5 ms·

Gothic architecture is fascinating because they are not only aesthetically appealing, but also very advanced (at their time) in terms of engineering. Stones are

Gothic architecture is fascinating because they are not only aesthetically appealing, but also very advanced (at their time) in terms of engineering. Stones are heavy, but the pointed arches and flying buttresses make Gothic churches feel light and nimble. Advanced structural design also allows Gothic churches to have larger windows as the structure is no longer solely supported by the walls, inviting more natural light into the church which contributes aesthetically and spiritually. For me, the above statement is the reason why I would prefer the roof and spite of Notre Dame to be reconstructed in a modern design that utilizes all the advancements in architecture. The Gothic churches were built using state-of-the-art technologies hundreds of years ago, and they deserve to be rebuilt with the state-of-the-art technologies we have nowadays. If the medieval French could, they would certainly build Notre Dame with steel and glass.

beat 7y ago
Only if the modern materials and design are done with the same eye toward longevity that marked the original designs. Part of the beauty of these ancient churches is psychological... they feel permanent and timeless in a changing world. Modern materials, on the other hand, are designed for productivity, not permanence. They hit cost targets. They're cheap and effective and sometimes even elegant, but it's highly unusual for a modern building to be built in a way that reflects an expected lifespan of centuries or even millennia.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > timeless I think one thing that's proven beyond a doubt by now, once more by this fire, is that everything that man puts up is almost by definition not timeless, unless you make it out of large piles of stone such as the pyramids.
  - beat 7y ago
    Truly timeless is a very difficult thing (see the work by the Long Now Foundation for more on that). But I don't think that detracts from the point that these cathedrals were designed to last forever, from the perspective of the designers - the Notre Dame is 856 years old. It took about a century just to build it. It was epic, and clearly, it still is. Who builds a building like that today? Other than the Long Now's clock, who is really building things designed to last for centuries, millennia? That's my point. Even the most epic of modern architecture generally isn't thinking beyond a century or so. Hell, my house is over 100 years old. So modern materials thinking, in its usual box, is not really up to the task of re-roofing Notre Dame in the way it deserves. That doesn't mean we can't do it, or we should just build another flammable wooden roof. But it does mean that we need to think about how it should be done, to protect and preserve the legacy of that historic triumph of the human spirit over time itself. If you're worried about true timelessness... even the pyramids will die someday, eaten by the relentless desert sands. But we can maybe make something that lasts as long as human civilization itself, if we try.
    - yourduskquibble 7y ago
      One could argue that we do have moderm day timelessness; single use plastics that will take a few thousand years to be destroyed.
      - beat 7y ago
        Eh. I'm talking about things we intend to keep in their current structure. Getting all negative about trash is kinda boring, really. Given a reasonable extension of existing technology, we could eliminate that trash eventually. Imagine, say, machines designed to find plastic trash in the ocean, powered by ocean currents/thermals, that decompose the trash into basic releasable organics like CO2 and water. Just takes the will to do it. And hopefully someday, that will will exist. And cleaning up the wreckage of the Industrial Revolution for the sake of future generations would be a legacy we could be proud of.
- p0nce 7y ago
  When concrete was introduced it was considered highly elegant.
  - beat 7y ago
    I think concrete is elegant, myself. I suspect a lot of the Brutalist architecture that's considered horrid today will be re-evaluated much more positively in a couple of centuries. It was, in its way, a way of looking forward and trying to create something timeless, which is a lot more ambitious in terms of human spirit than the anonymous glass throwaways that dominate modern architecture.
    - p0nce 7y ago
      It's easy to have opinions on things, but that doesn't mean these opinions have any substance. If modern architects choose glass buildings maybe there is more to it than just our immediate reaction.
      - beat 7y ago
        Stewart Brand said the three enemies of all buildings are time, money, and water. He renounced is own faith in geodesic domes because they introduce unnecessary seams, especially as they get older and settle - seams that leak water. Look at a glass building. Count the seams. Ask how serious they are about architecture that lasts.
7952 7y ago
Maybe build a glass roof and have a viewing platform under the glass. Have a separate stained glass ceiling under the viewing platform.
afterburner 7y ago
> If the medieval French could, they would certainly build Notre Dame with steel and glass. Are you saying they should rebuild the Notre Dame as a steel and glass structure?
- jacoblambda 7y ago
  (not op) I'm not necessarily saying they should but I also think it could be really cool looking and still hold to the spirit of the building if done well.
pvg 7y ago
If the medieval French could, they would certainly build Notre Dame with steel and glass. But they couldn't and so they built it with stone and misshapen bits of coloured glass. That's part of the achievement and of what makes it a monument. Otherwise the Luxor in Vegas would be an acceptable substitute for the giant piles of stones in Giza.
Animats 7y ago
The glass roof is not a bad idea. It would be very French to do that. Like the I. M. Pei pyramid at the Louvre. If it's done, it will be done competently. So many people are watching.
- sirkneeland 7y ago
  Wouldn't that drastically increase the sun exposure on the internal elements and artifacts in the church? Sun damage is noticeable in just a few years, let alone on a time scale of centuries...
  - 0xffff2 7y ago
    See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19994844 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19994844
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    The burnt space is essentially Notre Dame's attic. There's solid stone between that space and all the artifacts.
- throw0101a 7y ago
  > The glass roof is not a bad idea. To what end? The roof is on the outside put the inside is vaulted stone. The glass would only be visible from the outside... unless one wants to get rid of the internal vaults?
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    The idea would be to turn what was previously the "attic" of the church into a public, park-like space. https://www.cnn.com/style/article/france-notre-dame-green-scli-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/style/article/france-notre-dame-green-sc...
    - cc439 7y ago
      That would simply create a gigantic greenhouse that would require enormous energy inputs to keep it habitable during most of the year. Not the most eco-friendly solution.
cowwithbeef 7y ago
>I would prefer the roof and spire of Notre Dame to be reconstructed in a modern design that utilizes all the advancements in architecture. What form of modern architecture is built to beautifully last for 800 years? I can't tell if you're serious or just astroturfing. Your account name makes me think it's the latter.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Notre Dame hasn't "beautifully lasted" 800 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Paris#Restoration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Paris#Restoratio... > After the Napoleonic Wars, Notre-Dame was in such a state of disrepair that Paris officials considered its demolition. > The stone masonry of the cathedral's exterior had deteriorated in the 19th and 20th century due to increased air pollution in Paris, which accelerated erosion of decorations and discolored the stone. By the late 1980s, several gargoyles and turrets had also fallen off or become too loose to remain in place.
- jonknee 7y ago
  The kind that is maintained for 800 years? It's not like they built it exactly as it remained.
bambax 7y ago
Yes!... except that if we let medieval French people have their say, they would raze everything to the ground and build something entirely new. That's what they did in the 11th century; the previous cathedral was at least 700 years old and they destroyed it without blinking. For better or worse, we have developed a fondness for past artifacts that they totally lacked; it may make sense to build something modern on top of the old structure, but we need to save what can be saved.
reneherse 7y ago
I agree that the reconstruction needs to be of its own time and place, building in the spirit of the original, not the technology of the past. One of my favorite proposals for the restoration that embodies this approach is that of architect Vincent Callebaut: http://vincent.callebaut.org/zoom/projects/190503_tributetonotredame/tributetonotredame_pl004.jpg http://vincent.callebaut.org/zoom/projects/190503_tributeton...

beat 7y ago

Only if the modern materials and design are done with the same eye toward longevity that marked the original designs. Part of the beauty of these ancient churches is psychological... they feel permanent and timeless in a changing world. Modern materials, on the other hand, are designed for productivity, not permanence. They hit cost targets. They're cheap and effective and sometimes even elegant, but it's highly unusual for a modern building to be built in a way that reflects an expected lifespan of centuries or even millennia.

jacquesm 7y ago
> timeless I think one thing that's proven beyond a doubt by now, once more by this fire, is that everything that man puts up is almost by definition not timeless, unless you make it out of large piles of stone such as the pyramids.
- beat 7y ago
  Truly timeless is a very difficult thing (see the work by the Long Now Foundation for more on that). But I don't think that detracts from the point that these cathedrals were designed to last forever, from the perspective of the designers - the Notre Dame is 856 years old. It took about a century just to build it. It was epic, and clearly, it still is. Who builds a building like that today? Other than the Long Now's clock, who is really building things designed to last for centuries, millennia? That's my point. Even the most epic of modern architecture generally isn't thinking beyond a century or so. Hell, my house is over 100 years old. So modern materials thinking, in its usual box, is not really up to the task of re-roofing Notre Dame in the way it deserves. That doesn't mean we can't do it, or we should just build another flammable wooden roof. But it does mean that we need to think about how it should be done, to protect and preserve the legacy of that historic triumph of the human spirit over time itself. If you're worried about true timelessness... even the pyramids will die someday, eaten by the relentless desert sands. But we can maybe make something that lasts as long as human civilization itself, if we try.
  - yourduskquibble 7y ago
    One could argue that we do have moderm day timelessness; single use plastics that will take a few thousand years to be destroyed.
    - beat 7y ago
      Eh. I'm talking about things we intend to keep in their current structure. Getting all negative about trash is kinda boring, really. Given a reasonable extension of existing technology, we could eliminate that trash eventually. Imagine, say, machines designed to find plastic trash in the ocean, powered by ocean currents/thermals, that decompose the trash into basic releasable organics like CO2 and water. Just takes the will to do it. And hopefully someday, that will will exist. And cleaning up the wreckage of the Industrial Revolution for the sake of future generations would be a legacy we could be proud of.
p0nce 7y ago
When concrete was introduced it was considered highly elegant.
- beat 7y ago
  I think concrete is elegant, myself. I suspect a lot of the Brutalist architecture that's considered horrid today will be re-evaluated much more positively in a couple of centuries. It was, in its way, a way of looking forward and trying to create something timeless, which is a lot more ambitious in terms of human spirit than the anonymous glass throwaways that dominate modern architecture.
  - p0nce 7y ago
    It's easy to have opinions on things, but that doesn't mean these opinions have any substance. If modern architects choose glass buildings maybe there is more to it than just our immediate reaction.
    - beat 7y ago
      Stewart Brand said the three enemies of all buildings are time, money, and water. He renounced is own faith in geodesic domes because they introduce unnecessary seams, especially as they get older and settle - seams that leak water. Look at a glass building. Count the seams. Ask how serious they are about architecture that lasts.

7952 7y ago

Maybe build a glass roof and have a viewing platform under the glass. Have a separate stained glass ceiling under the viewing platform.

afterburner 7y ago

> If the medieval French could, they would certainly build Notre Dame with steel and glass. Are you saying they should rebuild the Notre Dame as a steel and glass structure?

jacoblambda 7y ago
(not op) I'm not necessarily saying they should but I also think it could be really cool looking and still hold to the spirit of the building if done well.

pvg 7y ago

If the medieval French could, they would certainly build Notre Dame with steel and glass. But they couldn't and so they built it with stone and misshapen bits of coloured glass. That's part of the achievement and of what makes it a monument. Otherwise the Luxor in Vegas would be an acceptable substitute for the giant piles of stones in Giza.

Animats 7y ago

The glass roof is not a bad idea. It would be very French to do that. Like the I. M. Pei pyramid at the Louvre. If it's done, it will be done competently. So many people are watching.

sirkneeland 7y ago
Wouldn't that drastically increase the sun exposure on the internal elements and artifacts in the church? Sun damage is noticeable in just a few years, let alone on a time scale of centuries...
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19994844 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19994844
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  The burnt space is essentially Notre Dame's attic. There's solid stone between that space and all the artifacts.
throw0101a 7y ago
> The glass roof is not a bad idea. To what end? The roof is on the outside put the inside is vaulted stone. The glass would only be visible from the outside... unless one wants to get rid of the internal vaults?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  The idea would be to turn what was previously the "attic" of the church into a public, park-like space. https://www.cnn.com/style/article/france-notre-dame-green-scli-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/style/article/france-notre-dame-green-sc...
  - cc439 7y ago
    That would simply create a gigantic greenhouse that would require enormous energy inputs to keep it habitable during most of the year. Not the most eco-friendly solution.

cowwithbeef 7y ago

>I would prefer the roof and spire of Notre Dame to be reconstructed in a modern design that utilizes all the advancements in architecture. What form of modern architecture is built to beautifully last for 800 years? I can't tell if you're serious or just astroturfing. Your account name makes me think it's the latter.

ceejayoz 7y ago
Notre Dame hasn't "beautifully lasted" 800 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Paris#Restoration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Paris#Restoratio... > After the Napoleonic Wars, Notre-Dame was in such a state of disrepair that Paris officials considered its demolition. > The stone masonry of the cathedral's exterior had deteriorated in the 19th and 20th century due to increased air pollution in Paris, which accelerated erosion of decorations and discolored the stone. By the late 1980s, several gargoyles and turrets had also fallen off or become too loose to remain in place.
jonknee 7y ago
The kind that is maintained for 800 years? It's not like they built it exactly as it remained.

bambax 7y ago

Yes!... except that if we let medieval French people have their say, they would raze everything to the ground and build something entirely new. That's what they did in the 11th century; the previous cathedral was at least 700 years old and they destroyed it without blinking. For better or worse, we have developed a fondness for past artifacts that they totally lacked; it may make sense to build something modern on top of the old structure, but we need to save what can be saved.

reneherse 7y ago

I agree that the reconstruction needs to be of its own time and place, building in the spirit of the original, not the technology of the past. One of my favorite proposals for the restoration that embodies this approach is that of architect Vincent Callebaut: http://vincent.callebaut.org/zoom/projects/190503_tributetonotredame/tributetonotredame_pl004.jpg http://vincent.callebaut.org/zoom/projects/190503_tributeton...