6 ms·

My parents were both involved in post-fire salvage operations at Notre-Dame and though I'm necessarily a bit biased towards their opinions, I wish we wouldn't s

by Kyrio 7y ago

My parents were both involved in post-fire salvage operations at Notre-Dame and though I'm necessarily a bit biased towards their opinions, I wish we wouldn't share any self-branded expert's take on what went wrong or how things should be done. Some of the most qualified people in the country are working on the site and aren't being interviewed. As the article states, the man in charge of the restoration is an Architecte en chef des monuments historiques; preserving and restoring state-owned monuments is his job and he's accompanied by other architects of the same training. I fully agree with the author in that they should be the ones designing the reconstructed spire, not a worldwide art project as the president suggests. As far as the "independent report" about the stability of the building, it has not made the news here so far.

brmgb 7y ago
> the man in charge of the restoration is an Architecte en chef des monuments historiques That's the professional bureaucrat overseeing the work e.g. an architect who chose to do his career in the civil service and is suffisently adept at navigating it/old enough to have been promoted. That is not in itself particularly reassuring. Where I agree with you is that France most likely has both access to good experts and the technical know-how and means necessary to secure such a building. > fully agree with the author in that they should be the ones designing the reconstructed spire I completely disagree. The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ? Since we have to build something, let's at least build something reflecting our time. It will be old soon enough. A worldwide art project will surely bring a lot more new and bold ideas to the table.
- 0815test 7y ago
  > The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ? AIUI, the spire itself actually dates back to the early 19th century - if so, rebuilding one in the same style would be quite appropriate. 19th c. was the peak in scale and ambition for these sorts of works, and we should take that as our reference. Brutalist 20th-c. or 21th-c. architecture might be "ambitious" in its own terms, but it would never fit the context of a Gothic cathedral.
- core-questions 7y ago
  >Since we have to build something, let's at least build something reflecting our time. I don't buy this idea. The original design was so beautiful that it inspired pilgrims for hundreds of years to make a trek to see it. Modern architecture is bland, glass-and-metal, uninspired crap; shiny jewels with no staying power that will be torn down within a century to make room for something else, or brutalist monstrosities put here to punish us with their brooding ugliness.
  - dagw 7y ago
    The original design was so beautiful that it inspired pilgrims for hundreds The original design is not the cathedral that stood there before the fire. People have been adding modern touches to the cathedral for centuries, why not continue that tradition?
  - simias 7y ago
    The spire that collapsed had been inaugurated in 1859, so it's relatively recent compared to the age of the cathedral. I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject but dismissing modern architecture as a whole before we've even seen the first proposals doesn't seem very... constructive.
    - kakwa_ 7y ago
      1) The spire rebuilt in 1859 by Viollet-Le-Duc didn't have XIXe century look, it was heavily inspired by the one of the Orleans cathedral 2) Even with that, Viollet-Le-Duc is somewhat criticized for it's restoration works as he generally chose what looked "nice" as opposed to historical accuracy or significance. Rebuilding the spire in a modern style would be a mistake in my opinion, or at the very least, a huge risk of style disunity of the building, rebuilding in Gothic style maybe boring but it's safe. As to which technics could be used, that's another matter. Notre-Dame would not be the first cathedral to be rebuilt using the technics of the day. Reims was rebuilt using concret, and the result is actually quite beautiful: https://img.aws.la-croix.com/2019/04/17/1301016385/charpente-beton-cathedrale-Reims-17-avril-2019_0_729_486.jpg https://img.aws.la-croix.com/2019/04/17/1301016385/charpente... Others were rebuilt using steel, Metz Cathedral for example.
- Kyrio 7y ago
  > That's the professional bureaucrat overseeing the work e.g. an architect I'm sorry but that's absolutely wrong. You don't become an Architecte en chef by promotion, it's a competitive exam that requires extensive knowledge of art history, ancient architecture and preservation/restoration techniques. Most architects with this title have businesses of their own, they're just specialized in restoration work rather than construction work, and they're assigned a number of territories to study and preserve their monuments (as long as they're state-owned). It's not, at all, about "navigating the civil service", and since they're architects, they're not overseeing any architects besides their own employees.
  - brmgb 7y ago
    > I'm sorry but that's absolutely wrong. You don't become an Architecte en chef by promotion, it's a competitive exam No, Architecte et urbaniste de l'État is an exam (like everything regarding the civil service in France). Architecte en chef very much is a promotion. It's the grade following Architecte de l'État and preceding Architecte générale. > Most architects with this title have businesses of their own No, they are all civil servants and work for a minister. > navigating the civil service Yes, being promoted is very much about getting old and navigating the civil service. Architecte et urbaniste de l'État very much is a managing position with all it implies when you are working for the state.
    - p1esk 7y ago
      Does he have relevant experience managing restorations of old cathedrals? Do you know someone more qualified for the job?
    - Kyrio 7y ago
      You're confusing with Architecte des bâtiments de France. ACMH is a competitive exam and the Wikipedia page [1] can clear that up. I know several people who took it. It's just become very rare, like one every four years. It's definitely not a promotion, and unrelated to the ABF position (which is a part of AUE). But it is equivalent to being a civil servant, except you can have an architecture business of your own. [1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecte_en_chef_des_monuments_historiques https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecte_en_chef_des_monumen...
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  >an architect who chose to do his career in the civil service and is suffisently adept at navigating it/old enough to have been promoted. That is not in itself particularly reassuring... If you believe that's all it takes to be Architecte en chef des monuments historiques in a place like France, you just don't have a full appreciation for the importance France attaches to its history and culture.
- TomK32 7y ago
  > I completely disagree. The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ? Like the German Reichstag modifications post-reunification, but there also was a very different modification in the 1960s, early 70s. Such projects can go both directions, even on the very same building.
Animats 7y ago
Yes. But I would not be at all surprised if large steel temporary shoring beams were soon placed inside to brace the columns against inward forces. Very common in California after earthquakes.[1] [1] http://construction911.com/emergency-services/shoring/ http://construction911.com/emergency-services/shoring/
- Kyrio 7y ago
  Yes, that was done in the days following the fire. But the article seems to put that in doubt, based on a report that I believe was written _prior_ to the incident.
- kakwa_ 7y ago
  As a side note, it can be a permanent thing for some cathedrals. I'm thinking of Beauvais Cathedral: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Interior_of_Cath%C3%A9drale_Saint-Pierre_de_Beauvais#/media/File:Beauvais_-_La_Cath%C3%A9drale_Saint-Pierre_de_Beauvais_-_North_Transept_-_North_Entrance_-_View_SSW_%26_Up_on_South_Transept,_Central_Crossing_(Wooden_Vaults)_%26_North_Transept.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Interior_of_Cath... This cathedral is the highest in France, but it had some design flaws, with part of the vault collapsing during the construction, and then, the huge spire collapsed during Ascension Day in 1573. It was never finished because of that. This cathedral is also quite interesting because of this unfinished state as it permits to compare the old roman cathedral vs the new gothic cathedral, showing the huge increase in scale between the twos: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cath%C3%A9drale_Saint-Pierre_de_Beauvais#/media/File:Beauvais_-_Rue_Saint-Pierre_-_ICE_Photocompilation_Viewing_from_North_to_East_on_L%27%C3%89glise_paroissiale_Notre-Dame-de-la-Basse-%C5%92uvre_de_Beauvais.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cath%C3%A9drale_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauvais_Cathedral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauvais_Cathedral
burfog 7y ago
I find it weird that there would be serious consideration for anything other than a durable clone of the original. I'd faithfully copy the exterior, switching the material to something that will last. The obvious choice is a good-quality stainless steel to replace the wood, and a glassy substance (granite? porcelain?) to replace any limestone or marble. Another choice is phosphor bronze. Nickel is another option.
- theoh 7y ago
  This idea (replicate old structure in a new material) is not really a thing in building conservation. One reason for this is that the dimensions of structural elements are a function of the properties of the original material: it just doesn't make sense to replace a timber beam with a steel one of the same dimensions. The presence of timber in a historic structure obviously makes it less durable and fire-resistant, but it is authentic, and that is something that is taken very seriously. It's like an old recipe, an old painting, or an old piece of music. Nobody who is seriously engaged with those things believes in improving them by substituting modern high-tech elements in the course of recreating/restoring an original.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    Nobody today would improve on the old. That wasn't always the case. There is a lot of historical precedent for restorers "fixing" art. (Most often adding clothing to cover private areas). Since we now know the art by the "fixed version today there is the open question of if we remove the fix or not - either way we are destroying art.
    - benj111 7y ago
      A more recent example. Winston Churchill's cigar has been edited from a photo before. https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/in-the-media/churchill-in-the-news/pc-censors-photoshop-churchills-cigar/ https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/in-the-media/churchil...
  - CydeWeys 7y ago

by Kyrio 7y ago

brmgb 7y ago

> the man in charge of the restoration is an Architecte en chef des monuments historiques That's the professional bureaucrat overseeing the work e.g. an architect who chose to do his career in the civil service and is suffisently adept at navigating it/old enough to have been promoted. That is not in itself particularly reassuring. Where I agree with you is that France most likely has both access to good experts and the technical know-how and means necessary to secure such a building. > fully agree with the author in that they should be the ones designing the reconstructed spire I completely disagree. The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ? Since we have to build something, let's at least build something reflecting our time. It will be old soon enough. A worldwide art project will surely bring a lot more new and bold ideas to the table.

0815test 7y ago
> The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ? AIUI, the spire itself actually dates back to the early 19th century - if so, rebuilding one in the same style would be quite appropriate. 19th c. was the peak in scale and ambition for these sorts of works, and we should take that as our reference. Brutalist 20th-c. or 21th-c. architecture might be "ambitious" in its own terms, but it would never fit the context of a Gothic cathedral.
core-questions 7y ago
>Since we have to build something, let's at least build something reflecting our time. I don't buy this idea. The original design was so beautiful that it inspired pilgrims for hundreds of years to make a trek to see it. Modern architecture is bland, glass-and-metal, uninspired crap; shiny jewels with no staying power that will be torn down within a century to make room for something else, or brutalist monstrosities put here to punish us with their brooding ugliness.
- dagw 7y ago
  The original design was so beautiful that it inspired pilgrims for hundreds The original design is not the cathedral that stood there before the fire. People have been adding modern touches to the cathedral for centuries, why not continue that tradition?
- simias 7y ago
  The spire that collapsed had been inaugurated in 1859, so it's relatively recent compared to the age of the cathedral. I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject but dismissing modern architecture as a whole before we've even seen the first proposals doesn't seem very... constructive.
  - kakwa_ 7y ago
    1) The spire rebuilt in 1859 by Viollet-Le-Duc didn't have XIXe century look, it was heavily inspired by the one of the Orleans cathedral 2) Even with that, Viollet-Le-Duc is somewhat criticized for it's restoration works as he generally chose what looked "nice" as opposed to historical accuracy or significance. Rebuilding the spire in a modern style would be a mistake in my opinion, or at the very least, a huge risk of style disunity of the building, rebuilding in Gothic style maybe boring but it's safe. As to which technics could be used, that's another matter. Notre-Dame would not be the first cathedral to be rebuilt using the technics of the day. Reims was rebuilt using concret, and the result is actually quite beautiful: https://img.aws.la-croix.com/2019/04/17/1301016385/charpente-beton-cathedrale-Reims-17-avril-2019_0_729_486.jpg https://img.aws.la-croix.com/2019/04/17/1301016385/charpente... Others were rebuilt using steel, Metz Cathedral for example.
Kyrio 7y ago
> That's the professional bureaucrat overseeing the work e.g. an architect I'm sorry but that's absolutely wrong. You don't become an Architecte en chef by promotion, it's a competitive exam that requires extensive knowledge of art history, ancient architecture and preservation/restoration techniques. Most architects with this title have businesses of their own, they're just specialized in restoration work rather than construction work, and they're assigned a number of territories to study and preserve their monuments (as long as they're state-owned). It's not, at all, about "navigating the civil service", and since they're architects, they're not overseeing any architects besides their own employees.
- brmgb 7y ago
  > I'm sorry but that's absolutely wrong. You don't become an Architecte en chef by promotion, it's a competitive exam No, Architecte et urbaniste de l'État is an exam (like everything regarding the civil service in France). Architecte en chef very much is a promotion. It's the grade following Architecte de l'État and preceding Architecte générale. > Most architects with this title have businesses of their own No, they are all civil servants and work for a minister. > navigating the civil service Yes, being promoted is very much about getting old and navigating the civil service. Architecte et urbaniste de l'État very much is a managing position with all it implies when you are working for the state.
  - p1esk 7y ago
    Does he have relevant experience managing restorations of old cathedrals? Do you know someone more qualified for the job?
  - Kyrio 7y ago
    You're confusing with Architecte des bâtiments de France. ACMH is a competitive exam and the Wikipedia page [1] can clear that up. I know several people who took it. It's just become very rare, like one every four years. It's definitely not a promotion, and unrelated to the ABF position (which is a part of AUE). But it is equivalent to being a civil servant, except you can have an architecture business of your own. [1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecte_en_chef_des_monuments_historiques https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecte_en_chef_des_monumen...
bilbo0s 7y ago
>an architect who chose to do his career in the civil service and is suffisently adept at navigating it/old enough to have been promoted. That is not in itself particularly reassuring... If you believe that's all it takes to be Architecte en chef des monuments historiques in a place like France, you just don't have a full appreciation for the importance France attaches to its history and culture.
TomK32 7y ago
> I completely disagree. The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ? Like the German Reichstag modifications post-reunification, but there also was a very different modification in the 1960s, early 70s. Such projects can go both directions, even on the very same building.

Animats 7y ago

Yes. But I would not be at all surprised if large steel temporary shoring beams were soon placed inside to brace the columns against inward forces. Very common in California after earthquakes.[1] [1] http://construction911.com/emergency-services/shoring/ http://construction911.com/emergency-services/shoring/

Kyrio 7y ago
Yes, that was done in the days following the fire. But the article seems to put that in doubt, based on a report that I believe was written _prior_ to the incident.
kakwa_ 7y ago
As a side note, it can be a permanent thing for some cathedrals. I'm thinking of Beauvais Cathedral: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Interior_of_Cath%C3%A9drale_Saint-Pierre_de_Beauvais#/media/File:Beauvais_-_La_Cath%C3%A9drale_Saint-Pierre_de_Beauvais_-_North_Transept_-_North_Entrance_-_View_SSW_%26_Up_on_South_Transept,_Central_Crossing_(Wooden_Vaults)_%26_North_Transept.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Interior_of_Cath... This cathedral is the highest in France, but it had some design flaws, with part of the vault collapsing during the construction, and then, the huge spire collapsed during Ascension Day in 1573. It was never finished because of that. This cathedral is also quite interesting because of this unfinished state as it permits to compare the old roman cathedral vs the new gothic cathedral, showing the huge increase in scale between the twos: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cath%C3%A9drale_Saint-Pierre_de_Beauvais#/media/File:Beauvais_-_Rue_Saint-Pierre_-_ICE_Photocompilation_Viewing_from_North_to_East_on_L%27%C3%89glise_paroissiale_Notre-Dame-de-la-Basse-%C5%92uvre_de_Beauvais.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cath%C3%A9drale_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauvais_Cathedral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauvais_Cathedral

burfog 7y ago

I find it weird that there would be serious consideration for anything other than a durable clone of the original. I'd faithfully copy the exterior, switching the material to something that will last. The obvious choice is a good-quality stainless steel to replace the wood, and a glassy substance (granite? porcelain?) to replace any limestone or marble. Another choice is phosphor bronze. Nickel is another option.

theoh 7y ago
This idea (replicate old structure in a new material) is not really a thing in building conservation. One reason for this is that the dimensions of structural elements are a function of the properties of the original material: it just doesn't make sense to replace a timber beam with a steel one of the same dimensions. The presence of timber in a historic structure obviously makes it less durable and fire-resistant, but it is authentic, and that is something that is taken very seriously. It's like an old recipe, an old painting, or an old piece of music. Nobody who is seriously engaged with those things believes in improving them by substituting modern high-tech elements in the course of recreating/restoring an original.
- bluGill 7y ago
  Nobody today would improve on the old. That wasn't always the case. There is a lot of historical precedent for restorers "fixing" art. (Most often adding clothing to cover private areas). Since we now know the art by the "fixed version today there is the open question of if we remove the fix or not - either way we are destroying art.
  - benj111 7y ago
    A more recent example. Winston Churchill's cigar has been edited from a photo before. https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/in-the-media/churchill-in-the-news/pc-censors-photoshop-churchills-cigar/ https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/in-the-media/churchil...
- CydeWeys 7y ago