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.
The 19th century restoration had a goal of restoring the original style and character of the church. The 19th century spire, for instance, was a replica of the one that had to be removed in the 18th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugène_Viollet-le-Duc
“Their project involved primarily the facade, where many of the statues over the portals had been beheaded or smashed during the Revolution. They proposed two major changes to the interior: rebuilding two of the bays to their original medieval height of four stories, and removing the marble neoclassical structures and decoration which had been added to the choir during the reign of Louis XIV [. . .] Instead, he proposed to rebuild the original medieval spire and bell tower over the transept, which had been removed in 1786 because it was unstable in the wind.”
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. it's also debatable whether timber should be used at all as it's not even visible to anyone.
There's another very old building in Paris that was recently refurbished (collège des Bernardins). They remade the roof using steel and titanium tiles. It's lighter, does not burn, and will last centuries without any problem.
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 example of the 19th century changes being a restoration to the original state.
Bolting on visible concrete, steel, transparent glass is a clear discontinuity from the medieval design.
This reminds me the outcry that followed the 'bolting on' of visible concrete, steel, and transparent glass in the middle of the Louvres... Which is now one of the most striking and famous view of the city.
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!
The "historic" roof cannot be preserved - it is now gone. The building will tell its history more honestly if the new structure is of the time. It should be sympathetic to the rest of the design, but not pretend to be anything it's not.
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.
"It's stealing from the future, locking up prime real estate to be a monument to the past."
Stealing what from the future? Are you assuming that people from the future would rather have a shopping mall or something on the Île de la Cité rather than a monument to the past? Personally, I'm rather grateful that people in the past have taken the time to preserve buildings from their time and earlier so I and others in my time can appreciate them rather than tearing them down and building some disposable modern structure that would be gone now. Not only is Notre Dame in particular a great work of art and much more attractive than any glass and steel structure (of which we have far too many imho,) its connection to the past is something that becomes more valuable as time passes. If we were to tear it down today, you can bet that future generations of Parisians would be cursing our generation's arrogance and self-involvement.
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.
"Stealing the land. If we built a shopping moll there, future generations could build something significant to their society."
They can still do that. Not tearing down a building today does not prevent future generations from doing so if need be. The only choice today that steals from the future is razing the structure because that's the one thing that cannot be undone.
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.
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.
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.
NoSQL has its use, but architects do ugly things to advance their personal brand and market themselves; old buildings that can't protect themselves are wonderful hosts for their agendas.
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.
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
The kind of modernization proposed by the TFA seems reasonable to me, though. The author makes some interesting points on this subject - namely, that the actual roof structure is never visible to anyone but work crews, and that it's apparently something of a centuries-long standard practice to replace burnt cathedral roofs using contemporary materials and technology.
Even beyond that, there's a practical argument to be made: Why go to great expense to install another disaster waiting to happen, when you can instead spend a lot less money on a roof structure that will more reliably and safely preserve the main structure and its contents?
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.
>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.
> Let's keep the original style so that future generations can experience it the way it was originally intended.
This is a weird viewpoint. They used timber back then not out of "intent" but because it was the best they had. If they had concrete and steel, they would've used that instead.
Rome is proof that you can build with concrete and not wind up with a godawful fugly bunker. Likewise, the first skyscraper era shows that you can build with steel and produce things of beauty.
I'm not sure an eyesore can be avoided if you allow a modern architect within a hundred miles, though.
The problem (to me) is it's often impossible to truly match the "original". The different materials, building methods, etc often create something that is close but not quite right. See the Washington Monument as an example.
Using a contrasting architecture results in "yea it's different but we meant to do that" rather than a "we tried to make it the same but it's still different". See the Louvre's pyramid entrance as an example--and yes, I know that was controversial in itself, but I like it.
The historical roof cannot be preserved anymore. A newly-built roof made of concrete and steel has no more historical value than one made of wood. But the rest of the cathedral does. But it was damaged by the fire and can be damaged again. To protect and preserve the historical fabric of the cathedral, its artwork and artifacts, we should avoid fires in the future. By building a non-historical roof made of concrete and steel rather than an equally non-historical roof made of wood.
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.
Roger Scruton recently wrote about where he suspects the plans for the repair will go:
> It would be wrong to assume that a gang of modernists set fire to Notre Dame – it could perhaps have been an accident. But there was no better way to advance the great project, shared by all forward-looking architects from Le Corbusier to Richard Rogers, of razing Paris to the ground and rebuilding it in concrete, steel and glass. An international competition of the kind proposed by President Macron will in all probability result in a replica of Norman Foster’s Sage Gateshead, expectorated onto the walls of the cathedral, to cling trembling above them like a gob of shiny snot.
It's a really unique occasion to try to improve a worldwide-known monument with a very strong identity: every one expects getting a certain gothic experience when they come to visit it. Deviating too much from that is both a risk and an opportunity.
Out of the multitude of kitschy ridiculous high-concept pool-on-roof design sketches, a few will emerge as timeless and delivering what people expect. I bet it's easy to deliver the expected gothic experience when they step inside, and take bold bets on the outside appearance.
In this case I’m a conservative. Imagine the Parthenon, GP of Giza or Kyoto Golden Temple being modernized. It would ruin the character and further make into Disney-esque tourist attractions.
The Parthenon was mostly destroyed in an explosion more than a century ago. Restoring it in a respectful manner would be culturally (and yes, touristically too) valuable.
The Parthenon wasn't even destroyed all that long ago --- 1687. Prior to that, it had survived largely intact. Restoring it now to its intact state would be okay by me.
That said, if you want to see what the thing would have looked like intact, you can always go to Nashville [1].
I'm interested in transparent building materials, so people look like they are walking on nothing.
That's what I would have done with the WTC. Just keep the wreckage, and make it look like people ascended to heaven. Replicate a fire burning, and suck the smoke down, then have steam rise for heat or water.
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 burned being out of the question (because we lack the necessary stock of century-old oak wood that have been dipped into brine for 20 years before construction, as was the original), but most probably laminated wood will be use in its stead.
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 this treaty couldn't prevent), and now it's about repairing it.
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
And especially not if done for the entirely reasonable reason of "The wood burned the last time, so this time we're not going to rebuild the internal parts out of wood."
It's also less clear that this treaty applies to rebuilding work; the original intent appears to be preventing unnecessary changes.
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.
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).
I think it would suffice to place a block somewhere in the reconstruction engraved with the date of the fire and the fact that the fire collapsed a portion of the structure, which was then rebuilt with modern techniques and materials appropriate for preserving the building as a public monument.
The danger is that more ephemeral records of the fire are eventually lost, and then a future archaeologist uses evidence from the structure to make conclusions about construction materials and methods of a particular era.
Besides that, the flying buttresses were not an original feature of the cathedral. If those could be added later, and become part of the historic character of the building, why not steel structural beams and reinforced concrete supports now?
> Besides that, the flying buttresses were not an original feature of the cathedral.
Do you have a source for that? I thought a gothic cathedral without flying buttresses was like a skyskraper without a steel skeleton. The load-bearing structure isn't generally added to a building after the fact.
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 into the category of "restoration" but the parts that do absolutely follow this principle of discreet but identifiable replacement.
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.
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 the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
I think the phenomenon here is how all-too-easy it is to add to toxicity while trying to defend the environment (and oneself) from toxicity. A lot of us do this. I do it myself, and have constantly to learn not 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
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 other side of the frame either)
He sold his house after realizing that there is no way around these rules (and he worked in French bureaucracy all his life).
PS: IIRC it was a small 17th century hôtel particulier in a town some hours from Paris, off the tourist track.
Macron is actually trying to pass a law to make an exception and loosen the rules for the Notre Dame restauration.
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.
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.
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.
The Venice Charter is a set of conservation and restoration guidelines, not an international treaty with the force of law. There are other ICOMOS doctrinal texts,[0] as well. The 2003 ICOMOS charter Prinicples for the analysis, conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage declares "The choice between ?traditional? and ?innovative? techniques should be weighed up on a case-by-case basis and preference given to those that are least invasive and most compatible with heritage values, bearing in mind safety and durability requirements. (3.7)"[1] Article 10 of the Venice Charter also states that "Where traditional techniques prove inadequate, the consolidation of a monument can be achieved by the use of any modern technique for conservation and construction, the efficacy of which has been shown by scientific data and proved by experience." There's no single answer here, just a very loud debate to come that will be shaped by guidelines and experience.
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.
I don't think replacing the windows or letting in sunlight would work. I agree that the lighting system should go, but the design and use of stained glass in the middle ages had several purposes, one of which was that the light was a visual representation of God's glory. In the Medieval period there were long-running discussions among theologians about light's divine significance (https://books.google.com/books?id=eXbDBwAAQBAJ&printsec=fron...).
Natural light might be beautiful, but it is transposed through the use of the glass into a wholly religious artifact. You can even "touch" this visual representation of divine beauty by running your hands under the reflection of colored light. And anyway, it's much easier to examine the stories embedded in stained glass motifs with light coming from the outside in.
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 arguing for is changing the visual character of the building. The steel and concrete he proposes would be in internal areas that people don't see. The ceiling which is what people see from the inside would remain visually the same. So would the exterior. The part that would use concrete and steel would be the interior section of the roof which is only seen by maintenance crews.
Separately, he makes the argument that much of the stained glass installed during the 19th century was "severe and flat" rather than "delicate and jewel-like like genuine medieval glass". He's arguing that we should install glass more closely resembling the original medieval glass, which would allow more light into the structure.
I think all of this is very much in line with trying to keep the character of the building the same.
EDIT: Reading the end of the article again, it's actually not clear to me whether he is proposing to put in clear glass or a stained glass that's a bit lighter than what was there before the fire. I think I initially misinterpreted and the former is what he's getting at.
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 again after that.
So there's nothing "original" about clear glass, and I fail to see any evidence that the original stained glass was particularly lighter (the author calls the newest glass "gaudy bubblegum 19th-century stuff" but bubblegum doesn't mean "darker", and he calls the original glass "delicate and jewel-like" but that merely describes surface texture, not how deep the colors were). Stained glass keeps an interior pretty dark no matter what. So his suggestion to:
> let the sunlight continue to fall across these stones and get the endless Parnassian passages of Victorian-Era glass out to let the clerestory do what it’s supposed to do – be a clear story
Doesn't make any sense. I just don't think you can have all the clear sunlight (like it is right now, as beautiful as it may be) and stained glass. You just have to pick one or the other.
> 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.
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"
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.
Thanks for the clarification. Skimming through headlines, this one conjured up Ayn Rand-ian anti-cathedral sentiments. "The cathedral rose over it in lace splendor, a fragile defense against two great enemies: light and air."
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.
Though I don't expect it to happen in this case, I wonder if some kind of wood and metal composite structure couldn't be implemented?
I'm certainly not an architect or engineer; maybe that suggestion is currently impossible.
Ideally it would be interesting if you could do something almost akin to 3D printing, or maybe closer to how plywood is made, but using wood fiber. I'm imagining something like long fibers of wood, intermixed with stainless steel or aluminum "wire", and molded using resin binders in the forms and shapes needed for the trusses and beams, etc.
From the outside, it should look almost like regular wood, but with some of the strength characteristics of the metal (though now that I think about it, it probably wouldn't work in sheer or compression; tensile strength might be ok).
What would be even more amazing, though I can't think of a way to do it, would be a wood/metal composite where the metal was a 3D organic-like lattice with the wood in between; I can imagine such a thing, but not a way to manufacture it (at least not with today's technology).
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.
And as long as you're already uglifying important buildings to rile up people for shits and giggles, put a giant statue of a dildo on the roof as well.
This is a great informative article. When I tour historical structures I realize I'm never upset at renovations or reconstructions from long ago that changed the building. The changes become a part of the building's history. After all, these are not museum pieces preserved behind glass, they're functioning structures and still in use.
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.
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.
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 to flood everything with light at nighttime without spending too much electricity, and that glass and polycarbonate are cheap and easy to use, but... some of us love shade and semi-darkness and even actual darkness! Even phones and laptop screens are luminous now that you need to keep them at 50% or smth if you're not using them while sunbathing on the beach.
I almost wish I lived in a time where candle light was the only available source of illumination, and glass windows were too expensive to worth having them too big!
>Even phones and laptop screens are luminous now that you need to keep them at 50% or smth if you're not using them while sunbathing on the beach.
This is for good reason: so you can see them in daylight. The difference between nighttime and daytime illumination is orders of magnitude; we don't perceive it that way because our eyes are adapted to adjust to lighting levels that are orders of magnitude different. These devices need very bright screens if we want to see them when we're walking around outside. They're supposed to have auto-dimming functions so they turn down when you're inside or it's nighttime, but unfortunately many devices seem to have lousy auto-dimming algorithms.
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.
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.
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?!
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.
I find myself wondering if going half and half for lighting styles (original radiant and the darker version of later) would be a good approach. It certainly would be an educational contrast like showing bleached and restored original bright flat color Greeco-Roman statues side by side and highlighting both the "true original" and the "traditional" depiction from its wear. Perhaps a bit gaudy in some ways so I can see why that contrast approach wouldn't be favored for aesthetic reasons.
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.
125 comments
[ 9.5 ms ] story [ 179 ms ] threadLet'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.
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.
“Their project involved primarily the facade, where many of the statues over the portals had been beheaded or smashed during the Revolution. They proposed two major changes to the interior: rebuilding two of the bays to their original medieval height of four stories, and removing the marble neoclassical structures and decoration which had been added to the choir during the reign of Louis XIV [. . .] Instead, he proposed to rebuild the original medieval spire and bell tower over the transept, which had been removed in 1786 because it was unstable in the wind.”
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. it's also debatable whether timber should be used at all as it's not even visible to anyone.
There's another very old building in Paris that was recently refurbished (collège des Bernardins). They remade the roof using steel and titanium tiles. It's lighter, does not burn, and will last centuries without any problem.
Bolting on visible concrete, steel, transparent glass is a clear discontinuity from the medieval design.
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!
Historic Preservation is very important
Stealing what from the future? Are you assuming that people from the future would rather have a shopping mall or something on the Île de la Cité rather than a monument to the past? Personally, I'm rather grateful that people in the past have taken the time to preserve buildings from their time and earlier so I and others in my time can appreciate them rather than tearing them down and building some disposable modern structure that would be gone now. Not only is Notre Dame in particular a great work of art and much more attractive than any glass and steel structure (of which we have far too many imho,) its connection to the past is something that becomes more valuable as time passes. If we were to tear it down today, you can bet that future generations of Parisians would be cursing our generation's arrogance and self-involvement.
They can still do that. Not tearing down a building today does not prevent future generations from doing so if need be. The only choice today that steals from the future is razing the structure because that's the one thing that cannot be undone.
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.
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.
Even beyond that, there's a practical argument to be made: Why go to great expense to install another disaster waiting to happen, when you can instead spend a lot less money on a roof structure that will more reliably and safely preserve the main structure and its contents?
No. Don't fall for this. This is the siren song that leads you down the dark path to Penn Station.
Use modern materials behind the scenes if it's unavoidable due to cost, but advertising them as a longevity upgrade would be pure hubris.
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.
Which isn't terribly impressive, unless you assume zero maintenance conditions (which admittedly hit pretty much everything else harder than concrete)
This is a weird viewpoint. They used timber back then not out of "intent" but because it was the best they had. If they had concrete and steel, they would've used that instead.
I'm not sure an eyesore can be avoided if you allow a modern architect within a hundred miles, though.
Using a contrasting architecture results in "yea it's different but we meant to do that" rather than a "we tried to make it the same but it's still different". See the Louvre's pyramid entrance as an example--and yes, I know that was controversial in itself, but I like it.
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.
> It would be wrong to assume that a gang of modernists set fire to Notre Dame – it could perhaps have been an accident. But there was no better way to advance the great project, shared by all forward-looking architects from Le Corbusier to Richard Rogers, of razing Paris to the ground and rebuilding it in concrete, steel and glass. An international competition of the kind proposed by President Macron will in all probability result in a replica of Norman Foster’s Sage Gateshead, expectorated onto the walls of the cathedral, to cling trembling above them like a gob of shiny snot.
Out of the multitude of kitschy ridiculous high-concept pool-on-roof design sketches, a few will emerge as timeless and delivering what people expect. I bet it's easy to deliver the expected gothic experience when they step inside, and take bold bets on the outside appearance.
That said, if you want to see what the thing would have looked like intact, you can always go to Nashville [1].
[1] https://www.nashville.gov/Parks-and-Recreation/Parthenon.asp...
That's what I would have done with the WTC. Just keep the wreckage, and make it look like people ascended to heaven. Replicate a fire burning, and suck the smoke down, then have steam rise for heat or water.
Rebuilding in metal or concrete like Reims, Nantes etc. couldn't be done nowadays.
Building a timber structure like the one that burned being out of the question (because we lack the necessary stock of century-old oak wood that have been dipped into brine for 20 years before construction, as was the original), but most probably laminated wood will be use in its stead.
Doing the same for Notre Dame would be sensible.
They will do as they see fit, and rightly so.
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.
It's also less clear that this treaty applies to rebuilding work; the original intent appears to be preventing unnecessary changes.
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
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).
The danger is that more ephemeral records of the fire are eventually lost, and then a future archaeologist uses evidence from the structure to make conclusions about construction materials and methods of a particular era.
Besides that, the flying buttresses were not an original feature of the cathedral. If those could be added later, and become part of the historic character of the building, why not steel structural beams and reinforced concrete supports now?
Do you have a source for that? I thought a gothic cathedral without flying buttresses was like a skyskraper without a steel skeleton. The load-bearing structure isn't generally added to a building after the fact.
> After construction had begun, flying buttresses were added to the design of the cathedral.
IIRC, they also upgraded the first set with sturdier ones in the 14th Century.
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.
I think the phenomenon here is how all-too-easy it is to add to toxicity while trying to defend the environment (and oneself) from toxicity. A lot of us do this. I do it myself, and have constantly to learn not to.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
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
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 other side of the frame either)
He sold his house after realizing that there is no way around these rules (and he worked in French bureaucracy all his life).
PS: IIRC it was a small 17th century hôtel particulier in a town some hours from Paris, off the tourist track.
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.
-> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/frances-senate-vot...
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.
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...
Natural light might be beautiful, but it is transposed through the use of the glass into a wholly religious artifact. You can even "touch" this visual representation of divine beauty by running your hands under the reflection of colored light. And anyway, it's much easier to examine the stories embedded in stained glass motifs with light coming from the outside in.
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 arguing for is changing the visual character of the building. The steel and concrete he proposes would be in internal areas that people don't see. The ceiling which is what people see from the inside would remain visually the same. So would the exterior. The part that would use concrete and steel would be the interior section of the roof which is only seen by maintenance crews.
Separately, he makes the argument that much of the stained glass installed during the 19th century was "severe and flat" rather than "delicate and jewel-like like genuine medieval glass". He's arguing that we should install glass more closely resembling the original medieval glass, which would allow more light into the structure.
I think all of this is very much in line with trying to keep the character of the building the same.
EDIT: Reading the end of the article again, it's actually not clear to me whether he is proposing to put in clear glass or a stained glass that's a bit lighter than what was there before the fire. I think I initially misinterpreted and the former is what he's getting at.
> 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 again after that.
So there's nothing "original" about clear glass, and I fail to see any evidence that the original stained glass was particularly lighter (the author calls the newest glass "gaudy bubblegum 19th-century stuff" but bubblegum doesn't mean "darker", and he calls the original glass "delicate and jewel-like" but that merely describes surface texture, not how deep the colors were). Stained glass keeps an interior pretty dark no matter what. So his suggestion to:
> let the sunlight continue to fall across these stones and get the endless Parnassian passages of Victorian-Era glass out to let the clerestory do what it’s supposed to do – be a clear story
Doesn't make any sense. I just don't think you can have all the clear sunlight (like it is right now, as beautiful as it may be) and stained glass. You just have to pick one or the other.
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.
At least that's the impression I got from googling "medieval stained glass vs modern"
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/frances-other-burning-c...
"The alt-right hate crew roll in to blame the Muslims..."
Construction and maintenance involve electricity, lights, solvents, blow torches / welders, heights/suspension, obstructed paths, and much much more.
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.
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.
I'm certainly not an architect or engineer; maybe that suggestion is currently impossible.
Ideally it would be interesting if you could do something almost akin to 3D printing, or maybe closer to how plywood is made, but using wood fiber. I'm imagining something like long fibers of wood, intermixed with stainless steel or aluminum "wire", and molded using resin binders in the forms and shapes needed for the trusses and beams, etc.
From the outside, it should look almost like regular wood, but with some of the strength characteristics of the metal (though now that I think about it, it probably wouldn't work in sheer or compression; tensile strength might be ok).
What would be even more amazing, though I can't think of a way to do it, would be a wood/metal composite where the metal was a 3D organic-like lattice with the wood in between; I can imagine such a thing, but not a way to manufacture it (at least not with today's technology).
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.
The French are always in uproar.
Only half joking.
Reimplement the interface so it passes all external blackbox test, using more robust internal modern technology.
And as long as you're already uglifying important buildings to rile up people for shits and giggles, put a giant statue of a dildo on the roof as well.
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 to flood everything with light at nighttime without spending too much electricity, and that glass and polycarbonate are cheap and easy to use, but... some of us love shade and semi-darkness and even actual darkness! Even phones and laptop screens are luminous now that you need to keep them at 50% or smth if you're not using them while sunbathing on the beach.
I almost wish I lived in a time where candle light was the only available source of illumination, and glass windows were too expensive to worth having them too big!
This is for good reason: so you can see them in daylight. The difference between nighttime and daytime illumination is orders of magnitude; we don't perceive it that way because our eyes are adapted to adjust to lighting levels that are orders of magnitude different. These devices need very bright screens if we want to see them when we're walking around outside. They're supposed to have auto-dimming functions so they turn down when you're inside or it's nighttime, but unfortunately many devices seem to have lousy auto-dimming algorithms.
Absolutely. It being a giant dark gothic cathedral was the whole point. It would have been something else entirely if it was bright.
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.
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?!
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.
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.
In their defense, that's how it was financed in the first place.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-colors-you-s...