6 ms·
A lot of the comments here are assuming that the author is proposing something that he is not (perhaps making this assumption from reading the title not the art
by chadash 7y ago
A lot of the comments here are assuming that the author is proposing something that he is not (perhaps making this assumption from reading the title not the article itself). So I'll summarize.
He's arguing that rebuilding the internal structure of the roof with wood beams would inevitably lead to another fire. Concrete and steel would last longer and be more structurally stable and resilient to fires.
What he's not arguing for is changing the visual character of the building. The steel and concrete he proposes would be in internal areas that people don't see. The ceiling which is what people see from the inside would remain visually the same. So would the exterior. The part that would use concrete and steel would be the interior section of the roof which is only seen by maintenance crews.
Separately, he makes the argument that much of the stained glass installed during the 19th century was "severe and flat" rather than "delicate and jewel-like like genuine medieval glass". He's arguing that we should install glass more closely resembling the original medieval glass, which would allow more light into the structure.
I think all of this is very much in line with trying to keep the character of the building the same.
EDIT: Reading the end of the article again, it's actually not clear to me whether he is proposing to put in clear glass or a stained glass that's a bit lighter than what was there before the fire. I think I initially misinterpreted and the former is what he's getting at.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- crazygringo 7y agoThank you for writing that, totally agree. One thing is unclear to me, though: > He's arguing that we should install glass more closely resembling the original medieval glass, which would allow more light into the structure. I did a little research, and as far as I can tell, the windows were originally stained glass, then many were replaced with clear glass in the 17-18th century, then re-replaced with stained glass again after that. So there's nothing "original" about clear glass, and I fail to see any evidence that the original stained glass was particularly lighter (the author calls the newest glass "gaudy bubblegum 19th-century stuff" but bubblegum doesn't mean "darker", and he calls the original glass "delicate and jewel-like" but that merely describes surface texture, not how deep the colors were). Stained glass keeps an interior pretty dark no matter what. So his suggestion to: > let the sunlight continue to fall across these stones and get the endless Parnassian passages of Victorian-Era glass out to let the clerestory do what it’s supposed to do – be a clear story Doesn't make any sense. I just don't think you can have all the clear sunlight (like it is right now, as beautiful as it may be) and stained glass. You just have to pick one or the other.
- chadash 7y agoThanks. I probably misread that and I edited my comment above accordingly.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- thaumasiotes 7y ago> he calls the original glass "delicate and jewel-like" but that merely describes surface texture, not how deep the colors were Really? I interpret "delicate and jewel-like" as applied to stained glass as a comment on color and size. It's hard for me to imagine it as a comment on a physical property like texture -- historically, jewels were valuable first for their color and then for their resistance to damage. The color part is less true today -- we can cheaply make almost any color of glass -- but the "precious" stones are one and all a lot harder than glass is. Even when amethyst was very expensive... quartz is a lot harder than glass. If "texture" refers to clarity, glass is a big improvement over natural jewels.
- tomatotomato37 7y agoIt's most likely that modern techniques are too "perfect"; the horribly impure coloration and janky glass composition (the texture of the glass chunk in the literal sense) as a result of technological limitations; in contrast to the "new" glass of the 19th century, which was already experiencing the first industrial revolution and thus could produce quality glass a lot more consistently. At least that's the impression I got from googling "medieval stained glass vs modern"
- opwieurposiu 7y agoThe article also seems unclear about the cause of the fire. Arson is not currently suspected. There are recent arson attacks on other churches in france which caused some confusion with this fire. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/frances-other-burning-churches http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/frances-other-burning-c...
- ceejayoz 7y agoThe article specifically criticizes the arson conspiracy theory and indicates an electrical fire is far more likely. "The alt-right hate crew roll in to blame the Muslims..."
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- smileysteve 7y agoNever attribute to malice what can be attributed to negligence. Construction and maintenance involve electricity, lights, solvents, blow torches / welders, heights/suspension, obstructed paths, and much much more.
- manifestsilence 7y agoThanks for the clarification. Skimming through headlines, this one conjured up Ayn Rand-ian anti-cathedral sentiments. "The cathedral rose over it in lace splendor, a fragile defense against two great enemies: light and air."
- Zenst 7y agoWood and a sprinkler system will be far better than concrete in this instance for aesthetics, cultural homage and many reasons. Rebuilding it in concrete would see the French in uproar. But one long standing issue we keep running across is how to fight fires in high buildings is an area that could do with some financial and invitation. Until then - sprinkler systems for such buildings should be a priority.
- argd678 7y agoI think there are some solutions here, at least for better fire detection: https://www.flir.com/discover/instruments/manufacturing/thermal-imaging-cameras-for-warehouse-asset-protection/ https://www.flir.com/discover/instruments/manufacturing/ther...
- trhway 7y ago>Rebuilding it in concrete would see the French in uproar. i somehow expect and hope that the French will intentionally rebuild it in some very new, "into the 3rd millenium", style which definitely would put half the country and the world into uproar, yet will become a great cultural icon 50-100 years down the road - ie. a story similar to Eiffel tower.
- cr0sh 7y agoThough I don't expect it to happen in this case, I wonder if some kind of wood and metal composite structure couldn't be implemented? I'm certainly not an architect or engineer; maybe that suggestion is currently impossible. Ideally it would be interesting if you could do something almost akin to 3D printing, or maybe closer to how plywood is made, but using wood fiber. I'm imagining something like long fibers of wood, intermixed with stainless steel or aluminum "wire", and molded using resin binders in the forms and shapes needed for the trusses and beams, etc. From the outside, it should look almost like regular wood, but with some of the strength characteristics of the metal (though now that I think about it, it probably wouldn't work in sheer or compression; tensile strength might be ok). What would be even more amazing, though I can't think of a way to do it, would be a wood/metal composite where the metal was a 3D organic-like lattice with the wood in between; I can imagine such a thing, but not a way to manufacture it (at least not with today's technology).
- titzer 7y agoWhy not replace it with a hologram?
- pastor_elm 7y agowould be amazing to get some 3-d projections on the ceiling
- anoncake 7y agoFor the same reason we don't replace cars with teleporters.
- BurningFrog 7y agoIn HN terms: Reimplement the interface so it passes all external blackbox test, using more robust internal modern technology.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]