On Topic Discussion The Tragedy of Notre Dame

[purina]

They should tear that shit down and make some money with a parking lot. That's what we'd do here.

 

[Telstra]

They should tear that shit down and make some money with a parking lot. That's what we'd do here.

Seriously?
Restoring it will make a lot money from tourists.

 

[Latimer]

They should tear that shit down and make some money with a parking lot. That's what we'd do here.

Not really. When St. Vibiana Cathedral in Los Angeles was severely damaged in an earthquake, a new cathedral was built and the old one became an event venue.

http://vibiana.com/

(I do realize your comment was not meant to be taken seriously.)

 

[belamyi]

^ Wren and Brunelleschi seem to have wrought more havoc in the cultural heritage of the Western world that all the fires ever compounded

 

[nycguydowntown]

hope they do this--it is amazing green design---silly to try to restore exactly as it was---it's all solar and would power a lot of Paris---

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

-it's all solar and would power a lot of Paris---

Science wasn't your best subject in High School, was it?

Unless this design has a nuclear power plant inside of it.

 

[rareboy]

hope they do this--it is amazing green design---silly to try to restore exactly as it was---it's all solar and would power a lot of Paris---View attachment 1318470

It is certainly another interesting proposal for the roof.....with solar integrated circuits in coloured glass, they might be able to pull off something vaguely resembling the rendering...but I would note that one of the issues with solar panels is that they do simply wear out....and one of the problems with glass roofs is that they must be kept clean or else they do look like crud covered glass.

While it wouldn't really power much of Paris, it would be a powerful statement and certainly would power the cathedral complex plus some.

We'll give the team high marks for the proposal.

 

[nycguydowntown]

Science wasn't your best subject in High School, was it?

Unless this design has a nuclear power plant inside of it.

just quoting what the article said---homes here with solar do sell their power to the local power company--maybe they meant to say it would light up the skyline in Paris as it is supposed to all light up.

 

[gsdx]

hope they do this--it is amazing green design---silly to try to restore exactly as it was---it's all solar and would power a lot of Paris---View attachment 1318470

Wouldn't a flat, green roof be a better option? It could be turned into a public park.

 

[belamyi]

- - - Updated - - -

What has been lost has been lost precisely because it was perfectly dispensable and, what's more, more cumbersome than anything.

 

[belamyi]

 

[Telstra]

my honest opinion, let the ruin be and build a brand new building.
Don't waste any money restoring it.

 

[belamyi]

^ Yeah, waste money building a new one, and let the healthy dirt rot in the core of the city How clever.

 

[NotHardUp1]

They should tear that shit down and make some money with a parking lot.

ooooo. much edgy.

hope they do this--it is amazing green design---silly to try to restore exactly as it was---it's all solar and would power a lot of Paris---View attachment 1318470

Silly by what standard? Many historic landmarks have been reconstructed to their old design when damaged. Historic structures differ that way from functional structures. Their function IS their historic appearance and iconic role. Liberty Enlightening the World was reconstructed during the Reagan years, but it wasn't made into an acrylic reproduction nor a composite shell. It was remade with copper sheets.

And "a lot of Paris"? No. The Cathedral isn't that large and solar cells aren't that productive. Most buildings are fortunate to supply their own needs on average over a year's time, regardless of being able to sell back overproduction at times. And Paris is a city of 12 million. The Cathedral could likely not even support 120 homes beyond its own needs.

Wouldn't a flat, green roof be a better option? It could be turned into a public park.

Better by what standard? Whereas Paris urban greenspace is low, the Cathedral is not the remedy to that. It serves an iconic purpose. The upward spires are visually important to the architecture. Without them, and without the pitched roof, the building would not work the same way. It would be diminished. And all that wholly aside from it's religious function as a Gothic design.

As a leader and center of community, it would be a better plan for the Cathedral to support a fund with its wealth to buy up derelict properties, convert them to greenspaces, and give them to the city as a gift of the Church.

 

[Telstra]

^ Yeah, waste money building a new one, and let the healthy dirt rot in the core of the city How clever.

No, ruined like the Pyramid or stone Hedge attract more tourists than not ruined.

 

[belamyi]

Silly by what standard? Many historic landmarks have been reconstructed to their old design when damaged. Historic structures differ that way from functional structures. Their function IS their historic appearance and iconic role. Liberty Enlightening the World was reconstructed during the Reagan years, but it wasn't made into an acrylic reproduction nor a composite shell. It was remade with copper sheets.

By the own standard of coherence and "reconstruction": what burned a few months ago was a XIXth century "old design" added to an older design. "Historic structures" differ from the conception people have of them, because everybody fancies and "reconstructs" buildings, along with the rest of history, according to each period's own prejudices. Their function is not be by themselves, but be to this or that period.

Viollet-le-Duc designed the destroyed spire according to his times idea of what is should look like. What can be considered silly is to pretend to be restoring a XIIth century original by actually reconstructing what today might be called a "XIXth century fake", because XIXth century metal is not the "historic appearance" of the original wooden structure, so that the "iconic role" can be served by just any other material... that without considering that the "iconic" status is the actual church, its façade, its buttresses, even its sculptured and gargoyles, much more than the secondary spire, for all its appealing pointiness.

You bet if there was a better, stronger, more durable material available than copper sheets, it would have been used to preserve NYC's Lady Liberty's "historic appearance and iconic role".

And "a lot of Paris"? No. The Cathedral isn't that large and solar cells aren't that productive. Most buildings are fortunate to supply their own needs on average over a year's time, regardless of being able to sell back overproduction at times. And Paris is a city of 12 million. The Cathedral could likely not even support 120 homes beyond its own needs.

Parisians are horrified whenever people mistake the larger metro area for the city itself. Paris proper, the "real Paris", what some outside Paris and France may call "historical Paris", is a city rather tiny for modern global standards, about the exact same size of Barcelona city, around forty square miles, and giving shelter to just above two million people.

But what you said about 12 million is valid for a mere 2 too.

Better by what standard? Whereas Paris urban greenspace is low, the Cathedral is not the remedy to that. It serves an iconic purpose. The upward spires are visually important to the architecture. Without them, and without the pitched roof, the building would not work the same way. It would be diminished. And all that wholly aside from it's religious function as a Gothic design.

Again, you are talking according to your own idea of what Gothic should look like: you should be reminded that Paris' Notre Dame is precisely considered to be the very first, 'original' "Gothic standard", so it can not be expected to be as tall and slim as the Gothic standard that later churchs set in people's minds. It's like proposing to "reconstruct" the Djoser pyramid according to the standard of the Cheops pyramid.

As a leader and center of community, it would be a better plan for the Cathedral to support a fund with its wealth to buy up derelict properties, convert them to greenspaces, and give them to the city as a gift of the Church.

That's just so socialist. So-so...

 

[belamyi]

^ Not to be by and for themselves, but to be for the people of this or that period.

It may be added that the reason why Notre Dame de Paris is so stumpy, and has such funny, fancy large and spectacular buttresses that will not be found in later, more sophisticated Gothic buildings, is another proof of why you can not consider it just like your average Gothic and Neogothic church, if you pretend to be "true" in the reconstruction of its appearance.

Tall spires have always been a nuisance and a danger to the survival of Gothic cathedrals aspiring to reach farther and further than their own constructive logic allowed (recall Lincoln or Saint Paul's in Britain, to name the most famous in the Anglosphere). So may be a smaller version of Dubai's Burj Khalifa with a stone-like colour and appearance would provide the "historic appearance" and "iconic role" you are defending.