3 ms·
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 mentione
by 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 agoI 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 agoThis 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 agoIsn't the article mostly suggesting to replace not commonly visible roof structure with concrete/steel?
- javagram 7y agoYea the article is fine, replacing non-visible materials with improved modern materials is great I think.