Hacker News Reader

Comment by llamathrowaway | Hacker News Reader

Gothic architecture is fascinating because they are not only aesthetically appealing, but also very advanced (at their time) in terms of engineering. Stones are heavy, but the pointed arches and flying buttresses make Gothic churches feel light and nimble. Advanced structural design also allows Gothic churches to have larger windows as the structure is no longer solely supported by the walls, inviting more natural light into the church which contributes aesthetically and spiritually.

For me, the above statement is the reason why I would prefer the roof and spite of Notre Dame to be reconstructed in a modern design that utilizes all the advancements in architecture. The Gothic churches were built using state-of-the-art technologies hundreds of years ago, and they deserve to be rebuilt with the state-of-the-art technologies we have nowadays. If the medieval French could, they would certainly build Notre Dame with steel and glass.

View on HN

Only if the modern materials and design are done with the same eye toward longevity that marked the original designs. Part of the beauty of these ancient churches is psychological... they feel permanent and timeless in a changing world.

Modern materials, on the other hand, are designed for productivity, not permanence. They hit cost targets. They're cheap and effective and sometimes even elegant, but it's highly unusual for a modern building to be built in a way that reflects an expected lifespan of centuries or even millennia.

> timeless

I think one thing that's proven beyond a doubt by now, once more by this fire, is that everything that man puts up is almost by definition not timeless, unless you make it out of large piles of stone such as the pyramids.

Truly timeless is a very difficult thing (see the work by the Long Now Foundation for more on that). But I don't think that detracts from the point that these cathedrals were designed to last forever, from the perspective of the designers - the Notre Dame is 856 years old. It took about a century just to build it. It was epic, and clearly, it still is.

Who builds a building like that today? Other than the Long Now's clock, who is really building things designed to last for centuries, millennia? That's my point. Even the most epic of modern architecture generally isn't thinking beyond a century or so. Hell, my house is over 100 years old. So modern materials thinking, in its usual box, is not really up to the task of re-roofing Notre Dame in the way it deserves.

That doesn't mean we can't do it, or we should just build another flammable wooden roof. But it does mean that we need to think about how it should be done, to protect and preserve the legacy of that historic triumph of the human spirit over time itself.

If you're worried about true timelessness... even the pyramids will die someday, eaten by the relentless desert sands. But we can maybe make something that lasts as long as human civilization itself, if we try.

One could argue that we do have moderm day timelessness; single use plastics that will take a few thousand years to be destroyed.

Eh. I'm talking about things we intend to keep in their current structure. Getting all negative about trash is kinda boring, really.

Given a reasonable extension of existing technology, we could eliminate that trash eventually. Imagine, say, machines designed to find plastic trash in the ocean, powered by ocean currents/thermals, that decompose the trash into basic releasable organics like CO2 and water. Just takes the will to do it. And hopefully someday, that will will exist.

And cleaning up the wreckage of the Industrial Revolution for the sake of future generations would be a legacy we could be proud of.

When concrete was introduced it was considered highly elegant.

I think concrete is elegant, myself. I suspect a lot of the Brutalist architecture that's considered horrid today will be re-evaluated much more positively in a couple of centuries. It was, in its way, a way of looking forward and trying to create something timeless, which is a lot more ambitious in terms of human spirit than the anonymous glass throwaways that dominate modern architecture.

It's easy to have opinions on things, but that doesn't mean these opinions have any substance. If modern architects choose glass buildings maybe there is more to it than just our immediate reaction.

Stewart Brand said the three enemies of all buildings are time, money, and water. He renounced is own faith in geodesic domes because they introduce unnecessary seams, especially as they get older and settle - seams that leak water.

Look at a glass building. Count the seams. Ask how serious they are about architecture that lasts.

If the medieval French could, they would certainly build Notre Dame with steel and glass.

But they couldn't and so they built it with stone and misshapen bits of coloured glass. That's part of the achievement and of what makes it a monument. Otherwise the Luxor in Vegas would be an acceptable substitute for the giant piles of stones in Giza.

Yes!... except that if we let medieval French people have their say, they would raze everything to the ground and build something entirely new. That's what they did in the 11th century; the previous cathedral was at least 700 years old and they destroyed it without blinking.

For better or worse, we have developed a fondness for past artifacts that they totally lacked; it may make sense to build something modern on top of the old structure, but we need to save what can be saved.

The glass roof is not a bad idea. It would be very French to do that. Like the I. M. Pei pyramid at the Louvre. If it's done, it will be done competently. So many people are watching.

Wouldn't that drastically increase the sun exposure on the internal elements and artifacts in the church? Sun damage is noticeable in just a few years, let alone on a time scale of centuries...

See this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19994844

The burnt space is essentially Notre Dame's attic. There's solid stone between that space and all the artifacts.

> The glass roof is not a bad idea.

To what end? The roof is on the outside put the inside is vaulted stone.

The glass would only be visible from the outside... unless one wants to get rid of the internal vaults?

The idea would be to turn what was previously the "attic" of the church into a public, park-like space.

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/france-notre-dame-green-sc...

That would simply create a gigantic greenhouse that would require enormous energy inputs to keep it habitable during most of the year. Not the most eco-friendly solution.

There are films that can be applied to glass that block infrared light, which would reduce thermal heating.

There's certainly precedent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louvre_Pyramid

It would be on the small side for greenhouses. It could also very well be unheated in the winter, it's just Paris and not Vladivostok.

Please, no. I am sick and tired of this international-style glass and steel business. We have plenty of buildings painted from this rather dismal palette. I'd like to see Notre Dame restored using traditional materials.

Right. If you want something modern, build a new cathedral.

I agree that the reconstruction needs to be of its own time and place, building in the spirit of the original, not the technology of the past. One of my favorite proposals for the restoration that embodies this approach is that of architect Vincent Callebaut: http://vincent.callebaut.org/zoom/projects/190503_tributeton...

> If the medieval French could, they would certainly build Notre Dame with steel and glass.

Are you saying they should rebuild the Notre Dame as a steel and glass structure?

(not op) I'm not necessarily saying they should but I also think it could be really cool looking and still hold to the spirit of the building if done well.

Maybe build a glass roof and have a viewing platform under the glass. Have a separate stained glass ceiling under the viewing platform.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com