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

111–120 of 126 posts

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

#111

Post by nnq »

souprock wrote: post #109
nnq wrote: post #42

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…

If they flood it with powerful LED light, then when you are old you can enjoy the semi-darkness. There is a tremendous difference in light perception as you age. I packed my house with 65 watt LED lights. No, not "65 watt equivalent" ones that only give off 650 lumens. I get 4000 lumens from each. Now I can see again.

> Now I can see again.

Did you suffer some retinal damage? Maybe too much summer time outdoors without sunshades in your youth? ...and can other people actually tolerate being in your home?! I mean, I can tolerate a 2500 lumen bulb closeish, though I'd enjoy things in the 1000 rage. But 4000 would be torture. Anyway, that's a private space so you can have it your way.

But for public spaces there should be a law against "light pollution" or something, banning anything above 2500! Why tf optimize for people with damaged vision while inconveniencing everyone else?!

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

#112

Post by tsomctl »

mratzloff wrote: post #79

This quote reflects my sentiments exactly, and expands on them: What’s been more depressing than the Notre Dame fire itself is the aftermath. The alt-right hate crew roll in to blame the Muslims (for, um, sneaking inside the roof space to start a fire that hardly damaged the structure at all ah yes, much more likely than an electrical fault: like and subscribe). Floundering President Macron seizes on it to try and ra…

> to get themselves on the golden wall of donors

In their defense, that's how it was financed in the first place.

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

#113

Post by souprock »

nnq wrote: post #111
souprock wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they flood it with powerful LED light, then when you are old you can enjoy the semi-darkness. There is a tremendous difference in light perception as you age. I packed my house with 65 watt LED lights. No, not "65 watt equivalent" ones that only give off 650 lumens. I get 4000 lumens from each. Now I can see again.

> Now I can see again. Did you suffer some retinal damage? Maybe too much summer time outdoors without sunshades in your youth? ...and can other people actually tolerate being in your home?! I mean, I can tolerate a 2500 lumen bulb closeish, though I'd enjoy things in the 1000 rage. But 4000 would be torture . Anyway, that's a private space so you can have it your way. But for public spaces there should be a law agai…

I don't think I have unusual retinal damage. I've had it checked, which is way beyond the normal eye doctor appointment. I've always been an indoors person, very wary of excessive exposure. I'm getting older though, and that makes a huge difference. The retinas go, the lens darkens, the cornea darkens, floaters form, the pupil opens less, and so on. It's not one thing. I don't have any particular damage; it is all just normal aging.

My living room has a pair of 4000 lumen bulbs, a pair of 3900 lumen bulbs, and a couple normal bulbs. I have a master bedroom with something of the same style that is over 50% larger, so maybe 7000 lumens. (a comically huge bulb, 6 inch diameter and 1 foot tall) Smaller bedrooms just get 4000 lumens. The kitchen is 14 40-watt T12 bulbs, probably 2600 lumens each, which would total 36400 lumens. Those are indirect though, reflected off the ceiling.

Want to visit?

My dad, even older than me, loves it. Sometimes my kids object, but it isn't as bad as direct sunlight.

If you live long enough, you WILL have damaged vision. This is a given. It is 100% certain to happen. You too will want bright bulbs everywhere.

Northerners also need the light to prevent seasonal depression.

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

#114

Post by hef19898 »

trhway wrote: post #103
Zenst wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Rebuilding it in concrete would see the French in uproar. i somehow expect and hope that the French will intentionally rebuild it in some very new, "into the 3rd millenium", style which definitely would put half the country and the world into uproar, yet will become a great cultural icon 50-100 years down the road - ie. a story similar to Eiffel tower.

Apparently they are already recruiting stonemasons from all over Europe from other historic churches. The head of the reconstruction effort is, AFAIK the firmer head of of Cologne's cathedral stonemasonry / maintenance crew. And the first woman to reach such a position. She got recalled from retirement

Well, now that will definitely lead to shortage of the experts elsewhere in Europe. But I'm not too worried about Notre Dame. Could also proof to be a field day for archeologists from all over the world.

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

#115

Post by thaumasiotes »

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…

> he calls the original glass "delicate and jewel-like" but that merely describes surface texture, not how deep the colors were

Really? I interpret "delicate and jewel-like" as applied to stained glass as a comment on color and size.

It's hard for me to imagine it as a comment on a physical property like texture -- historically, jewels were valuable first for their color and then for their resistance to damage.

The color part is less true today -- we can cheaply make almost any color of glass -- but the "precious" stones are one and all a lot harder than glass is. Even when amethyst was very expensive... quartz is a lot harder than glass.

If "texture" refers to clarity, glass is a big improvement over natural jewels.

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

#116

Post by javagram »

detaro wrote: post #74
javagram wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Isn't the article mostly suggesting to replace not commonly visible roof structure with concrete/steel?

Yea the article is fine, replacing non-visible materials with improved modern materials is great I think.

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

#117

Post by dogsh1t »

rayiner wrote: post #37

It’s obviously both a huge safety hazard and a money pit. Let’s raze it and build a modern structure to proper building codes.

Amen. While we're at it, let's replace the stones in Jerusalem's Wailing Wall with something a little more stable and less likely to cause an antisemitic collapse. Cinder blocks seem to stack well.

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

#119

Post by Retra »

usrusr wrote: post #105
TremendousJudge wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Steel and concrete is notorious for failing to meet even embarrassingly low longevity expectations. What? Low quality work, yes, as it's true for all other materials and methods. There are steel and concrete buildings that have lasted 100 years so far just fine.

> that have lasted 100 years so far just fine. Which isn't terribly impressive, unless you assume zero maintenance conditions (which admittedly hit pretty much everything else harder than concrete)

It is impressive when you compare it to all the buildings built from wood framing.

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

#120

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]
Post reply on HN