5 ms·

The question is moot. France signed the Venice Convention in the 70s, that forbids any significant modification of protected monuments. Therefore the roof must

by wazoox 7y ago

The question is moot. France signed the Venice Convention in the 70s, that forbids any significant modification of protected monuments. Therefore the roof must be reconstructed absolutely identically from a visual point of view, using techniques as similar as possible as the previous one. Rebuilding in metal or concrete like Reims, Nantes etc. couldn't be done nowadays. Building a timber structure like the one that burned being out of the question (because we lack the necessary stock of century-old oak wood that have been dipped into brine for 20 years before construction, as was the original), but most probably laminated wood will be use in its stead.

NotPaidToPost 7y ago
They've recently rebuilt the roof of the "collège des Bernardins", also in Paris and as old as Notre Dame, using steel beams and titanium tiles... Doing the same for Notre Dame would be sensible. They will do as they see fit, and rightly so.
CydeWeys 7y ago
I'm not really seeing how something signed in the 70s is going to prevent France from repairing a devastated building, that is French to the core and located in the French capital, however they see fit. If they come out and say it makes sense to use non-flammable materials for the reconstruction (which would make sense), who in the world is going to stop them exactly? Notre Dame was already damaged by the fire (which this treaty couldn't prevent), and now it's about repairing it.
- anextomp 7y ago
  The people with the power to change the treaty don't materially care about the restoration and the people in change of the restoration don't have the power to change the treaty. Without some huge effort to range awareness in favour of changing the Notre Dame for the better, the treaty will remain and those in charge of the repairs will have no say in how they go ahead.
  - lcuff 7y ago
    Unless of course they were to withdraw from the treaty ...
    - Rapzid 7y ago
      Tis the season.
  - tomatotomato37 7y ago
    The thing is nothing is stopping them from ignoring the treaty and just doing the restoration anyway; no one is going to embargo or declare war on France over medieval architecture
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      And especially not if done for the entirely reasonable reason of "The wood burned the last time, so this time we're not going to rebuild the internal parts out of wood." It's also less clear that this treaty applies to rebuilding work; the original intent appears to be preventing unnecessary changes.
icebraining 7y ago
From what I can tell, nothing in the Venice Charter says the reconstruction must be identical. On the contrary: Article 12. Replacements of missing parts must integrate harmoniously with the whole, but at the same time must be distinguishable from the original so that restoration does not falsify the artistic or historic evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_Charter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_Charter
- theoh 7y ago
  The standard interpretation of this is something like the following: If you replace an element (e.g. a brick) with a new brick, you should aim for it to blend in discreetly and convincingly with the existing structure BUT you should not try to conceal the fact that it is a repair (by distressing it, for example).
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    I think it would suffice to place a block somewhere in the reconstruction engraved with the date of the fire and the fact that the fire collapsed a portion of the structure, which was then rebuilt with modern techniques and materials appropriate for preserving the building as a public monument. The danger is that more ephemeral records of the fire are eventually lost, and then a future archaeologist uses evidence from the structure to make conclusions about construction materials and methods of a particular era. Besides that, the flying buttresses were not an original feature of the cathedral. If those could be added later, and become part of the historic character of the building, why not steel structural beams and reinforced concrete supports now?
    - anoncake 7y ago
      > Besides that, the flying buttresses were not an original feature of the cathedral. Do you have a source for that? I thought a gothic cathedral without flying buttresses was like a skyskraper without a steel skeleton. The load-bearing structure isn't generally added to a building after the fact.
jlg23 7y ago
> France signed the Venice Convention in the 70s Not only that, according to a friend the French laws about replacements are so harsh, that he: * would have to use handmade wallpapers * was not allowed to replace a very thin outer door with a slightly thicker one so that he could have steel bars run in the door to provide adequate security (he would not have been allowed to drill the holes the bars lock into on the other side of the frame either) He sold his house after realizing that there is no way around these rules (and he worked in French bureaucracy all his life). PS: IIRC it was a small 17th century hôtel particulier in a town some hours from Paris, off the tourist track.
- eloisant 7y ago
  Macron is actually trying to pass a law to make an exception and loosen the rules for the Notre Dame restauration. The official reason is to make it faster, but if he/the government wants to make it different, they can change the law as they control the Assemblée Nationale.
this_user 7y ago
The French Senate have already made the decision that Notre Dame needs to be rebuilt exactly as it was. So, the discussion of changing the cathedral is moot anyway. -> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/frances-senate-votes-rebuild-notre-dames-iconic-spire-exactly-it-was-180972306/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/frances-senate-vot...
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  That's just talking about the spire. As for the rest of it, the bill includes the language "If the [conservation team] uses materials different from those in place prior to the disaster, it [should] publish a study giving the reasons for these changes." Seems to me like "We're using steel instead of wood for non-visible parts for reason of it not being flammable", that would be a good reason.
Bluestrike2 7y ago
The Venice Charter is a set of conservation and restoration guidelines, not an international treaty with the force of law. There are other ICOMOS doctrinal texts,[0] as well. The 2003 ICOMOS charter Prinicples for the analysis, conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage declares "The choice between ?traditional? and ?innovative? techniques should be weighed up on a case-by-case basis and preference given to those that are least invasive and most compatible with heritage values, bearing in mind safety and durability requirements. (3.7)"[1] Article 10 of the Venice Charter also states that "Where traditional techniques prove inadequate, the consolidation of a monument can be achieved by the use of any modern technique for conservation and construction, the efficacy of which has been shown by scientific data and proved by experience." There's no single answer here, just a very loud debate to come that will be shaped by guidelines and experience. The fire risk of timber roofs in medieval cathedrals is well-documented throughout history. Given that risk, the lack of fire breaks in the cathedral's attic, etc., there's an excellent argument to be made for deviating from the historical design for the reconstructed roof's internal structure. Reconstruction isn't about just restoring what's been damaged or lost, but also protecting the structure for future generations. Weighing possible increased fired safety over the course of centuries against restoring the original design is going to be a major point of debate during the planning stages, even in light of existing restoration guidelines. That's setting aside the possibility of design changes needed to use cross laminated lumber as a substitute for old growth oak timber that's no longer available, or worries about the adhesives in failing over the course of a few centuries in a load-bearing structure. That's a scenario with very unique challenges. 0. https://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-other-doctrinal-texts https://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-other-doctrinal-texts 1. https://www.icomos.org/en/about-the-centre/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/165-icomos-charter-principles-for-the-analysis-conservation-and-structural-restoration-of-architectural-heritage https://www.icomos.org/en/about-the-centre/179-articles-en-f...

by wazoox 7y ago

NotPaidToPost 7y ago

They've recently rebuilt the roof of the "collège des Bernardins", also in Paris and as old as Notre Dame, using steel beams and titanium tiles... Doing the same for Notre Dame would be sensible. They will do as they see fit, and rightly so.

CydeWeys 7y ago

I'm not really seeing how something signed in the 70s is going to prevent France from repairing a devastated building, that is French to the core and located in the French capital, however they see fit. If they come out and say it makes sense to use non-flammable materials for the reconstruction (which would make sense), who in the world is going to stop them exactly? Notre Dame was already damaged by the fire (which this treaty couldn't prevent), and now it's about repairing it.

anextomp 7y ago
The people with the power to change the treaty don't materially care about the restoration and the people in change of the restoration don't have the power to change the treaty. Without some huge effort to range awareness in favour of changing the Notre Dame for the better, the treaty will remain and those in charge of the repairs will have no say in how they go ahead.
- lcuff 7y ago
  Unless of course they were to withdraw from the treaty ...
  - Rapzid 7y ago
    Tis the season.
- tomatotomato37 7y ago
  The thing is nothing is stopping them from ignoring the treaty and just doing the restoration anyway; no one is going to embargo or declare war on France over medieval architecture
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    And especially not if done for the entirely reasonable reason of "The wood burned the last time, so this time we're not going to rebuild the internal parts out of wood." It's also less clear that this treaty applies to rebuilding work; the original intent appears to be preventing unnecessary changes.

icebraining 7y ago

From what I can tell, nothing in the Venice Charter says the reconstruction must be identical. On the contrary: Article 12. Replacements of missing parts must integrate harmoniously with the whole, but at the same time must be distinguishable from the original so that restoration does not falsify the artistic or historic evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_Charter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venice_Charter

theoh 7y ago
The standard interpretation of this is something like the following: If you replace an element (e.g. a brick) with a new brick, you should aim for it to blend in discreetly and convincingly with the existing structure BUT you should not try to conceal the fact that it is a repair (by distressing it, for example).
- logfromblammo 7y ago
  I think it would suffice to place a block somewhere in the reconstruction engraved with the date of the fire and the fact that the fire collapsed a portion of the structure, which was then rebuilt with modern techniques and materials appropriate for preserving the building as a public monument. The danger is that more ephemeral records of the fire are eventually lost, and then a future archaeologist uses evidence from the structure to make conclusions about construction materials and methods of a particular era. Besides that, the flying buttresses were not an original feature of the cathedral. If those could be added later, and become part of the historic character of the building, why not steel structural beams and reinforced concrete supports now?
  - anoncake 7y ago
    > Besides that, the flying buttresses were not an original feature of the cathedral. Do you have a source for that? I thought a gothic cathedral without flying buttresses was like a skyskraper without a steel skeleton. The load-bearing structure isn't generally added to a building after the fact.

jlg23 7y ago

> France signed the Venice Convention in the 70s Not only that, according to a friend the French laws about replacements are so harsh, that he: * would have to use handmade wallpapers * was not allowed to replace a very thin outer door with a slightly thicker one so that he could have steel bars run in the door to provide adequate security (he would not have been allowed to drill the holes the bars lock into on the other side of the frame either) He sold his house after realizing that there is no way around these rules (and he worked in French bureaucracy all his life). PS: IIRC it was a small 17th century hôtel particulier in a town some hours from Paris, off the tourist track.

eloisant 7y ago
Macron is actually trying to pass a law to make an exception and loosen the rules for the Notre Dame restauration. The official reason is to make it faster, but if he/the government wants to make it different, they can change the law as they control the Assemblée Nationale.

this_user 7y ago

The French Senate have already made the decision that Notre Dame needs to be rebuilt exactly as it was. So, the discussion of changing the cathedral is moot anyway. -> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/frances-senate-votes-rebuild-notre-dames-iconic-spire-exactly-it-was-180972306/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/frances-senate-vot...

CydeWeys 7y ago
That's just talking about the spire. As for the rest of it, the bill includes the language "If the [conservation team] uses materials different from those in place prior to the disaster, it [should] publish a study giving the reasons for these changes." Seems to me like "We're using steel instead of wood for non-visible parts for reason of it not being flammable", that would be a good reason.

Bluestrike2 7y ago

The Venice Charter is a set of conservation and restoration guidelines, not an international treaty with the force of law. There are other ICOMOS doctrinal texts,[0] as well. The 2003 ICOMOS charter Prinicples for the analysis, conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage declares "The choice between ?traditional? and ?innovative? techniques should be weighed up on a case-by-case basis and preference given to those that are least invasive and most compatible with heritage values, bearing in mind safety and durability requirements. (3.7)"[1] Article 10 of the Venice Charter also states that "Where traditional techniques prove inadequate, the consolidation of a monument can be achieved by the use of any modern technique for conservation and construction, the efficacy of which has been shown by scientific data and proved by experience." There's no single answer here, just a very loud debate to come that will be shaped by guidelines and experience. The fire risk of timber roofs in medieval cathedrals is well-documented throughout history. Given that risk, the lack of fire breaks in the cathedral's attic, etc., there's an excellent argument to be made for deviating from the historical design for the reconstructed roof's internal structure. Reconstruction isn't about just restoring what's been damaged or lost, but also protecting the structure for future generations. Weighing possible increased fired safety over the course of centuries against restoring the original design is going to be a major point of debate during the planning stages, even in light of existing restoration guidelines. That's setting aside the possibility of design changes needed to use cross laminated lumber as a substitute for old growth oak timber that's no longer available, or worries about the adhesives in failing over the course of a few centuries in a load-bearing structure. That's a scenario with very unique challenges. 0. https://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-other-doctrinal-texts https://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-other-doctrinal-texts 1. https://www.icomos.org/en/about-the-centre/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/165-icomos-charter-principles-for-the-analysis-conservation-and-structural-restoration-of-architectural-heritage https://www.icomos.org/en/about-the-centre/179-articles-en-f...