6 ms·

> A new wall doesn’t contain [traces of its original craftmanship] I will add one quick thing: if that's true the initial wall is lost (obviously), old craftma

> A new wall doesn’t contain [traces of its original craftmanship] I will add one quick thing: if that's true the initial wall is lost (obviously), old craftmanship is not lost. There is an organisation in France called "Les Compagnons du Devoir" [1] that does exactly this: (re)build things the way we built them centuries ago. This organization has stonecutters and carpenters that could help a lot redo what was destroyed last night, with the know-how of the past. So yes indeed, nothing is "lost", this is just another part of the cathedral's history. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnons_du_Devoir

rootusrootus 7y ago
I hope that they would not just try to re-create the past. That is impossible. I'd like to see the rebuild incorporate the absolute best of what we know from the past and modern techniques.
- zaroth 7y ago
  “Modern techniques” are specifically calibrated and engineered not to last on the timescale of Notre Dame due to the costs involved. Modern construction techniques are of very little use to repair a building which was itself built over the course of 150 years. “Modern” gets you the $200mm staircase to nowhere at Hudson Yards in NY. The question is for a building which actually struggled to raise the $7m used for the initial repair project, are people going to be patient enough to spend the $700m and 10/15/20 years to rebuild it with anything approaching the care, quality, and craftsmanship of the original? The reconstruction should be the life’s work of a great master (or several great masters, when you consider the art and ornamentation that goes along with the architecture). Do we still even do that sort of thing anymore?
  - rootusrootus 7y ago
    Modern techniques certainly can be used to build crap, but that is hardly a requirement. I bet they built plenty of crap a thousand years ago, too. I am very confident that we can build structures today that are better than anything ever built, when we choose to. Thing is, for most utility structures there is no particular benefit to building for that kind of longevity.
  - pyrale 7y ago
    A good share of notable cathedrals have burned in recent history, and some of them have been rebuilt using modern techniques (e.g. Chartres, one of the most notable french cathedrals now has a metallic structure to bear its roof). These new techniques are both elegant and a better fit, as they protect the building from a (likely) fire in the future. Arguing that cathedrals' wooden roofs are built to last while we don't know how to build longer-lasting work is a very curious take on the situation.
  - netsharc 7y ago
    > The question is for a building which actually struggled to raise the $7m used for the initial repair project, are people going to be patient enough to spend the $700m and 10/15/20 years to rebuild it with anything approaching the care, quality, and craftsmanship of the original? I'd wager yes, this probably woke people up that they've let their country's icon crumble, and money (and time) will now be no objects.
  - gbear605 7y ago
    It’s already had 500 million euros dedicated to it, I believe.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    Too late to edit, but early estimates on the repair costs are actually $8 billion. The roof that burned was called the Forest because it was made from 13,000 whole oak trees (the number varies depending on source) spanning 52 acres of forest.
    - fennecfoxen 7y ago
      Apparently one of the major challenges in replacing the roof in the old style is that the typical oak used to construct it would have been ~300-400 years old and they just don't have a lot of those around anymore.
    - gambiting 7y ago
      Then I'd be ok with replacing it with an identical "forest" made out of a modern material like carbon fibre, representing the original forest lost in the fire. Maybe we can even dedicate some area of land for oak growing so that in 300 years the trees will be ready to remake the original roof.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > The question is for a building which actually struggled to raise the $7m used for the initial repair project, are people going to be patient enough to spend the $700m and 10/15/20 years to rebuild it with anything approaching the care, quality, and craftsmanship of the original? Something like 10 hours ago I was seeing a headline that €650 million had already been pledged for rebuilding from various private sources, so, yeah, I think it's reasonable to think that the money will be there.
- theoh 7y ago
  There are agreed principles for the conservation of buildings. Three basic ones are: a) Replace like with like (don't change materials or construction techniques) b) Make any repair work obvious (don't try to pass new fabric off as original) c) Repairs should be reversible. It's a complicated field, but the general spirit is that when a building needs to be repaired, you try to make the new elements match as closely as possible to the way the structure was when it was first built. You don't say "we know better than the medieval masons, so we'll use reinforced concrete instead of stone" because that wouldn't be a restoration. It would turn the building into a hybrid of old and new technology, when what everyone wants is to experience the old way of building. There's also an element of arrogance in trying to improve on medieval architecture—most people would agree that architecture, as an art, isn't something that progresses inexorably like science. The cathedrals are already as good as architecture gets. "Updating" a medieval structure to use the trendy structural technologies of the 21st century is a barbaric idea, because it is literally a case of destroying or interfering with an irreplaceable artefact. Obviously, not every old structure has to be treated with kid gloves as a priceless artefact. But I hope you can see what I'm getting at when I say that "best practice" in building conservation means not acting as if you know better than the original builders. It's a case of respecting the original design and not messing with it for the sake of employing modern technology.
  - gbear605 7y ago
    Notably, there are some senses in which architecture can improve, with things like insulation, safety, or price.
    - theoh 7y ago
      Construction technology is not the same thing as architecture. Architecture as an art doesn't progress. Music is the same, painting is the same. A piece of medieval music can be perfect on its own terms. It wouldn't make sense to say that electronic music is better because the tech is more advanced. Artistic value and technology are totally separate issues.
      - 7y ago
- WalterBright 7y ago
  Hopefully including a fire sprinkler system.

rootusrootus 7y ago

I hope that they would not just try to re-create the past. That is impossible. I'd like to see the rebuild incorporate the absolute best of what we know from the past and modern techniques.

zaroth 7y ago
“Modern techniques” are specifically calibrated and engineered not to last on the timescale of Notre Dame due to the costs involved. Modern construction techniques are of very little use to repair a building which was itself built over the course of 150 years. “Modern” gets you the $200mm staircase to nowhere at Hudson Yards in NY. The question is for a building which actually struggled to raise the $7m used for the initial repair project, are people going to be patient enough to spend the $700m and 10/15/20 years to rebuild it with anything approaching the care, quality, and craftsmanship of the original? The reconstruction should be the life’s work of a great master (or several great masters, when you consider the art and ornamentation that goes along with the architecture). Do we still even do that sort of thing anymore?
- rootusrootus 7y ago
  Modern techniques certainly can be used to build crap, but that is hardly a requirement. I bet they built plenty of crap a thousand years ago, too. I am very confident that we can build structures today that are better than anything ever built, when we choose to. Thing is, for most utility structures there is no particular benefit to building for that kind of longevity.
- pyrale 7y ago
  A good share of notable cathedrals have burned in recent history, and some of them have been rebuilt using modern techniques (e.g. Chartres, one of the most notable french cathedrals now has a metallic structure to bear its roof). These new techniques are both elegant and a better fit, as they protect the building from a (likely) fire in the future. Arguing that cathedrals' wooden roofs are built to last while we don't know how to build longer-lasting work is a very curious take on the situation.
- netsharc 7y ago
  > The question is for a building which actually struggled to raise the $7m used for the initial repair project, are people going to be patient enough to spend the $700m and 10/15/20 years to rebuild it with anything approaching the care, quality, and craftsmanship of the original? I'd wager yes, this probably woke people up that they've let their country's icon crumble, and money (and time) will now be no objects.
- gbear605 7y ago
  It’s already had 500 million euros dedicated to it, I believe.
- zaroth 7y ago
  Too late to edit, but early estimates on the repair costs are actually $8 billion. The roof that burned was called the Forest because it was made from 13,000 whole oak trees (the number varies depending on source) spanning 52 acres of forest.
  - fennecfoxen 7y ago
    Apparently one of the major challenges in replacing the roof in the old style is that the typical oak used to construct it would have been ~300-400 years old and they just don't have a lot of those around anymore.
  - gambiting 7y ago
    Then I'd be ok with replacing it with an identical "forest" made out of a modern material like carbon fibre, representing the original forest lost in the fire. Maybe we can even dedicate some area of land for oak growing so that in 300 years the trees will be ready to remake the original roof.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The question is for a building which actually struggled to raise the $7m used for the initial repair project, are people going to be patient enough to spend the $700m and 10/15/20 years to rebuild it with anything approaching the care, quality, and craftsmanship of the original? Something like 10 hours ago I was seeing a headline that €650 million had already been pledged for rebuilding from various private sources, so, yeah, I think it's reasonable to think that the money will be there.
theoh 7y ago
There are agreed principles for the conservation of buildings. Three basic ones are: a) Replace like with like (don't change materials or construction techniques) b) Make any repair work obvious (don't try to pass new fabric off as original) c) Repairs should be reversible. It's a complicated field, but the general spirit is that when a building needs to be repaired, you try to make the new elements match as closely as possible to the way the structure was when it was first built. You don't say "we know better than the medieval masons, so we'll use reinforced concrete instead of stone" because that wouldn't be a restoration. It would turn the building into a hybrid of old and new technology, when what everyone wants is to experience the old way of building. There's also an element of arrogance in trying to improve on medieval architecture—most people would agree that architecture, as an art, isn't something that progresses inexorably like science. The cathedrals are already as good as architecture gets. "Updating" a medieval structure to use the trendy structural technologies of the 21st century is a barbaric idea, because it is literally a case of destroying or interfering with an irreplaceable artefact. Obviously, not every old structure has to be treated with kid gloves as a priceless artefact. But I hope you can see what I'm getting at when I say that "best practice" in building conservation means not acting as if you know better than the original builders. It's a case of respecting the original design and not messing with it for the sake of employing modern technology.
- gbear605 7y ago
  Notably, there are some senses in which architecture can improve, with things like insulation, safety, or price.
  - theoh 7y ago
    Construction technology is not the same thing as architecture. Architecture as an art doesn't progress. Music is the same, painting is the same. A piece of medieval music can be perfect on its own terms. It wouldn't make sense to say that electronic music is better because the tech is more advanced. Artistic value and technology are totally separate issues.
    - 7y ago
WalterBright 7y ago
Hopefully including a fire sprinkler system.