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.
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.
Even beyond that, there's a practical argument to be made: Why go to great expense to install another disaster waiting to happen, when you can instead spend a lot less money on a roof structure that will more reliably and safely preserve the main structure and its contents?
No. Don't fall for this. This is the siren song that leads you down the dark path to Penn Station.
Use modern materials behind the scenes if it's unavoidable due to cost, but advertising them as a longevity upgrade would be pure hubris.
What? Low quality work, yes, as it's true for all other materials and methods. There are steel and concrete buildings that have lasted 100 years so far just fine.
Which isn't terribly impressive, unless you assume zero maintenance conditions (which admittedly hit pretty much everything else harder than concrete)
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.
Perhaps still technically alive, but comatose and strangled. Buildings are manifestations of purpose, and France, given its post-Revolutionary secularism, no longer shares in the purpose that drove the life and development of the building. With the purpose gone, the cathedral, while technically still operating as a cathedral, has been drained of much of its life force and essential importance. French society values the building for its mere historical importance and so as with an ancient Greek ruin has preserved it like a cadaver, either resisting any changes so that nothing is lost (thus tacitly admitting its impotence), or, as some propose, wish to make changes that aren't rooted in any essential function or purpose of the building. Unable to repurpose it, they are left to superficial architectural infiltration. Still others may wish to abolish the building altogether.
This is a weird viewpoint. They used timber back then not out of "intent" but because it was the best they had. If they had concrete and steel, they would've used that instead.
I'm not sure an eyesore can be avoided if you allow a modern architect within a hundred miles, though.
Using a contrasting architecture results in "yea it's different but we meant to do that" rather than a "we tried to make it the same but it's still different". See the Louvre's pyramid entrance as an example--and yes, I know that was controversial in itself, but I like it.
Honest question. Why are we so focused on making sure we rebuild/preserve just as it was in the past. If I am not wrong, this building has been through many such efforts in history, the building was rebuilt everytime with the influences of that time. Why are we as a civilization so focussed on preserving history as-is as opposed to creating history in accordance with our time.
I am neither strongly for nor strongly against this, just curious about what seems to be the general concern and consensus.
Historic Preservation is very important
Stealing what from the future? Are you assuming that people from the future would rather have a shopping mall or something on the Île de la Cité rather than a monument to the past? Personally, I'm rather grateful that people in the past have taken the time to preserve buildings from their time and earlier so I and others in my time can appreciate them rather than tearing them down and building some disposable modern structure that would be gone now. Not only is Notre Dame in particular a great work of art and much more attractive than any glass and steel structure (of which we have far too many imho,) its connection to the past is something that becomes more valuable as time passes. If we were to tear it down today, you can bet that future generations of Parisians would be cursing our generation's arrogance and self-involvement.
They can still do that. Not tearing down a building today does not prevent future generations from doing so if need be. The only choice today that steals from the future is razing the structure because that's the one thing that cannot be undone.
Notre Dame was refurbished and changed in the 19th century (and at various other times) . For example, the famous gargoyles are not 'original' at all but date from that time.
“Their project involved primarily the facade, where many of the statues over the portals had been beheaded or smashed during the Revolution. They proposed two major changes to the interior: rebuilding two of the bays to their original medieval height of four stories, and removing the marble neoclassical structures and decoration which had been added to the choir during the reign of Louis XIV [. . .] Instead, he proposed to rebuild the original medieval spire and bell tower over the transept, which had been removed in 1786 because it was unstable in the wind.”
If you want to restore the original style then we should remove the gargoyles, as mentioned, but also other elements that were added.
Even the spire was not a 'replica' as it was taller than the original.
There is no point seeking to restore "as it originally was" for an 800 years old building.
Certainly not using any lead anymore would be welcome. it's also debatable whether timber should be used at all as it's not even visible to anyone.
There's another very old building in Paris that was recently refurbished (collège des Bernardins). They remade the roof using steel and titanium tiles. It's lighter, does not burn, and will last centuries without any problem.
Bolting on visible concrete, steel, transparent glass is a clear discontinuity from the medieval design.
Classic 'this concept cannot be 100% unambiguously defined, therefore it is entirely meaningless and anything goes' argument.
There are no definite boundaries between colors - they blend into each other continuously, and there is never a sharp transition as you move from white to beige to red to blue in color-space. So why not paint your office and house, inside and out, bright red? After all, the current color has all sorts of pigments, so you can't really say the 'original' color wasn't retained!