Notre Dame on fire

Nick333 said:
The more I think about it the more I think that the idea of "modernising" a cultural icon like Notre Dame is indicative of a sick culture. You're missing the significance of the damn thing if you think it can be made into something else and mean anything.
Click to expand...

You don't like the pyramid at The Louvre ?
 
My first thought was to go with glass and steel for the reconstruction, the roof that burnt wasn't part of the original Notre Dame in any case.
 
Arzy said:
My first thought was to go with glass and steel for the reconstruction, the roof that burnt wasn't part of the original Notre Dame in any case.
Click to expand...
I actually don't know if that's true, but I'm willing to bet it was close to the original if it was a restoration.
 
Arzy said:
My first thought was to go with glass and steel for the reconstruction, the roof that burnt wasn't part of the original Notre Dame in any case.
Click to expand...

Right the spire was rebuild larger in the 18th century after the 13th century one eventually rotted away but the main issue here is the actual concept of glass roof aside from the spire. Notre Dame had art inside on the walls which should be repainted rather than building this green house stoner temple roof. I will be amazed if this place get any tourists if they go by that design there is nothing appealing about it.
 
This is the cathedral in the `1800s - after the original spire was removed.

I cannot find any thing to confirm the original spire and the new one were identical.

1556295443643.png
 
Arzy said:
My first thought was to go with glass and steel for the reconstruction, the roof that burnt wasn't part of the original Notre Dame in any case.
Click to expand...

If they want it to last they could easily reinforce it with some sort of steel center pieces with wood on the outside so that they get structural support and keep the original gothic era look. These places are tourist magnets because of the history around the original designs where you can walk into a building and marvel at just how many manhours it would have taken to build something like this. To me that is the most amazing thing about gothic era buildings.
 
daveza said:
This is the cathedral in the `1800s - after the original spire was removed.

I cannot find any thing to confirm the original spire and the new one were identical.

View attachment 650536
Click to expand...

Would need to look for art from the 13th century, post if you find any. :)

All that can be confirmed is that the 13th century original build contained a spire and that spire was rebuild apparently larger in the 18th century. So there is no doubt that it had a spire from the start and up until today that spire would have been wood so the one that burned down that was also made of wood is a longshort from some beehive glass towering hippie design.

"The cathedral's flèche (or spire), which was destroyed in the April 2019 fire, was located over the transept. The original spire was constructed in the 13th century, probably between 1220 and 1230."

The following part of Notre Dame is the reason the Cathedral is such a marvel and if no one in their right mind would paint emojis on a Michaelangelo then they should not even consider these idiotic redesigns.

Fking 200 years to build this Cathedral so ye its not just some silly thing to try and protect.

"Construction of the cathedral took almost 200 years, almost as long as the entire gothic period, and most would agree it is one of the most important examples of the Gothic style in the world. In architectural history, the cathedral of Notre Dame was one of the first buildings that made use of the flying buttress."
 
The_Librarian said:
Gonna be really interesting.

Imagine they do a "slight" miscalculation and the entire building collapses...
Click to expand...

Unlikely for the entire building to collapse, but wind and rain can certainly cause the ceiling "vault" to collapse. This has happened centuries before...

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauvais_Cathedral#Structural_condition
In 1284, only twelve years after completion, part of the choir vault collapsed, along with a few flying buttresses. It is now believed that the collapse was caused by resonant vibrations due to high winds.
Click to expand...
 
daveza said:
This is the cathedral in the `1800s - after the original spire was removed.

I cannot find any thing to confirm the original spire and the new one were identical.

View attachment 650536
Click to expand...

The spires were different , Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc the architect designated to restoring the cathedral embelished the spire.
The elements that most clearly speak of "scholarly fancy" are probably the spire, the gargoyles and the chimera. As for the spire, Viollet-le-Duc modelled it on a recent two-storey tower one from Orléans, rather than the original thirteenth-century bell tower ("The Spire"). According to Rieff, this was to make it more impressive. On small projecting platforms at its base, with three on each of four angles, rise groups consisting of a symbol of one of the evangelists followed by three of the disciples. St Thomas, bearing Viollet-le-Duc's own likeness, and holding an aid to draughtsmanship, is one of these. More idiosyncratic are the chimera on the upper balustrade, which, like the gargoyles, seem to have been "wholly his inventions" ("Viollet-le-Duc").
Click to expand...
http://www.victorianweb.org/art/architecture/vld/3.html
 
Nick333 said:
The more I think about it the more I think that the idea of "modernising" a cultural icon like Notre Dame is indicative of a sick culture. You're missing the significance of the damn thing if you think it can be made into something else and mean anything.
Click to expand...

The culture was already sick a long time ago then.

Notre Dame has been modernized over the centuries, the current version only dates back to the end of the 19th century...

Read about the additions over time.
 
After the Notre Dame fire, scientists get a glimpse of the cathedral’s origins
The “forest” of Notre Dame was one of Olivier de Châlus’ favorite places. That dense lattice of timbers under the building’s lead roof epitomized the medieval construction techniques that the engineer has spent years analyzing.

“There was a very special wood smell, very strong, coming from the Middle Age,” de Châlus says. “And it was very, very calm — impressive, compared to the very noisy life inside the cathedral.” As one of the few visitors allowed in the forest, de Châlus had the rare privilege of hearing the creaking noises emitted by the timeworn wood and peering at numbers scrawled on the timbers by long-gone carpenters.

That beloved forest is now gutted, lost in an April 15, 2019 blaze that destroyed the cathedral’s roof and spire and damaged parts of the masonry. De Châlus, who works for the global engineering firm Arcadis, is finishing a Ph.D. on the construction of the cathedral.

There’s little documentation of the building process, which began in 1163 and continued for about 200 years. De Châlus has devoted himself to teasing out the unwritten rules of construction — how builders decided the size of columns or the height of flying buttresses, for example. He notes that builders lifted 100-kilogram stones more than 60 meters off the ground without the benefits of modern technology. Exactly how this was accomplished has been lost to time, he says.
Click to expand...

www.sciencenews.org

After the Notre Dame fire, scientists get a glimpse of the cathedral’s origins

Researchers will tackle the scientific questions behind rebuilding Notre Dame, and learn more about its history.
www.sciencenews.org www.sciencenews.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X