Hacker News Reader

Comment by breckinloggins | Hacker News Reader

I don’t like ‘em. Bah.

But then again I’m old now and have always been a bit too “trad” for even my own liking.

If they prove popular, through, who am I to judge?

What is so sad about this is the windows don't need to be replaced. Original windows hold significant value. While modern replacements typically need replacement within 20-30 years, historic wooden windows can last centuries with proper maintenance. The craftsmanship in older windows often surpasses modern alternatives, making restoration a worthwhile investment for both historical accuracy and longevity.

I restored 189 windows in my 200-year-old house in Poland rather than replacing them. The windows are fundamental to a building's character and historical authenticity. You can date a building by analyzing its window features. The older the house, the fewer and smaller the windows, often due to glass manufacturing limitations and structural needs. For instance, a 16th-century manor might have small, thick-glassed windows with irregular panes, while an 18th-century townhouse would show taller, multi-paned sash windows.

The "original windows" in this context are windows 700 years newer than Notre Dame that were themselves part of a significant modernisation, and only a small part of the windows of Notre Dame (about 5% of the windows are being replaced).

The replacement windows are also made by a studio that has a history going back way past the windows being replaced, and a history specifically of restoring historic glass - I very much doubt they'll need replacement within 20-30 years.

The gradual renewal over centuries of renovations and restorations is itself part of the historic legacy of Notre Dame.

> While modern replacements typically need replacement within 20-30 years

This is complete bullshit you find on the internet though, there are "replacement windows" in my house that are 30 yold and nowhere near needing replacing.

You have many more important arguments to make against the cathedral's form and structure if it may not be changed, but rather preserved and restored only to its original character. What century does the cathedral belong to, by the way? 12th? 13th? 14th? 19th? ... There are several centuries of alterations you should revert before you even begin to object to the windows.

And you can hardly expect your claim to be taken seriously that the windows will need replacing in 30 years. It's inconceivable that anyone associated with this singular project would make so foolish and transient an investment right now.

The new designs are really close to "trad" designs of stained glass which often depicted scenes from the bible, saints etc.

How is this concept: https://media.beauxarts.com/uploads/2024/12/web000_36qn6km.j... worse than the existing windows: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Notre_Da... ?

For reference: https://www.gettyimages.se/fotografier/catholic-church-stain...

Agreed 100%. I love your phrasing. My initial repose was surprisingly too "trad" for my own liking. Doesn't seem to matter age or supposed wisdom, we are always a work in progress aren't we?

You can sign a petition against the change here : https://www.change.org/p/let-s-preserve-viollet-le-duc-s-sta...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com