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

61–70 of 126 posts

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

#61

Post by rayiner »

magduf wrote: post #53
rayiner wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You want Paris to become like Detroit? Those tourists pump an enormous amount of money into the local economy and help keep the city what it is. No one ever travels to cities like Detroit or Buffalo because there's nothing there worth visiting, and the local economies are terrible.

No they don’t. Tourism accounts for just 2% of the Paris region’s GDP. Their GDP probably would go up if they got rid of their historical preservation rules, allowing more productive use of existing space.

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

#62

Post by lcuff »

anextomp wrote: post #54
CydeWeys wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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 ...

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

#63

Post by usrusr »

rayiner wrote: post #40
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.

The problem with Penn Station is not that they razed it. It’s that they built an cramped and gross underground station to replace it. If they had put in a modern glass and steel station in the lobby of a skyscraper, only architecture nerds would be complaining.

It's an illustration of how the hit-ratio of contemporary architects (give or take half a century) is terribly low. It even seems to approach zero once you start factoring in longevity. Steel and concrete is notorious for failing to meet even embarrassingly low longevity expectations.

Use modern materials behind the scenes if it's unavoidable due to cost, but advertising them as a longevity upgrade would be pure hubris.

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

#64

Post by theoh »

icebraining wrote: post #47
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

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).

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

#65

Post by icebraining »

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.

What evidence do you have for either of those? Considering that there was a single seriously injured person, and that the cathedral has its own income, neither of those seem obviously true.

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

#66

Post by this_user »

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…

The French Senate have already made the decision that Notre Dame needs to be rebuilt exactly as it was. So, the discussion of changing the cathedral is moot anyway.

-> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/frances-senate-vot...

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

#67

Post by bobthechef »

sopooneo wrote: post #7
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.

Cathedrals are alive. At the scale of centuries, change is a constant for them. A great deal of Notre Dame is not "original" anyway. For instance, those famous gargoyles, I was surprised to read are actually pretty recent additions (relatively). All that said, I do agree with you for the most part. Let's not have some arrogant hotshot architect do his flavor of the day on and add the "nosql" of architecture on there.

> Cathedrals are alive.

Perhaps still technically alive, but comatose and strangled. Buildings are manifestations of purpose, and France, given its post-Revolutionary secularism, no longer shares in the purpose that drove the life and development of the building. With the purpose gone, the cathedral, while technically still operating as a cathedral, has been drained of much of its life force and essential importance. French society values the building for its mere historical importance and so as with an ancient Greek ruin has preserved it like a cadaver, either resisting any changes so that nothing is lost (thus tacitly admitting its impotence), or, as some propose, wish to make changes that aren't rooted in any essential function or purpose of the building. Unable to repurpose it, they are left to superficial architectural infiltration. Still others may wish to abolish the building altogether.

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

#68

Post by ceejayoz »

opwieurposiu wrote: post #52
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…

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..."

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

#69

Post by ceejayoz »

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.

The tourism benefits of things like Notre Dame likely far outweigh the costs of maintaining them.

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

#70

Post by CydeWeys »

this_user wrote: post #66
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…

The French Senate have already made the decision that Notre Dame needs to be rebuilt exactly as it was. So, the discussion of changing the cathedral is moot anyway. -> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/frances-senate-vot...

That's just talking about the spire. As for the rest of it, the bill includes the language "If the [conservation team] uses materials different from those in place prior to the disaster, it [should] publish a study giving the reasons for these changes."

Seems to me like "We're using steel instead of wood for non-visible parts for reason of it not being flammable", that would be a good reason.

Post reply on HN