Jump to content
Mrs. Peel

Notre Dame Cathedral Burning... heartbreaking!

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Handyman said:

They want to turn Notre Dame into glass roofed garden to create produce for a farmer's market.

That is EXACTLY the kind of bunk I was expecting. Now I want to cry all over again. The fire was bad enough... now they are intent on really ruining it for future generations. Can you imagine? Dropping a ridiculously modern-looking top right smack-dab on top of that gorgeous, ancient Gothic building? Mon dieu!!! It's freaking obscene! I knew as soon as that nitwit Macron mentioned an "architecture contest" that the building was forever DOOMED. No one but expert preservationists should be involved in a project like that... NO ONE!!!!  :nono:

Jackasses!!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

That is EXACTLY the kind of bunk I was expecting. Now I want to cry all over again. The fire was bad enough... now they are intent on really ruining it for future generations. Can you imagine? Dropping a ridiculously modern-looking top right smack-dab on top of that gorgeous, ancient Gothic building? Mon dieu!!! It's freaking obscene! I knew as soon as that nitwit Macron mentioned an "architecture contest" that the building was forever DOOMED. No one but expert preservationists should be involved in a project like that... NO ONE!!!!  :nono:

Jackasses!!

On the other hand, it would then make the perfect base for a future billionaire evil genius. 

  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 11:46 PM, Mrs. Peel said:

That is EXACTLY the kind of bunk I was expecting. Now I want to cry all over again. The fire was bad enough... now they are intent on really ruining it for future generations. Can you imagine? Dropping a ridiculously modern-looking top right smack-dab on top of that gorgeous, ancient Gothic building? Mon dieu!!! It's freaking obscene! I knew as soon as that nitwit Macron mentioned an "architecture contest" that the building was forever DOOMED. No one but expert preservationists should be involved in a project like that... NO ONE!!!!  :nono:

Jackasses!!

@Mrs. Peel:

I have to disagree with your adamant declaration here.
Since it is relevant, I will repeat an analogy that I have used here in earlier posts:
When this sort of issue pops up regarding a historically significant building that may be an architectural landmark, the usual battle cries are often heard as follows:
Conservatives:  "Restore it just like it was and do not change how it looks...."
Liberals: "Tear it down and start over again with something completely new and modern....."
Moderates: "Restore the important parts and renovate and modernize, (improve) the rest...."

As I said in my earlier post in this thread, Notre Dame, while a significant landmark in Paris, today serves more as a recognizable landmark, than it does as a Catholic church/cathedral or national icon.  Recognizing that reality, and understanding that what was destroyed in the unfortunate fire was essentially the wood structure supporting the roof, along with the roof of the cathedral, there is much latitude in what can be done in the restoration/renovation/reconstruction process.  Newer and more appropriate materials, such as steel trusses may be used as the new structural support for a new roof, using more durable materials.  It was and will again be located above the vaulted ceiling of the Cathedral and not be visible to parishioners or tourist visitors below.  Adding a sprinkler fire suppression system will also be an important new installation and will not detract from the architecture.  

I applaud President Macron's vision and decision suggesting that there should be an international architectural competition to solicit schematic architectural designs on how to best approach the restoration/renovation/reconstruction of Notre Dame.  I am not going to draw a line in the sand saying that this building should ONLY be what it was, but am open to hearing and considering other suggestions on possible adaptive/re-use programs that could be also incorporated into this building....(As long as it is not a bank,  remember: Jesus threw the money lenders out of the temple....comes to mind).  No commitment needs to be made at this early stage so let's hear everyone's ideas and suggestions and then determine if any of them make practical sense and if it would be a good additional use for this building.  History has many examples of the adaptive/re-use of buildings, especially religious buildings since in many cases they were the largest and most solidly constructed buildings at the time.  Therefore, this option is nothing new and has legitimate historical precedent.  This sort of reminds me in part on the whole debate on what should be done down at Ground Zero after the 9/11 attack on the WTC.  That politically and culturally charged debate took over a decade to resolve itself...

Architecturally, I have no problem if an international architectural competition generates some spectacular ideas that would ultimately compliment and accentuate the visual interest of this cathedral.  One concept would be an interesting form for a skylight that would allow diffused daylight to enter the cathedral, which is usually a very dark space.  I am confident that there are plenty of talented and creative Architects and designers out there who will be motivated to come up with designs that none of us can currently envision, that would enrich this building, making it even more of an important national landmark, than what it was prior to the fire
 
I also make the distinction between Notre Dame and other national architectural landmarks in how I categorize their importance, both historically and culturally.  For example, I think that the Eiffel Tower and the Arc de Triomphe, both in Paris, are truly valid French national icons, in addition to being important landmarks and points of reference.  Notre Dame is not in the same category, even though it is a national landmark and tourist attraction.  Therefore, I would agree with your adamant stance if we were talking about restoring/rebuilding a damaged Eiffel Tower or Arc de Triomphe, but not with Notre Dame.  Let's see how all of this plays out.

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AVB-AMG said:

As I said in my earlier post in this thread, Notre Dame, while a significant landmark in Paris, today serves more as a recognizable landmark, than it does as a Catholic church/cathedral or national icon. 

I don't understand your point here at all. Notre Dame is one of the most visited buildings on the globe... of course it's a French "national icon". I think you're parsing words, and incorrectly at that.

1 hour ago, AVB-AMG said:

Newer and more appropriate materials, such as steel trusses may be used as the new structural support for a new roof, using more durable materials.  It was and will again be located above the vaulted ceiling of the Cathedral and not be visible to parishioners or tourist visitors below. 

False flag! The roof would be highly visible from the exterior - therefore something with an outwardly modern appearance would be an obscenity.

2 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

One concept would be an interesting form for a skylight that would allow diffused daylight to enter the cathedral, which is usually a very dark space.

I may have not expressed myself exactly right! I apologize. I actually don't eschew the thought of incorporating modern materials which may be stronger, lighter, more fire resistant, etc. I'm not a complete Luddite! LOL. But outward appearances should be restored even if the framework is modernized. Also, skylights pose their own risk... not only in terms of damage to interior paintings and artifacts (there's a REASON museums are not bathed in sunlight, it's to protect the artwork), but also because there's a certain quiet, and yes, reverential tone that's created in a dark space. What I find most disturbing is this secular "push" (of you and many others) to downplay or blot out the fact that it was created as a house of God... and serves that purpose to this day! Why must secular types always try to tear town, overwrite, or stamp out "beauty" just because it's rooted in religion? I've never understood that tendency! There's something mean, ugly and controlling about it. Oh, yes, by all means...let's take an awe-inspiring, centuries-old cathedral that still serves as a house of God and turn it into.. a farmer's market! :facepalm:

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 9:12 AM, W2MC said:

Sure...this blends RIGHT in...I have zero confidence in anything the French come up with

louvrepyramid-impei-exterior.jpg

@W2MC:

Back in the early 1980’s, as a young architectural designer working in Manhattan, I was invited by I. M. Pei’s design team Partner to join Pei’s design team for this project at the Louvre in Paris. While very flattered, I respectfully declined for reasons then that I now truly regret to this day.

Architecturally, this solution put the vast majority of new art gallery, administrative and back-of-house spaces and functions underground and not in the original museum.  That freed up more space above ground inside the Louvre that was converted into state-of-the-arr exhibition gallery space allowing them to show more of there massive art collection.

The glass pyramid element is a wonderfully simple, yet very dramatic geometric form that serves as both a skylight and the new entrance to the museum, surrounded be large reflecting pools of water.  Having been there on a number of occasions, I consider it to be a very sensitive and appropriate design solution, that ultimately was respectful of the original building, as well as complimenting it by adding a new simple geometric form that was a transformative sensitive gesture that solved the many programmatic requirements of the project.  IMHO, the fact that over time, the glass pyramid has become the immediately visible icon for the Louvre is a testament to I.M. Pei’s brilliant creative design solution.

On 5/17/2019 at 4:19 PM, remixer said:

I dont Mind putting something Modern next to something historical..  I hate taking something historical and trying to make it modern

@remixer:

I think there are architectural examples where “you can have your cake and eat it too”.  There are many historical buildings that retain there original exterior facades that have been thoroughly renovated and modernized inside.  There are other examples of older masonry buildings where just the replacement of their original windows with new, insulated windows with no mutton’s, has given the resulting appearance a refreshing update, along with a more energy saving benefit.  

Yet, there are also some unfortunate attempts where the Owner, Developer or Architect were not appropriately sensitive to respecting the important aspects of the original building’s key design elements and the result is an embarrassing failure.

I understand that all of this can be very subjective and opinions lay in the eye of the beholder. As an Architect, I prefer that we keep as much of our historically important buildings as possible, either renovating them where practical or converting them to a new use(s), if they are no longer able to realistically serve their original purpose.  A good example of this in Manhattan is the conversion of a number of recognizable pre-war office towers into residential buildings, such at the Woolworth Building and One Wall Street.  This is being done primarily due to their limited floor-to-floor heights that will not work for office space today.   Plus, the spectacular views from these buildings allows for (ridiculously) expensive sq.ft. sales prices.

All of those apartments are completely modern, with contemporary features, amenities and appliances, yet may also incorporate some distinctive original design motifs where possible.

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news

The French Senate approved the govt-sponsored Notre Dame Restoration Bill, but decided to add a clause in accordance with which the Cathedral " must be restored to the state it was before the blaze".

 

French Senate says Notre-Dame must be restored exactly how it was

The Local

[email protected]
@thelocalfrance

28 May 2019
12:29 CEST+02:00

French Senators have stipulated that Notre-Dame cathedral must be restored exactly how it was before the devastating fire that tore through the Paris landmark.

On Monday evening, the French Senate approved the government's Notre-Dame restoration bill - but added a clause that it must be restored to the state it was before the blaze, striking a blow to the government which had launched an international architecture competition to debate ideas on the restoration.

The subject of the rebuilding of the cathedral - which was left badly damaged after fire tore through the roof and destroyed the spire on April 15 - has become a fraught battleground between traditionalists who want an exact restoration and others who favour a more imaginative take.

Some of the suggestions have included a rooftop garden, an 'endless spire' of light and a swimming pool on top of the building.

The Senate has now approved the restoration bill already passed by the French parliament to allow work on the structure to be completed in time for the Paris Olympics in 2024 - but requires that the restoration be faithful to the “last known visual state” of the cathedral, in an attempt to check the government, which has launched an international architectural competition soliciting designs for renovation.

The question of whether Notre-Dame will be restored identically has become a political battleground. French president Emmanuel Macron has called for “an inventive reconstruction”, while Paris' Socialist mayor Anne Hidalgo favors an identical restoration and called herself “conservative” on the subject.

Senators also removed a controversial clause from the law which would give the government the power to override regulations on planning, environmental and heritage protection and public tenders. Many members of the Senate, dominated by the right-wing opposition, have been especially critical of President’s Macron’s promise to finish reconstruction within five years.

The law would enable the government to create an établissement public à caractère administratif (EPA), or public project, to oversee the reconstruction project. This EPA would itself be placed under the authority of the Ministry of Culture, currently directed by Franck Riester.

Another minor modification is the backdating of a proposed tax break for those who have made donations for the cathedral’s reconstruction.

The bill approved by the Assemblée nationale outlines a national subscription project to be put in place in order to manage funds collected, making donations made from April 16th through December 31st eligible for a deduction of 75 percent, up to €1,000. The Senate has pushed the beginning of this period back to April 15th, so that those who made the earliest donations will not be penalised. 

Because of the changes imposed, the bill cannot now pass directly in to law, so the Senate and the Assemblée nationale will now attempt to come to an agreement on a version of the bill that will become law.

Source: https://www.thelocal(dot)fr/20190528/french-senate-says-notre-dame-must-be-restored-exactly-to-how-it-was

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, High Exposure said:

Good news

The French Senate approved the govt-sponsored Notre Dame Restoration Bill, but decided to add a clause in accordance with which the Cathedral " must be restored to the state it was before the blaze".

Thanks, @High Exposure!This post made my day! Weeeeeee!!!!! 

This new bill provides a rare example of sanity, respect for tradition, and clear-headed common sense... all things that are too often in short supply these days. I can only hope this sticks.

I mean, for god's sake...some of the ideas proposed were beyond disrespectful... it's a Catholic cathedral and an ancient, venerable structure, not a damn penthouse... or a farmer's market! :facepalm:

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...