As a parisian, I'm still a bit sad the conservative opinion won and that the roof was rebuilt exactly as it was before the fire.
It wasn't even the original roof! It was rebuilt with little concern over faithfulness to what existed before, not two centuries ago by Viollet le Duc.
After the fire, they were some neat proposals for a glass roof, or some wild ideas like a walkable, vegatalized one. But even without going there, nowadays it seems like old stone is sacred and we can't touch it anymore, ever.
We would never have had the glass pyramid in front of the Louvres or the Eiffel Tower with this mentality.
My cynical take (as an American) is that anything but the previous design would have been subject to politicization and protracted decision-making. Donors would have been more fickle, stakeholder groups would have mushroomed, and reconstruction probably wouldn't have even started yet. From a project management standpoint, the decision to keep it the same was as absolute win.
Yes for sure, I never had much hope for any kind of change because of the reasons you gave. I think it's quite telling of our time how we cling to some idealized idea of the past.
I find interesting that both the example you gave are places for the dead. In contrast Notre Dame is still an active place of worship, and it would shock me less to see change to it. A similar but more secular example would be the glass dome on the Reichstag building in Berlin.
Today's Great Pyramid is much different than what the Great Pyramid looked like when it was first built, according to the TV programs I've seen. There used to be an outer layer of white limestone on the pyramid.
Relatedly, when I was young, Notre Dame was black from years of pollution from the industrialization period. They cleaned it up and restored its original stone color.
The Ancient Egyptians were also like us in that they were into architectural bling and greenery, so I'm not actually sure they'd be complaining that much. They were into materials like gold, electrum, and polished stone, but I'm sure you could sell them on modern glass.
That said, the Great Pyramid is a historical site, not an active worship site, and modern archeological sensibilities prioritise conservation. A restoration like that might make it hard to answer future questions about the pyramid.
I’m not worried about offending the ghosts of the ancients. Let’s try another analogy: if the Mona Lisa were damaged, should we “improve” it with “modern bling”?
> Yes for sure, I never had much hope for any kind of change because of the reasons you gave. I think it's quite telling of our time how we cling to some idealized idea of the past.
Or perhaps leave old things as they were and build new things according to current ideals?
I'm really glad de didn't go for the monstrosities that where proposed after the fire.
I'm was not against making something new (like what Violet le Duc did), but everything was so lazy and dull I'm really glad they got dismissed.
> We would never have had the glass pyramid in front of the Louvres
This is big misunderstanding: the glass pyramid wasn't built by replacing parts of the Louvre: it was built in place of the parking lot of the ministry of Finances! (And yet, to say it was controversial back then is a massive understatement)
Also Parisians now aren't against new things, we've been numerous to sign a petition to make the Olympic flame aerostat a permanent feature of the city.
> everything was so lazy and dull I'm really glad they got dismissed.
The McMansion Hell lady introduced me to the idea of "PR-chitecture." You'll see it everywhere once you're familiar with it, including many other fields of design.
> PR-chitecture is, essentially, the architectural equivalent of vaporware: Proposed projects, ideas, and innovations that generate a lot of hype and publicity and yet never materialize (and even when they do materialize, they do so in a muddled-down form). It’s architecture for the click economy, a product of the internet age of short attention spans and a constant, uncritical drive towards the new and shiny. PR-chitecture is the inevitable result of an image-driven, buzzword-laden media atmosphere where big ideas and sumptuous imagery are rewarded time and time again with attention, clicks, and opportunities over the work of up-and-coming or more critical and subversive practitioners.
I think I would be fine with a modern roof that respected and blended in to the Gothic style. But the designs I saw were all frankensteins of the elegant Gothic original and a completely unrelated style. The stained glass idea was interesting, but it and several other designs drew the eye's focus to the roof, rather than the main body of the building. It's sadly out of fashion, but I definitely think that architecture needs to blend in to its surroundings, which in the case of the roof is the rest of the building.
(Of course, I'm not French, so my opinion has no weight in the matter)
Please let hem build their own cathedral somewhere else.
Nobody needs a glass roof so bad that it should ruin the the cultural wonders of the past.
There is a general pattern that I unfortunately see too often with this kind of "post-modern architecture":
*it cannot stand on its own*.
Usually it just falls to the lazy stance of " asking questions", which means that some shallow, non-artisan disharmonic contraption has to be splattered on top of something that is unapologetically beautiful, just to gain any quasi-relevance.
I will tell you a secret: nobody is interested in that glass roof, except the jet set in Dubai.
Those insecure nihilistic bullshitters are bored and it shows because what they create is usually very boring. Art is hard and in a century there are only a few that can find a new voice. A medieval cathedral is not a play ground for anyone, let alone some commercial studios.
You chose to ignore the fact that each time Notre-Dame was rebuilt, it was done in a way that reflected the era. Why should we attempt to preserve the last version, that only dates back to the 19th century, and is a fantasy of what it never was?
Why not contribute to this piece of art? Be it a glass roof or something less controversial. To me, merely repairing is like admitting the building is dead.
If you are curious about the answer, you will find mine below:
At that very time there was a sudden break with the times before. With the industrial revolution, man's environment began to change in such a way that poets and writers romanticized nature, as well as the past. Romanticism had begun. Young fields such as Psychology, Archaeology and Biology took off.
New materials such as concrete and steel provided a break with the past in terms of possibilities and forms of expression.
People in that century who were on the cusp of a new age for men; where the cityscapes of Van Eyck disappeared on the horizon.
The restorations in the 19th century were indeed not informed by sufficient knowledge, it shows how people thought what it should have been originally or how it should have been completed.
In Europe, many of the 19th century restorations were undone where they could, when one could find out what it had been like, for example. As an example, many changes to dispositions in church organs have been undone in this way in more recent times, based on historical-scientific insights. Often nineteenth-century changes turned out not to be an improvement but a fad.
Later, with the flight of the scientific method and appreciation for objective knowledge came the realization that if we want to preserve valuable things from the past, we will have to conduct research so that we can restore in a responsible way.
So for the same reason, we will not modify the Night Watch to suit our current tastes, thankfully. The Night Watch is not dead, quite the contrary.
I'm really torn on the movement the Pyramid seems to have started. I absolutely hate how obstructionist it is presented at the Louvre - annihilating every sight line and demanding everybody pay attention to what's basically just a covered escalator to some ticket booths.
But on the other hand I'm totally unbothered by the Royal Ontario Museum, or the big symbolic "wave" crashing down on a Japanese colonial building that makes up the shape of Seoul city hall, or the Union of Romanian Architects building.
and I'm in love with the L’École de Musique et de Théâtre in Louviers because it was used to extend and enhance the beauty of the original.
Basically, it can go really wrong or really right.
We know that the previous construction of the Notre-Dame was beautiful, but we don't know what kind of nonsense we could end up with with some really over eager starchitect trying to make a point.
> I'm totally unbothered by the Royal Ontario Museum
I loved the design when I originally saw the architectural drawing and models. The blend of modern with traditional. The way the crystal reflects part of the museum's mission.
That said, the resulting building is hideous when seen at street level. The finish of the structure makes it look like a tornado dropped an oversized aluminum garden shed on the museum, then they never bothered to clean up the mess.
Architects can design some really beautiful structures, but it can go really wrong for reasons other than over eagerness to make a point.
(Or maybe I was bitter about them dropping the free Tuesdays around the same time. Not only was it an affordable night out, but the museum was much more lively with the visitors and special events.)
As a resident, your opinion trumps mine. But mine is that the Louvres would be much nicer without that pyramid. I don't care for the aesthetics of it, nor the mentality it represents.
These ideas are simply inappropriate for a church, a sacred space. The fact that such ideas are seriously considered is also why we can't rebuild the roof in a different way today anymore. In the past, when people rebuilt the roof, there was some consensus on what a church should look like, today people have to rally around rebuilding it exactly, or have it become a playground for bored starchitects.
The glass pyramid in front of the Louvres and the Eiffel Tower are separate buildings. A better example would be the Bundestag, but that's a secular building and the glass dome here is a message of renewal and transparency.
Why shouldn't churches reflect evolving ideas of how "sacred" looks? The Sagrada Familia doesn't feel the same as the old Notre Dame or Milan, but it's no less sacred for it. The Crystal cathedral and Thorncrown Chapel don't reflect traditional ideas about what a sacred space should look like either, but it's hard to deny that they reflect something sacral even if you don't like them.
None of the glass roof proposals I've seen for the Notre Dame included removing the walls that enclose the space. If we're talking about something completely different, can you link it so we can be on the same page?
> These ideas are simply inappropriate for a church, a sacred space.
Why? On a conceptual level, wouldn't a glass roof allow the people to feel closer to the heavens, while still enclosed by the holiness of the cathedral?
> After the fire, they were some neat proposals for a glass roof, or a walkable vegatalized one.
We're talking about a medieval catholic cathedral.
How many cathedrals in the world have glass roof or walkable garden?
Do you think a walkable garden at the top of a cathedral would be respectful of the christian faith or do you think only other religions deserve respect? Put it this way: you put your walkable gardens on top of christian cathedrals, I build up tennis courts on top of mosques and swimming pools on top of synagogues.
> Do you think a walkable garden at the top of a cathedral would be respectful of the christian faith or do you think only other religions deserve respect?
Personally I find nothing disrespectful about putting a walkable garden on top of a cathedral.
> Put it this way: you put your walkable gardens on top of christian cathedrals, I build up tennis courts on top of mosques and swimming pools on top of synagogues.
I don't understand what you compare a hypothetical walkable garden on a cathedral to a tennis court on a mosque or a swimming pool on a synagogue. I think it better to compare a walkable garden on a cathedral to a walkable garden on a mosque or a walkable garden on a synagogue. Whether that is disrespectful is up to the individual.
That cathedral is property of the state and the Catholic church is only allowed to use it for its office, to be clear.
Private (owned by the church) churches, synagogues or mosques are not under that statute. But then they have to pay the maintenance themselves.
Notre Dame is paid by public taxes so its fate and purpose are decided by the French public, not by the church, although of course its opinion is taken into account.
It's the same reason many churches in other countries and up transformed into apartments, libraries or destroyed altogether when the Church can't pay for them anymore. It's not a question of "respect" for a religion or another.
>Put it this way: you put your walkable gardens on top of christian cathedrals, I build up tennis courts on top of mosques and swimming pool on top of synagogues.
Sure, why not? They're just buildings, and that sounds like fun.
And I'm pretty sure that as far as the Christian faith is concerned, one isn't supposed to put value in the temporal universe or its constructs, and a grand cathedral is as meaningless to God as a mud hut.
I respect the opinion of the majority which clearly wanted to keep it as it was, I am merely expressing a slight disappointment over the final decision.
Also, why would adding more modern features to the church be disrespectful to christians??
And no, the church has been rebuilt many times since the middle ages. Each time differently, reflecting the era.
I mean you're entitled to your opinion but I'm not sure I can really understand this one. Should the Romans build a nice glass dome over the colosseum, maybe rebuild part of it with steel? What about the parthenon? I'm fine with building new stuff in new styles, but would rather we preserve historical works the best we can.
I don't think it's obvious what it means to preserve historical works. A really clear example of my point is the Cerne Abbas Giant, a chalk figure on a hill in England. For a long time the idea was to try to leave it untouched. Adding chalk was seen as something like touching up the mona Lisa. But it was in danger of being lost and if memory serves it was discovered that when it was made people would refresh the chalk regularly. It's inherent to the work that it is maintained.
Let's say this giant is at one end of the spectrum, and the Mona Lisa is at the other. Its subjective where you place cathedrals, but certainly the builders intended it to be an operational building, and throughout its history there have been additions and modifications.
Notre Dame had multiple accidents over the centuries. Every time something was rebuilt there was a war against changes. And yet many things changed - what you see is not what it looked like before the incident.
What exactly is different this time so that we do not leave a piece of contemporary history in Notre Dame?
Context: French, huge amateur of Middle Ages history.
For one thing, the contemporary architecture of today sucks and the contemporary architecture of that day was actually good. It's very unlikely you would get a good result if you rebuilt the roof today.
Don't be so quick to judge your contemporaries, as today's turd may very well be tomorrow's jewel. The Eiffel Tower was considered a useless monstrosity back then, with many people (including famous authors, artists, and architects) opposing its construction.
Beauty is, in many respects, an objective quality, especially regarding colossal architecture. Geometry doesn't change. Perspective and proportion are enduring qualities, and all humankind hold these in common.
Furthermore, some architects and engineers are deliberately provoking ire by designing ugly and offensive structures. I mean, in what reality would someone enjoy having their eyes and senses brutalized by a Brutalist? It's sadomasochism on a civic level.
Eiffel strikes me as sort of a utilitarian skeleton piece; a proof of concept that made Lady Liberty a reality. But yeah, the tower itself is still kinda ugly, especially in comparison to the graceful and sinuous surroundings it was plopped into. I must admit that any true fan of Erector Sets would find it somewhat cool.
Notre-Dame, as a building, embodies Truth, Beauty, and Goodness, just as her faithful people do, and the edifice stands to project the Gospel of truth. I'd never object to a veggie garden, but perhaps let's not encourage gardeners to clomp around on the sacred roof.
That's a very wrong idea of beauty you have, there is no such thing as "objective quality".
Parisians hated it when Haussman rebuilt the city under Napoleon III, now it's considered one of the most picturesque cities in the world. Parisians hated it when the Eiffel Tower was built, now it's the symbol of France across the world and the most visited monument in the world. Parisians hated it when the pyramid of the Louvres was built, now new presidents do their inauguration speeches in front of it.
Point is, contemporary architecture is always ugly. Give it 50 years and it becomes historical and beloved.
> That's a very wrong idea of beauty you have, there is no such thing as "objective quality".
Not believing that there is such a thing as objective beauty is a recent phenomenon. Going back to ancient philosophers and in to the Italian Renaissance, the consensus was such a thing existed:
And we don't have to go that far back to find it, as as 'recently' as the Victorian era architectural designs were based on such principals (such as the golden ratio):
> contemporary architecture is always ugly. Give it 50 years and it becomes historical and beloved
Survivor’s fallacy. This doesn’t change that 98%+ of architecture has been ripped out and remodeled after 50 years. And some never catch on - almost everyone hates brutalism.
How very telling that you deny objectivity and then you go on to cite 4 examples where we should accept your objective, universal assertions, where you presume to speak for all of Paris, and every tourist and pilgrim to behold these beautiful sites!
I am pleased that you and the entire world uniformly consider Paris objectively beautiful, and I have no choice but to abandon my foolish, subjective judgements!
(Pro tip: symbols aren't expected to be beautiful or attractive, as long as they're accurate. Consider a long list of ugly and repulsive symbolism and synechode. Everyone knows that the Venus de Milo's arms were taken, and that's a reason for its fame.)
There is no shortage of people who are offended and repulsed by beautiful objects. Something or someone can be quite objectively beautiful, good and true, yet be considered unwanted or distasteful. Perhaps contemporary Parisians were more rankled by the excessive progress, destruction, and upheaval, than the architecture in itself? Greeks and others maintain ruins of formerly beautiful sites, in deplorable condition, yet people still visit the ugly pile of rocks?
It's a bit different I think because the roof itself was never "preserved the best we can", it's "just" a sort of fantasy roof built at a time when Violet le Duc rebuilt many monuments using his imagination and fantasy with little historical basis.
I can't really say which would be best myself, but the point is since the roof is already the not historical part of the cathedral, it makes little sense to rebuild it exactly in that precise not historical way. Instead, it could keep being the one evolving part of the building.
Historically the answer was "yes, rebuild the Colosseum with different materials," it's not just a modern thing. The desire to make it more original is stronger now than ever before in many places IMO.
Yeah, you have the right to your opinion too, and you're clearly in the majority so I respect that.
The last time Notre-Dame was rebuilt, by Viollet le Duc, it had been left in ruins for over a century and was redesigned as an idealized version of what it never was. So we are only preserving this version of the past by rebuilding it this way.
Also, a glass dome over the collosem would be hideous, which I think is reason enough not to do it :)
On an Android phone, you can use AdGuard DNS-over-TLS server to block ads system-wide even on mobile data. Or install a browser that supports extensions or has a built-in ad blocker.
On an iPhone, you can also use the DNS method, but Safari supports extensions so you can install a proper ad blocker as well.
Tbh it’s probably been a decade since the last time I looked into it. Glad to hear some ad blocking is doable on the iPhone. Certainly I use an ad blocker everywhere else. Will see what’s available. Thanks!
It wasn't even the original roof! It was rebuilt with little concern over faithfulness to what existed before, not two centuries ago by Viollet le Duc.
After the fire, they were some neat proposals for a glass roof, or some wild ideas like a walkable, vegatalized one. But even without going there, nowadays it seems like old stone is sacred and we can't touch it anymore, ever.
We would never have had the glass pyramid in front of the Louvres or the Eiffel Tower with this mentality.