
Let’s fix up Notre Dame with concrete and steel, but let the sun shine into it - bookofjoe
https://stainedglassattitudes.wordpress.com/2019/05/21/lets-fix-up-notre-dame-with-concrete-and-steel-but-let-the-sun-shine-into-it/
======
chadash
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.

~~~
Zenst
Wood 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.

~~~
trhway
>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
Though 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).

------
wazoox
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.

~~~
icebraining
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
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
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
> 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.

~~~
ceejayoz
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/world/europe/notre-
dame-c...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/world/europe/notre-dame-
cathedral-facts.html)

> After construction had begun, flying buttresses were added to the design of
> the cathedral.

IIRC, they also upgraded the first set with sturdier ones in the 14th Century.

------
Veen
Roger Scruton recently wrote about where he suspects the plans for the repair
will go:

> It would be wrong to assume that a gang of modernists set fire to Notre Dame
> – it could perhaps have been an accident. But there was no better way to
> advance the great project, shared by all forward-looking architects from Le
> Corbusier to Richard Rogers, of razing Paris to the ground and rebuilding it
> in concrete, steel and glass. An international competition of the kind
> proposed by President Macron will in all probability result in a replica of
> Norman Foster’s Sage Gateshead, expectorated onto the walls of the
> cathedral, to cling trembling above them like a gob of shiny snot.

------
mratzloff
This quote reflects my sentiments exactly, and expands on them:

 _What’s been more depressing than the Notre Dame fire itself is the
aftermath. The alt-right hate crew roll in to blame the Muslims (for, um,
sneaking inside the roof space to start a fire that hardly damaged the
structure at all ah yes, much more likely than an electrical fault: like and
subscribe). Floundering President Macron seizes on it to try and rally his
gilet-jaune agitators into some sort of patriotic common cause by promising
it’ll all be fine in five years. Billionaires donate a bit of pocket change at
a 95% tax deductible rate to get themselves on the golden wall of donors when
they should simply be paying more tax on their obscene wealth. Saddest of all,
a load of spreadsheet architectural firms get free publicity by doing stupid
renders where they put a swimming pool on top of the cathedral, or a glass
roof to let light in, revealing that they don’t even seem to understand the
concept of a vault. The hack journos lap all this up, and don’t try to talk to
the people hard at work consolidating and assessing the structure._

~~~
tsomctl
> to get themselves on the golden wall of donors

In their defense, that's how it was financed in the first place.

------
nnq
Am I the only one _actively disliking_ this light fetish? Dunno about others,
but the semi-darkness was crucial to the _awe_ and _spiritual depth & mystery_
that NDC made me feel when visiting it.

Otoh it's probably in line with over-lighting that I saw common at least in
Paris lately - restaurants and caffees used so powerful lights that I wanted
to wear sunshades inside. I mean... wtf?!

I get it that LED light allow you to flood everything with light at nighttime
without spending too much electricity, and that glass and polycarbonate are
cheap and easy to use, but... some of us love _shade_ and _semi-darkness_ and
even actual _darkness!_ Even phones and laptop screens are luminous now that
you need to keep them at 50% or smth if you're not using them while sunbathing
on the beach.

 _I almost wish I lived in a time where candle light was the only available
source of illumination, and glass windows were too expensive to worth having
them too big!_

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
>Dunno about others, but the semi-darkness was crucial to the awe and
spiritual depth & mystery that NDC made me feel when visiting it.

Absolutely. It being a giant dark gothic cathedral was the whole point. It
would have been something else entirely if it was bright.

------
derp_dee_derp
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.

~~~
sopooneo
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
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.

------
syphilis2
This is a great informative article. When I tour historical structures I
realize I'm never upset at renovations or reconstructions from long ago that
changed the building. The changes become a part of the building's history.
After all, these are not museum pieces preserved behind glass, they're
functioning structures and still in use.

------
peterwwillis
I don't think replacing the windows or letting in sunlight would work. I agree
that the lighting system should go, but the design and use of stained glass in
the middle ages had several purposes, one of which was that the light was a
visual representation of God's glory. In the Medieval period there were long-
running discussions among theologians about light's divine significance
([https://books.google.com/books?id=eXbDBwAAQBAJ&printsec=fron...](https://books.google.com/books?id=eXbDBwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=species+of+light+medieval&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAlv6b_MXiAhUSRqwKHW6ID8kQ6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&q=species%20of%20light%20medieval&f=false)).

Natural light might be beautiful, but it is transposed through the use of the
glass into a wholly religious artifact. You can even "touch" this visual
representation of divine beauty by running your hands under the reflection of
colored light. And anyway, it's much easier to examine the stories embedded in
stained glass motifs with light coming from the outside in.

------
ovi256
It's a really unique occasion to try to improve a worldwide-known monument
with a very strong identity: every one expects getting a certain gothic
experience when they come to visit it. Deviating too much from that is both a
risk and an opportunity.

Out of the multitude of kitschy ridiculous high-concept pool-on-roof design
sketches, a few will emerge as timeless and delivering what people expect. I
bet it's easy to deliver the expected gothic experience when they step inside,
and take bold bets on the outside appearance.

~~~
mc32
In this case I’m a conservative. Imagine the Parthenon, GP of Giza or Kyoto
Golden Temple being modernized. It would ruin the character and further make
into Disney-esque tourist attractions.

~~~
krastanov
The Parthenon was mostly destroyed in an explosion more than a century ago.
Restoring it in a respectful manner would be culturally (and yes,
touristically too) valuable.

~~~
quotemstr
The Parthenon wasn't even destroyed all that long ago --- 1687. Prior to that,
it had survived largely intact. Restoring it now to its intact state would be
okay by me.

That said, if you want to see what the thing would have looked like intact,
you can always go to Nashville [1].

[1] [https://www.nashville.gov/Parks-and-
Recreation/Parthenon.asp...](https://www.nashville.gov/Parks-and-
Recreation/Parthenon.aspx)

~~~
jdsully
Who would have thought Nashville is where the replica would be. It’s not on my
list of things to see.

------
Nasrudith
I find myself wondering if going half and half for lighting styles (original
radiant and the darker version of later) would be a good approach. It
certainly would be an educational contrast like showing bleached and restored
original bright flat color Greeco-Roman statues side by side and highlighting
both the "true original" and the "traditional" depiction from its wear.
Perhaps a bit gaudy in some ways so I can see why that contrast approach
wouldn't be favored for aesthetic reasons.

------
viksit
I was curious about the comment about flat modern glass vs the “medieval
version” and found a nice writeup that explains in some detail.

[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-colors-
you-s...](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-colors-you-see-art-
museum-cant-be-replicated-today-180953332/)

------
RenRav
That interior lighting did look bad, and his suggestion for using concrete and
steel seem reasonable.

------
coldtea
I.e: "Let's destroy a beautiful thing of the past, with our modern crudeness".

------
auiya
And make it look like the Temple of Time from the Zelda series?

------
rayiner
It’s obviously both a huge safety hazard and a money pit. Let’s raze it and
build a modern structure to proper building codes.

~~~
ceejayoz
The tourism benefits of things like Notre Dame likely _far_ outweigh the costs
of maintaining them.

