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

121–126 of 126 posts

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

#121

Post by forgtpasswd »

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.

> No, let's not.

Honest question. Why are we so focused on making sure we rebuild/preserve just as it was in the past. If I am not wrong, this building has been through many such efforts in history, the building was rebuilt everytime with the influences of that time. Why are we as a civilization so focussed on preserving history as-is as opposed to creating history in accordance with our time.

I am neither strongly for nor strongly against this, just curious about what seems to be the general concern and consensus.

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

#122

Post by tomatotomato37 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #115
crazygringo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

It's most likely that modern techniques are too "perfect"; the horribly impure coloration and janky glass composition (the texture of the glass chunk in the literal sense) as a result of technological limitations; in contrast to the "new" glass of the 19th century, which was already experiencing the first industrial revolution and thus could produce quality glass a lot more consistently.

At least that's the impression I got from googling "medieval stained glass vs modern"

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

#123

Post by isabella_r »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #77
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…

>Dunno about others, but the semi-darkness was crucial to the awe and spiritual depth & mystery that NDC made me feel when visiting it. Absolutely. It being a giant dark gothic cathedral was the whole point. It would have been something else entirely if it was bright.

Exactly. It is like being at a club until closing and then the lights come on. It no longer feels cool to be there. Feels like I'm just standing around in a school gym filled with too many people.

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

#124

Post by BurningFrog »

Zenst wrote: post #71
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…

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.

The French are always in uproar.

Only half joking.

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

#125

Post by anoncake »

dang wrote: post #108
theoh wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the characteristically rude HN assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about. 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 int…

I appreciate your knowledge on this topic and your many knowledgeable, polymathic even, contributions to HN. All of that is fabulous. It's just what this site is for. I'm afraid, though, that you added more toxicity just now than anoncake did. I don't see an assumption there that you don't know things—only a question. At minimum, that would be the charitable interpretation à la the site guidelines: "Please respond to…

Thank you. I wondered if my phrasing was that bad.

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

#126

Post by throwawaylolx »

dang wrote: post #108
theoh wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the characteristically rude HN assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about. 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 int…

I appreciate your knowledge on this topic and your many knowledgeable, polymathic even, contributions to HN. All of that is fabulous. It's just what this site is for. I'm afraid, though, that you added more toxicity just now than anoncake did. I don't see an assumption there that you don't know things—only a question. At minimum, that would be the charitable interpretation à la the site guidelines: "Please respond to…

>I don't see an assumption there that you don't know things—only a question.

The initial poster used a mocking phrase "Why didn't anyone tell David Chipperfield?" This is not "only a question"--it's an obviously sarcarstic question. Not claiming that OP's post is justified or my post is not off-topic, but IMO if you want to intervene from an understanding angle, you should see it from GP's perspective as well

Post reply on HN