so it passes all external blackbox test, using more robust internal modern technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article also seems unclear about the cause of the fire. Arson is not currently suspected. There are recent arson attacks on other churches in france which caused some confusion with this fire. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/frances-other-burning-c...
The article specifically criticizes the arson conspiracy theory and indicates an electrical fire is far more likely. "The alt-right hate crew roll in to blame the Muslims..."
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
It's also less clear that this treaty applies to rebuilding work; the original intent appears to be preventing unnecessary changes.
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.
Classic 'this concept cannot be 100% unambiguously defined, therefore it is entirely meaningless and anything goes' argument.
There are no definite boundaries between colors - they blend into each other continuously, and there is never a sharp transition as you move from white to beige to red to blue in color-space. So why not paint your office and house, inside and out, bright red? After all, the current color has all sorts of pigments, so you can't really say the 'original' color wasn't retained!