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

71–80 of 126 posts

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

#71

Post by Zenst »

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.

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

#72

Post by smileysteve »

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...

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to negligence.

Construction and maintenance involve electricity, lights, solvents, blow torches / welders, heights/suspension, obstructed paths, and much much more.

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

#73

Post by titzer »

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?

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

#74

Post by detaro »

javagram wrote: post #49
NotPaidToPost wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always like when people ignore the comment they are replying to... If you want to restore the original style then we should remove the gargoyles, as mentioned, but also other elements that were added. Even the spire was not a 'replica' as it was taller than the original. There is no point seeking to restore "as it originally was" for an 800 years old building. Certainly not using any lead anymore would be welcome.…

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?

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

#75

Post by tomatotomato37 »

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.

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

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

#76

Post by TremendousJudge »

usrusr wrote: post #63
rayiner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hubr…

>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.

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

#77

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

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.

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

#78

Post by BurningFrog »

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…

In HN terms:

Reimplement the interface so it passes all external blackbox test, using more robust internal modern technology.

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

#79

Post by mratzloff »

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 rally his gilet-jaune agitators into some sort of patriotic common cause by promising it’ll all be fine in five years. Billionaires donate a bit of pocket change at a 95% tax deductible rate to get themselves on the golden wall of donors when they should simply be paying more tax on their obscene wealth. Saddest of all, a load of spreadsheet architectural firms get free publicity by doing stupid renders where they put a swimming pool on top of the cathedral, or a glass roof to let light in, revealing that they don’t even seem to understand the concept of a vault. The hack journos lap all this up, and don’t try to talk to the people hard at work consolidating and assessing the structure.

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

#80

Post by Veen »

rayiner wrote: post #26
mocha_nate wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree 100% Historic Preservation is very important

No it's not. It's stealing from the future, locking up prime real estate to be a monument to the past. Take a picture, raze the structure, and build something modern out of glass and steel. Then in 100 years we can do it all over again.

In another comment I quoted Roger Scruton who wrote about the desire of "all forward-looking architects from Le Corbusier to Richard Rogers, of razing Paris to the ground and rebuilding it in concrete, steel and glass" but I didn't expect to see someone actually arguing for the perspective Scruton was lampooning. I suppose he was not exaggerating as much as I had thought.
Post reply on HN