Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kyrio | Hacker News Reader

My parents were both involved in post-fire salvage operations at Notre-Dame and though I'm necessarily a bit biased towards their opinions, I wish we wouldn't share any self-branded expert's take on what went wrong or how things should be done. Some of the most qualified people in the country are working on the site and aren't being interviewed. As the article states, the man in charge of the restoration is an Architecte en chef des monuments historiques; preserving and restoring state-owned monuments is his job and he's accompanied by other architects of the same training. I fully agree with the author in that they should be the ones designing the reconstructed spire, not a worldwide art project as the president suggests. As far as the "independent report" about the stability of the building, it has not made the news here so far.

View on HN

Yes. But I would not be at all surprised if large steel temporary shoring beams were soon placed inside to brace the columns against inward forces. Very common in California after earthquakes.[1]

[1] http://construction911.com/emergency-services/shoring/

Yes, that was done in the days following the fire. But the article seems to put that in doubt, based on a report that I believe was written _prior_ to the incident.

As a side note, it can be a permanent thing for some cathedrals.

I'm thinking of Beauvais Cathedral:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Interior_of_Cath...

This cathedral is the highest in France, but it had some design flaws, with part of the vault collapsing during the construction, and then, the huge spire collapsed during Ascension Day in 1573. It was never finished because of that.

This cathedral is also quite interesting because of this unfinished state as it permits to compare the old roman cathedral vs the new gothic cathedral, showing the huge increase in scale between the twos:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cath%C3%A9drale_...

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

I find it weird that there would be serious consideration for anything other than a durable clone of the original.

I'd faithfully copy the exterior, switching the material to something that will last. The obvious choice is a good-quality stainless steel to replace the wood, and a glassy substance (granite? porcelain?) to replace any limestone or marble. Another choice is phosphor bronze. Nickel is another option.

This idea (replicate old structure in a new material) is not really a thing in building conservation. One reason for this is that the dimensions of structural elements are a function of the properties of the original material: it just doesn't make sense to replace a timber beam with a steel one of the same dimensions.

The presence of timber in a historic structure obviously makes it less durable and fire-resistant, but it is authentic, and that is something that is taken very seriously.

It's like an old recipe, an old painting, or an old piece of music. Nobody who is seriously engaged with those things believes in improving them by substituting modern high-tech elements in the course of recreating/restoring an original.

Nobody today would improve on the old. That wasn't always the case.

There is a lot of historical precedent for restorers "fixing" art. (Most often adding clothing to cover private areas). Since we now know the art by the "fixed version today there is the open question of if we remove the fix or not - either way we are destroying art.

A more recent example.

Winston Churchill's cigar has been edited from a photo before.

https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/in-the-media/churchil...

Fire protection systems are "inauthentic" too, and weren't included for that reason, with the end result being that we lost a lot more authenticity from the fire than would have been lost just by including fire protection.

Anyway, the wood is inside the roof. It's not even visible unless you go up into the attic. Would it really be such a big deal to replace it with steel trusses?

There's a role for modern technology to play in preserving older technology. Sometimes you need to retrofit the old stuff with the modern in order to preserve as much as possible over the long run. That's the case here.

Of course fire prevention measures can and should be taken in old buildings. Installing unobtrusive systems with the goal of protecting an authentic structure is routine, as is finding any and all possible ways of mitigating fire hazards without changing the character of the building.

This is a totally separate issue from the bizarre hylomorphic idea of replacing limestone and marble with granite(?!) and porcelain.

Here's an example of unseen functional reinforcement of an historic roof with a modern steel truss: https://www.julianharraparchitects.co.uk/st-annes-limehouse. This is a case of pragmatism and economy. It's a long way from completely replacing the roof structure with a modern solution.

The idea that is going around of rebuilding the roof of Notre Dame with diamond/Kryptonite/carbon fiber as a way of trumpeting how advanced we are is annoying. The consensus these days about restoration is that it should be about making humble, minimally invasive, economical changes. Just put things back in order. Put in a sprinkler system. This is not an occasion for making a tacky gesture that will only reveal how mediocre 21st C architecture is in comparison to medieval Gothic.

That steel truss is not a long way from completely replacing the roof structure with a modern solution. If anything it is more a departure from the original, which stood alone without help. It's not even an option for Notre Dame, because there is no longer any original wood or lead that one might want to save.

For a truly authentic roof appearance, only the lead surface matters. Lead is actually an awful substance to use though. It had cracked, letting in water to rot the wood. Swapping out that metal for one that is lighter and more durable would be sensible. I don't think it would be sacrilege to pick a better metal. Suggestions: phosphor bronze, surgical stainless steel, nickel, titanium, titanium nitride, titanium aluminum nitride, gold leaf over aluminium oxynitride, Monel, Inconel, cupronickel. Some examples here: http://finemetalrooftech.com/products/metal-shingles/

Limestone gargoyles only last a century. They aren't even old! They disintegrate due to the water flowing through them. The other grotesques, such as the chimera, were also pretty well disintegrated. Limestone is fundamentally terrible for long-term durability. The stone chemically dissolves, causing statues to turn crumbly and look melted. Glassy materials are far superior. All desired colors are available, so matching the original color is possible. You can go natural (white granite, black granite, etc.) or artificial.

There is nothing tacky about building with durable materials. Tacky would be like my house, with stucco over styrofoam, a very common construction method in the USA. Granite is the good stuff. Limestone is junk, almost as bad as my stucco over styrofoam.

We sure do.

In the old recipe, we replace the margarine with butter. We always replace the passenger pigeon, typically with chicken, but there may be higher-quality substitutes.

If you want to paint in the style of Rembrandt, you can do that without deadly toxic vermilion.

Music by Mozart and Berlioz is not normally played on the serpent or ophicleide. We're even beginning the process of replacing the contrabassoon with the contraforte.

So likewise, if you want to replace a heavy roof that supports fire and insects and fungus, you would use materials without those problems. The steel replacement beam may be of the original dimensions if it is hollow, but that only makes sense for something externally visible. Unseen internal structure need not replicate the original.

> It's like an old recipe, an old painting, or an old piece of music. Nobody who is seriously engaged with those things believes in improving them by substituting modern high-tech elements in the course of recreating/restoring an original.

Once knew a talented artist who painted in the style of the old masters and took pride in it. Substitution, or improvement, certainly exists in that school of thought, and in practice.

Evidently your understanding of "recreating/restoring an original" encompasses brand new creative works. That is not what is at issue here: Notre Dame is an original, irreplaceable structure.

> Notre Dame is an original, irreplaceable structure.

And, from it's original state, it is gone. We cannot replace the irreplaceable, but we have the opportunity to modify it. Such is life.

This is gobbledygook. You say that the irreplaceable thing is gone and cannot be replaced, but also that somehow we now have an opportunity to modify it?

The cathedral is mostly intact. This is a repair job, just like a repair to an Old Master painting damaged by a vandal. A restorer wouldn't use the latest and greatest synthetic painting materials (acrylics or paints with synthetic binders) to repair an old master. They might use some new technology in the process, but they wouldn't treat the job as an opportunity to indulge their personal creative vanity and leave their mark on the painting. There is more than enough creativity and self-expression in the task of restoration.

I'm not sure why you've been downvoted for this. Notre Dame isn't just any old building, to carry on the art analogy it's in the same league as the Mona Lisa or Sunflowers etc.

Thankfully the French do have a very strong sense of tradition and cultural identity, something that's sadly being lost in most of the rest of the western world.

> The cathedral is mostly intact.

The original is not.

What is arguably largely intact (though, per TFA, that's true superficially but not structurally) is the result of multiple changes over a long period for a variety of different reasons (often in the context of repairs, but the past repair efforts weren't with an attitude of “restore the original with no artistic changes”.)

> just like a repair to an Old Master painting damaged by a vandal.

Except it's not like an Old Master painting, as the pre-recent-damage condition was he result of many different artistic visions at many different times, unless you are comparing all the past innovation to the work of vandals, not just the recent damage.

Notre Dame was not built in one hit, and then unchanged since.

Throughout its life, it has been added to, repaired, and modified as necessary.

> I find it weird that there would be serious consideration for anything other than a durable clone of the original.

Why? The "original" (i.e. the thing that burned) was the result of numerous changes for functional and fashionable reasons over the century. The famous Viollet-lde-duc spire was a recent change only 150 years old. Life is change; cities and old buildings are palimpsests; to try to ape an earlier age is a form of cultural death.

The same is true of the Louvre which has grown and changed in use and shape for 900s years and few complain about that.

Regardless of what happens, the result will disappoint and even enrage many people. Either it will be an attemptt to be authentic, but won't be authentic enough for everyone, or it won't be and that will cause a different kind of outrage. And every change will be mourned by some as a "missed opportunity". C'est la vie!

Usually if someone vandalises an old painting, the gallery attempts to restore it to how it was before; the need for new, modern artworks is fulfilled by different paintings elsewhere in the gallery.

If someone slashes a Rembrandt, people would be aghast if you suggested Banksy stencil over the damage or Hirst submerge it in formaldehyde, no matter how modern and popular those artists may be.

Of course, there are various reasons one might argue the same rationale doesn't apply to buildings.

When someone slashes a Rembrandt:

The replacement paint need not be absurdly toxic mercury compounds.

The backing might best be supported by something modern, such as a glass fiber mat.

Likewise with buildings, we can get the old style with modern materials.

Interestingly a “restoration” of a damaged Rembrandt will typically not result in what the painter saw and oxidization and other degeneration will have changed the various paints in different ways over the centuries.

What is the appropriate repair point? Why should Violet-le-duc’s change be (or not be) privileged over more modern changes? The point of the building was to serve the people of a given time and it was adapted many times over the centuries to different usage models. Even the big plaza out front is relatively new (I have seen historical novels that anachronistically assumed the plaza to have been there, e.g. The Baroque Cycle).

I find it weird that there’s serious consideration to rebuilding it as it was, trying to effectively erase the fire from the building’s historical record.

What’s present-day to us will become history to future generations.

What about Notre Dame as an historical document?

It has lots of information about how buildings were built in the past.

That isn't to say the new bits can't obviously be new, I'm not sure old buildings have to be static, they've evolved over 100s of years, why not continue that tradition?

> the man in charge of the restoration is an Architecte en chef des monuments historiques

That's the professional bureaucrat overseeing the work e.g. an architect who chose to do his career in the civil service and is suffisently adept at navigating it/old enough to have been promoted. That is not in itself particularly reassuring.

Where I agree with you is that France most likely has both access to good experts and the technical know-how and means necessary to secure such a building.

> fully agree with the author in that they should be the ones designing the reconstructed spire

I completely disagree. The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ?

Since we have to build something, let's at least build something reflecting our time. It will be old soon enough. A worldwide art project will surely bring a lot more new and bold ideas to the table.

> The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ?

AIUI, the spire itself actually dates back to the early 19th century - if so, rebuilding one in the same style would be quite appropriate. 19th c. was the peak in scale and ambition for these sorts of works, and we should take that as our reference. Brutalist 20th-c. or 21th-c. architecture might be "ambitious" in its own terms, but it would never fit the context of a Gothic cathedral.

>Since we have to build something, let's at least build something reflecting our time.

I don't buy this idea. The original design was so beautiful that it inspired pilgrims for hundreds of years to make a trek to see it. Modern architecture is bland, glass-and-metal, uninspired crap; shiny jewels with no staying power that will be torn down within a century to make room for something else, or brutalist monstrosities put here to punish us with their brooding ugliness.

The original design was so beautiful that it inspired pilgrims for hundreds

The original design is not the cathedral that stood there before the fire. People have been adding modern touches to the cathedral for centuries, why not continue that tradition?

The spire that collapsed had been inaugurated in 1859, so it's relatively recent compared to the age of the cathedral. I don't really have a strong opinion on the subject but dismissing modern architecture as a whole before we've even seen the first proposals doesn't seem very... constructive.

1) The spire rebuilt in 1859 by Viollet-Le-Duc didn't have XIXe century look, it was heavily inspired by the one of the Orleans cathedral

2) Even with that, Viollet-Le-Duc is somewhat criticized for it's restoration works as he generally chose what looked "nice" as opposed to historical accuracy or significance.

Rebuilding the spire in a modern style would be a mistake in my opinion, or at the very least, a huge risk of style disunity of the building, rebuilding in Gothic style maybe boring but it's safe.

As to which technics could be used, that's another matter. Notre-Dame would not be the first cathedral to be rebuilt using the technics of the day.

Reims was rebuilt using concret, and the result is actually quite beautiful:

https://img.aws.la-croix.com/2019/04/17/1301016385/charpente...

Others were rebuilt using steel, Metz Cathedral for example.

Perhaps it would be better to build something that the original designers would build if they had our technology. https://www.designboom.com/architecture/vincent-callebaut-no... looks like a good direction to me (needs to use more coloured glass and mosaics).

> That's the professional bureaucrat overseeing the work e.g. an architect

I'm sorry but that's absolutely wrong. You don't become an Architecte en chef by promotion, it's a competitive exam that requires extensive knowledge of art history, ancient architecture and preservation/restoration techniques. Most architects with this title have businesses of their own, they're just specialized in restoration work rather than construction work, and they're assigned a number of territories to study and preserve their monuments (as long as they're state-owned). It's not, at all, about "navigating the civil service", and since they're architects, they're not overseeing any architects besides their own employees.

> I'm sorry but that's absolutely wrong. You don't become an Architecte en chef by promotion, it's a competitive exam

No, Architecte et urbaniste de l'État is an exam (like everything regarding the civil service in France). Architecte en chef very much is a promotion. It's the grade following Architecte de l'État and preceding Architecte générale.

> Most architects with this title have businesses of their own

No, they are all civil servants and work for a minister.

> navigating the civil service

Yes, being promoted is very much about getting old and navigating the civil service. Architecte et urbaniste de l'État very much is a managing position with all it implies when you are working for the state.

Does he have relevant experience managing restorations of old cathedrals? Do you know someone more qualified for the job?

You're confusing with Architecte des bâtiments de France. ACMH is a competitive exam and the Wikipedia page [1] can clear that up. I know several people who took it. It's just become very rare, like one every four years. It's definitely not a promotion, and unrelated to the ABF position (which is a part of AUE). But it is equivalent to being a civil servant, except you can have an architecture business of your own.

[1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecte_en_chef_des_monumen...

Indeed I am. My apologies.

>an architect who chose to do his career in the civil service and is suffisently adept at navigating it/old enough to have been promoted. That is not in itself particularly reassuring...

If you believe that's all it takes to be Architecte en chef des monuments historiques in a place like France, you just don't have a full appreciation for the importance France attaches to its history and culture.

> I completely disagree. The spire is gone. The original one is never going back. What's the point of making a copy ?

Like the German Reichstag modifications post-reunification, but there also was a very different modification in the 1960s, early 70s. Such projects can go both directions, even on the very same building.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com