12 ms·

No, let's not. Let's keep the original style so that future generations can experience it the way it was originally intended. Modernization is not always the

No, let's not. Let'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.

NotPaidToPost 7y ago
What does 'original style' means, though? 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.
- javagram 7y ago
  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 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.”
  - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
    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.
    - javagram 7y ago
      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.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
        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.
      - detaro 7y ago
        Isn't the article mostly suggesting to replace not commonly visible roof structure with concrete/steel?
        javagram 7y ago
        Yea the article is fine, replacing non-visible materials with improved modern materials is great I think.
- deogeo 7y ago
  > What does 'original style' means, though? 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!
781 7y ago
What you call original style is a "modern" modification from the 1800s :)
mocha_nate 7y ago
Agree 100% Historic Preservation is very important
- NLips 7y ago
  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.
- rayiner 7y ago
  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.
  - astine 7y ago
    "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.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      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.
sopooneo 7y ago
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.
- bitL 7y ago
  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.
- bobthechef 7y ago
  > Cathedrals are alive. 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.
paol 7y ago
Did you read the article, or are you just responding to the title? It sounds like the latter.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > 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."
mikeash 7y ago
It was originally intended to be a place of indoctrination into the state religion of the local theocracy. We have, fortunately, moved on.
bunderbunder 7y ago
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?
- LiquidSky 7y ago
  >The kind of modernization proposed by the TFA seems reasonable to me, though. No. Don't fall for this. This is the siren song that leads you down the dark path to Penn Station.
  - ihuman 7y ago
    But unlike Penn Station they're just suggesting modernizing the hidden sections the public doesn't see.
    - anoncake 7y ago
      And they aren't suggesting tearing down anything.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    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.
    - usrusr 7y ago
      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.
rayiner 7y ago
> 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.
- thrower123 7y ago
  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.
PopeDotNinja 7y ago
Today's modern is the future's old school.
bradstewart 7y ago
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.
anoncake 7y ago
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.
forgtpasswd 7y ago
> No, let's not. 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.

NotPaidToPost 7y ago

What does 'original style' means, though? 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.

javagram 7y ago
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 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.”
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  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.
  - javagram 7y ago
    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.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - NotPaidToPost 7y ago
      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.
    - detaro 7y ago
      Isn't the article mostly suggesting to replace not commonly visible roof structure with concrete/steel?
      - javagram 7y ago
        Yea the article is fine, replacing non-visible materials with improved modern materials is great I think.
deogeo 7y ago
> What does 'original style' means, though? 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!

781 7y ago

What you call original style is a "modern" modification from the 1800s :)

mocha_nate 7y ago

Agree 100% Historic Preservation is very important

NLips 7y ago
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.
rayiner 7y ago
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.
- astine 7y ago
  "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.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    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.

sopooneo 7y ago

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.

bitL 7y ago
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.
bobthechef 7y ago
> Cathedrals are alive. 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.

paol 7y ago

Did you read the article, or are you just responding to the title? It sounds like the latter.

chrisseaton 7y ago
> 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."

mikeash 7y ago

It was originally intended to be a place of indoctrination into the state religion of the local theocracy. We have, fortunately, moved on.

bunderbunder 7y ago

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?

LiquidSky 7y ago
>The kind of modernization proposed by the TFA seems reasonable to me, though. No. Don't fall for this. This is the siren song that leads you down the dark path to Penn Station.
- ihuman 7y ago
  But unlike Penn Station they're just suggesting modernizing the hidden sections the public doesn't see.
  - anoncake 7y ago
    And they aren't suggesting tearing down anything.
- rayiner 7y ago
  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.
  - usrusr 7y ago
    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.

rayiner 7y ago

> 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.

thrower123 7y ago
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.

PopeDotNinja 7y ago

Today's modern is the future's old school.

bradstewart 7y ago

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.

anoncake 7y ago

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.

forgtpasswd 7y ago

> No, let's not. 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.