Notre-Dame cathedral burning in Paris

[Valmy]

I'm interested to see how they go about re building the roof. In many respects I feel as though using more modern construction methods would be entirely appropriate - they stuck a spire in the middle of the building on a whim about 150 years ago after all. It's been modified several times since it's initial construction I'm pretty certain. Giving it a more modern roof, and a different spire would be entirely appropriate. Perhaps not as bold as the pyramid at the Louvre, but certainly not a painstaking reconstruction attempt. There's an opportunity here.

I think that would be controversial. Standards of historical preservation and renovation 150 years ago are generally frowned upon these days.

[Maladict]

I understood that only a small part was still medieval, but apparently not. But it's just "under the hood" damage. Sad, still not a major disaster I think.

Not a major disaster just because it wasn't on display? What difference does that make?

AFAIK the typical visitor won't notice it, so I think it makes a difference. And even if the beams were visible I still don't think having to replace them qualifies as a major cultural disaster.

If this is a major cultural disaster then what words will you use for stuff like the Louvre with collections going up in smoke? When the old castle in Stockholm burned in 1697 losses included among many other things most of the royal archives. It has been said (not unreasonably) that the Swedish middle ages were lost that day. That was a cultural disaster on a whole different level than the Notre Dame fire.

In a few years Notre Dame will have been repaired. It will have somewhat fewer original parts, but it won't look significantly different. Wear and tear, revolution, and heavy handed restoration had already made it less than all-medieval before this fire. Notre Dame will be fine and keep being a part of Paris for many years to come. As cultural disasters go this is not a major one AFAICT.

I see no problem in calling it a major cultural disaster. Even if there are worse things imaginable. Actually, losing Notre Dame might actually mean more to Parisians than losing the Louvre. But I'm not sure this kind of comparison serves any purpose.
Notre Dame is one of the great cathedrals and has immense historical and cultural significance for Paris, France, Europe and the world. It also happens to retain a great deal of its original materials, some of which have now been lost. That's a major cultural disaster in my book.

[fromtia]

I think that would be controversial. Standards of historical preservation and renovation 150 years ago are generally frowned upon these days.

It would be absolutely controversial, but I think it's a better approach then trying to faithfully re create (and it may not be possible to do so) what was built in the 13th Century. Our best hopes is that people still visit the Cathedral in 800 years time, and I wonder if they wont find it timid, cowardly even, to not rebuild the roof in a contemporary way after such a dramatic event.

[Valmy]

A better approach at what? And is there a "contemporary way" to build a roof? And how many 21st century cathedral roofs do we have to inspire it?

Sagrada Familia?

[The Brain]

I understood that only a small part was still medieval, but apparently not. But it's just "under the hood" damage. Sad, still not a major disaster I think.

Not a major disaster just because it wasn't on display? What difference does that make?

AFAIK the typical visitor won't notice it, so I think it makes a difference. And even if the beams were visible I still don't think having to replace them qualifies as a major cultural disaster.

If this is a major cultural disaster then what words will you use for stuff like the Louvre with collections going up in smoke? When the old castle in Stockholm burned in 1697 losses included among many other things most of the royal archives. It has been said (not unreasonably) that the Swedish middle ages were lost that day. That was a cultural disaster on a whole different level than the Notre Dame fire.

In a few years Notre Dame will have been repaired. It will have somewhat fewer original parts, but it won't look significantly different. Wear and tear, revolution, and heavy handed restoration had already made it less than all-medieval before this fire. Notre Dame will be fine and keep being a part of Paris for many years to come. As cultural disasters go this is not a major one AFAICT.

I see no problem in calling it a major cultural disaster. Even if there are worse things imaginable. Actually, losing Notre Dame might actually mean more to Parisians than losing the Louvre. But I'm not sure this kind of comparison serves any purpose.
Notre Dame is one of the great cathedrals and has immense historical and cultural significance for Paris, France, Europe and the world. It also happens to retain a great deal of its original materials, some of which have now been lost. That's a major cultural disaster in my book.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Maladict]

I understood that only a small part was still medieval, but apparently not. But it's just "under the hood" damage. Sad, still not a major disaster I think.

Not a major disaster just because it wasn't on display? What difference does that make?

AFAIK the typical visitor won't notice it, so I think it makes a difference. And even if the beams were visible I still don't think having to replace them qualifies as a major cultural disaster.

If this is a major cultural disaster then what words will you use for stuff like the Louvre with collections going up in smoke? When the old castle in Stockholm burned in 1697 losses included among many other things most of the royal archives. It has been said (not unreasonably) that the Swedish middle ages were lost that day. That was a cultural disaster on a whole different level than the Notre Dame fire.

In a few years Notre Dame will have been repaired. It will have somewhat fewer original parts, but it won't look significantly different. Wear and tear, revolution, and heavy handed restoration had already made it less than all-medieval before this fire. Notre Dame will be fine and keep being a part of Paris for many years to come. As cultural disasters go this is not a major one AFAICT.

I see no problem in calling it a major cultural disaster. Even if there are worse things imaginable. Actually, losing Notre Dame might actually mean more to Parisians than losing the Louvre. But I'm not sure this kind of comparison serves any purpose.
Notre Dame is one of the great cathedrals and has immense historical and cultural significance for Paris, France, Europe and the world. It also happens to retain a great deal of its original materials, some of which have now been lost. That's a major cultural disaster in my book.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Agreed. 

[fromtia]

A better approach at what? And is there a "contemporary way" to build a roof? And how many 21st century cathedral roofs do we have to inspire it?

Sagrada Familia?

A better approach at using architecture - not just preserving it but using it over and over again and adding to it and changing it, rather than trying to preserve it perfectly at an arbitrary moment in time. 

So for example the Louvre of course, the British Museum also springs rather easily to mind. That would be a much more interesting approach than trying to recreate in perfect detail the 13th century roof.

And yes, there are probably countless ways that we currently have in terms of engineering and materials that weren't known to the 13th century architects as regards building a cathedral roof. Conceptually non controversial statement I think.

[The Brain]

One thing that may seem painfully obvious is rebuilding the roof using non-combustible materials.

[Valmy]

A better approach at what? And is there a "contemporary way" to build a roof? And how many 21st century cathedral roofs do we have to inspire it?

Sagrada Familia?

A better approach at using architecture - not just preserving it but using it over and over again and adding to it and changing it, rather than trying to preserve it perfectly at an arbitrary moment in time. 

So for example the Louvre of course, the British Museum also springs rather easily to mind. That would be a much more interesting approach than trying to recreate in perfect detail the 13th century roof.

And yes, there are probably countless ways that we currently have in terms of engineering and materials that weren't known to the 13th century architects as regards building a cathedral roof. Conceptually non controversial statement I think.

Well we physically cannot perfectly recreate the 13th century roof since they used ancient trees that we would never cut today, even if they were still around.

I guess I do not understand what exactly you are recommending. Paris is ridiculously and notorious conservative about these kinds of things generally so don't expect anything too radical from a visual perspective. I agree we should use modern techniques to rebuild the roof more sound than before.

[fromtia]

Well we physically cannot perfectly recreate the 13th century roof since they used ancient trees that we would never cut today, even if they were still around.

I guess I do not understand what exactly you are recommending. Paris is ridiculously and notorious conservative about these kinds of things generally so don't expect anything too radical from a visual perspective. I agree we should use modern techniques to rebuild the roof more sound than before.

The fault must be mine for not articulating the idea well enough. Paris is conservative in terms of preservation, to be sure, but also has rather bold outbursts in architectural terms. ( Pomidou Center, la Defense, I.M Peis famous glass pyramid)I'm suggesting that the roof of the Dame be replaced with an entirely modern roof, or at least that's a course that should be carefully considered. There's precedent for such a course of action and it is entirely respectable from a perspective of aesthetic theory, but very controversial absolutely.

and yes a non combustible option would be desirable.

Here's a link to an example of the kind of approach to architecture that Im talking about : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II_Great_Court

[alfred russel]

I get what fromtia is saying. Burning is a part of the natural life cycle of cathedrals, or so it has been until modern day. Almost all major cathedrals are an amalgamation of styles from multiple centuries as they were built, added to, burned, and rebuilt. Trying to freeze the cathedral into what it was in say 1950 takes a bit of the vitality out of both it and Paris (just as using architectural codes that borrow heavily from 1870 creates a Paris that is quite attractive and pleasant to visit, but also something of a museum versus vibrant city center).

[Admiral Yi]

Damn kids and their newfangled cathedral ideas these days.

[crazy canuck]

In a few years Notre Dame will have been repaired. It will have somewhat fewer original parts, but it won't look significantly different. Wear and tear, revolution, and heavy handed restoration had already made it less than all-medieval before this fire. Notre Dame will be fine and keep being a part of Paris for many years to come. As cultural disasters go this is not a major one AFAICT.

If it was only going to be a few years, I would agree with you.  But reports are it is going to take decades.  A generation or two will not be able to enjoy it.  That is a cultural disaster. 

[The Brain]

In a few years Notre Dame will have been repaired. It will have somewhat fewer original parts, but it won't look significantly different. Wear and tear, revolution, and heavy handed restoration had already made it less than all-medieval before this fire. Notre Dame will be fine and keep being a part of Paris for many years to come. As cultural disasters go this is not a major one AFAICT.

If it was only going to be a few years, I would agree with you.  But reports are it is going to take decades.  A generation or two will not be able to enjoy it.  That is a cultural disaster.

Which part of the work will take decades? Not rhetorical.

[mongers]

In a few years Notre Dame will have been repaired. It will have somewhat fewer original parts, but it won't look significantly different. Wear and tear, revolution, and heavy handed restoration had already made it less than all-medieval before this fire. Notre Dame will be fine and keep being a part of Paris for many years to come. As cultural disasters go this is not a major one AFAICT.

If it was only going to be a few years, I would agree with you.  But reports are it is going to take decades.  A generation or two will not be able to enjoy it.  That is a cultural disaster.

Yes, it could take the best part of a generation to rebuild; unless they choose a radical solution as suggested by Formtia, though given it's conservative religious nature, I think it'll be rebuilt to a medieval standard.