Hacker News Reader

Comment by usrnm | Hacker News Reader

I'm actually still disappointed that they did not chose some bold and modern solution. France has no shortage of gothic cathedrals, many of which are much more interesting than Notre Dame of Paris, this was a once in a century chance to do something completely new and interesting, and they got cold feet. Such a shame. It's still very good work, but it will forever feel like a missed opportunity to me.

View on HN

That would be nothing short of cultural vandalism. It's certainly the prerogative of the French people to do that if they wish, but it would be an awful thing. The world doesn't need more ugly modern buildings.

I would like to add that France (probably) also has no shortage of modern churches, quite a few abandoned. There's no reason to build yet another one.

It was a restoration, not a grand re-imagination. When works of art (like a painting in a museum) are damaged, they restore them to their previous state.

There are very, very few old buildings in the world that haven't been rebuilt and reimagined at least once in their lifetime, for the majority of them the parts that we find most esthetically pleasing are later additions

The French government held a design competition [1] [2] to gather proposals for a new spire, so the assumption at the outset was not that it would be a mere restoration.

> “The international competition will allow us to ask the question of whether we should even recreate the spire as it was conceived by Viollet-le-Duc,” [prime minister] Philippe told reporters after a cabinet meeting dedicated to the fire. “Or, as is often the case in the evolution of heritage, whether we should endow Notre Dame with a new spire. This is obviously a huge challenge, a historic responsibility.”

However, the senate passed a bill explicitly requiring that the traditional design must be used [3].

[1] https://www.archdaily.com/916723/the-peoples-notre-dame-cath...

[2] https://www.archdaily.com/915355/france-announces-competitio...

[3] https://archive.ph/HgTvo

You mean to replace the whole building with a beautiful brutalist structure made of dark concrete?

You know that brutalism is long dead, don't you? At this point it's just a scapegoat, if you cannot see beaty in at least some parts of modern architecture, you clearly haven't been paying attention. Just look at some of the alternative designs for the restoration of Notre Dam and tell me that they're ugly and not interesting

> You know that brutalism is long dead, don't you?

that's kind of the point with modern architecture. It's at best lame, often outright ugly from day one, and aways never age well. The only merit is that it is made of non-durable materials (concrete, glass and steel), so no one will look down on our civilisation in 800 years since there will be nothing left.

They are hideous and repulsive.

You mean things like:

https://www.demilked.com/notre-dame-reconstruction-designs/

Because they are actually.. quite revolting. Even by modern standards, pretty disgusting. At that point you might just as well just bulldoze the whole building and put something new entirely there.

Many brutalist buildings are beautiful

Af French, I’m happy they took that way. Especially many submissions were quite ugly.

I prefer the approach taken at The Louvre and it’s pyramid of glass that is built next to the historical buildings without modifying them and giving a nice mix between history and modernity

The grossness of destroying culture aside you’d also be throwing away billions in tourist revenue.

People don’t travel to Paris to see something that looks like a mall.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com