Yup, let people restore the Kehops Pyramid wirh Beaubourg Center colored pipes in 3 months, a good scale as it was a 25 years built.😛
The guy of the Museum didn't understand that Sainte Chapelle was finished after 8 years. If N D took 190 years it was more about lack of monney and good workers enough for the task. There are no texts speaking about a living manifest when cathedrals were done' nore it was for the pyramids.🙂
The guy of the Museum didn't understand that Sainte Chapelle was finished after 8 years. If N D took 190 years it was more about lack of monney and good workers enough for the task. There are no texts speaking about a living manifest when cathedrals were done' nore it was for the pyramids.🙂
Come to Bavaria and hunt the elusive Wolpertinger.
Hunting is inevitably done at night and all you apparently need is a good looking girl as men can't spot them, a sack and a candle but you can do without the latter two.
Attachments
Canada goose is no longer a protected spieces and can be hunted and eaten.
Yes, A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Well Cal,we have loads of them around here! Poole (waters' edge) Park is full of them.
Your geese, I mean!
Your geese, I mean!
Around here too Cliff. They are so abundant they are thought of as more than just a menace and can be very destructive if given half a chance. They're also mean as junkyard dogs. Many times the idea of a culling has been brought up, but the ninnies prevent it. Too bad, they would go along ways toward feeding the hungry. Especially in winter when the birds are plump and the weather is cold.
ND did not take 190 years. It took from start to yesteryear to get what it is now. That lamented spire was added a 150 or so years ago. It's a living monument. You guys want to stay in the past. No vision, no ambition ;-)
Jan
You are wrong Jan I believe,, there was a spire before but was taken over during french revolution.
At the opposite one can say than restoration is a great and difficult ambition. Having bad tastes or two cents vision is easy as no having respect with old jewels, its not an amp or a new tech for egotic geeks or ambitious architects... 1500 art specialists signed a paper to keep the look as it's a manifest of sacred art in a context of gothic architecture history. Those specialists know more about guys here when talking about monuments... All we can look at are projects from architecture companies specialised in their own tech. Some master iron so the project is draw with iron, anothers with glass and so you can look at a project made with glass, etc. It s aa major lack of vision and btw a vision has sense only if the past has a sane base. It s not because we know about genomic than we can kill what was made before. And evolution is more for species than an art artifact. Again if one has a vision he can create his own style but modyfing an ancient artifact is not of meilleure gout...they mix up the concept of design with the envy of tech...
At the opposite one can say than restoration is a great and difficult ambition. Having bad tastes or two cents vision is easy as no having respect with old jewels, its not an amp or a new tech for egotic geeks or ambitious architects... 1500 art specialists signed a paper to keep the look as it's a manifest of sacred art in a context of gothic architecture history. Those specialists know more about guys here when talking about monuments... All we can look at are projects from architecture companies specialised in their own tech. Some master iron so the project is draw with iron, anothers with glass and so you can look at a project made with glass, etc. It s aa major lack of vision and btw a vision has sense only if the past has a sane base. It s not because we know about genomic than we can kill what was made before. And evolution is more for species than an art artifact. Again if one has a vision he can create his own style but modyfing an ancient artifact is not of meilleure gout...they mix up the concept of design with the envy of tech...
Well back to my fusion cuisine analogy. Mixing two styles and eras can be done, but usually it comes out poorly. When it is done well it can be spectacular.....but....So while I’m very much in favor of Jan’s ideas generally I’ll surprise you and say “not for Notre Dame”
I’ll admit I haven’t seen the Louvre with the pyramid, but it looks good to me in photos. First there was a need because the Louvre wasn’t designed as a museum so it had serious design problems to handle the crowds. Second the courtyard is so big, third the pyramid is very self effacing- while also being assertive. Good trick! Also the space underground looks very pleasant with light streaming in.
Notre Dame was always built as a cathedral, and basically works fine for its purpose. Which really doesn’t require much function for the vast majority of visitors. Walk in, walk out.
Mostly I think visitors want to think what it would be like if one were living in that era to see this building inside and out as a person would have in the 1200’s possibly a somewhat terrifying experience back then!, but now something harmless to just see as another tourist attraction.
The tower from the 1800’s and the added sculptures were built during a Gothic revival period of design so are in a gothic style. Of course each time it’s rebuilt in an archaic style it’s less “authentic” and more like a fake Disneyland building, but really, what else can you do? Now if the question was whether to put a “modern” building somewhat close to ND then I’d be very much in favor of not mimicking the style of ND but have something designed as we do buildings now.
Since the ND roof structure is hidden, it could well be steel which would also help archeologists understand that it was added. Yet it would be hidden. And there will probably be plenty of wood structure left to show the way it was build originally. Fire proofing could be accomplished by putting a fire resistant layer above the “ceiling” and below the steel. But that existing wood means there’s stil flammable material in that space, not sure how to handle that.
There are lots of beautiful old buildings without roofs in the world and it might be cool to have one at least repaired with a clear glass roof, as has been suggested here. It’s appealing because it would allow people to see such a building as part original, as well as acknowledge that it spent probably the majority of its life open to the sky!
But not Notre Dame
I’ll admit I haven’t seen the Louvre with the pyramid, but it looks good to me in photos. First there was a need because the Louvre wasn’t designed as a museum so it had serious design problems to handle the crowds. Second the courtyard is so big, third the pyramid is very self effacing- while also being assertive. Good trick! Also the space underground looks very pleasant with light streaming in.
Notre Dame was always built as a cathedral, and basically works fine for its purpose. Which really doesn’t require much function for the vast majority of visitors. Walk in, walk out.
Mostly I think visitors want to think what it would be like if one were living in that era to see this building inside and out as a person would have in the 1200’s possibly a somewhat terrifying experience back then!, but now something harmless to just see as another tourist attraction.
The tower from the 1800’s and the added sculptures were built during a Gothic revival period of design so are in a gothic style. Of course each time it’s rebuilt in an archaic style it’s less “authentic” and more like a fake Disneyland building, but really, what else can you do? Now if the question was whether to put a “modern” building somewhat close to ND then I’d be very much in favor of not mimicking the style of ND but have something designed as we do buildings now.
Since the ND roof structure is hidden, it could well be steel which would also help archeologists understand that it was added. Yet it would be hidden. And there will probably be plenty of wood structure left to show the way it was build originally. Fire proofing could be accomplished by putting a fire resistant layer above the “ceiling” and below the steel. But that existing wood means there’s stil flammable material in that space, not sure how to handle that.
There are lots of beautiful old buildings without roofs in the world and it might be cool to have one at least repaired with a clear glass roof, as has been suggested here. It’s appealing because it would allow people to see such a building as part original, as well as acknowledge that it spent probably the majority of its life open to the sky!
But not Notre Dame
Last edited:
Variac, all what you say makes sense and I agree but the last paragraph.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against evolutions and modern style nore classic modern of last century. But there are buildings where it makes sense as museums where the mix can hilight the whole result, concept and drawing. Not sure there is such a logic when it s about emblematic things. Of course one must introduce the techs involved when restorating.
I saw cool projects as one with glass roof and trees right under with paths for walkers. It s not this is ugly, but at the end you have the feeling that something is lost... first is unity. One likes to walk in a cathedral to have the feeling to be back at the same area than the builders. Emotions during the visit is a dive in the past and only old emblematic buildings can create this particular and marvelous feeling. It s good you can walk in it not like a museum or an Ikea where there is a list to see and follow. It s true for all the beautifull place, Angkor, Chicagos or NYC towers, pyramid, Kyoto, forbiden city and so on. Can we dream more in a place where there is a supermarket of styles? Less, imho.
Indeed a modern thing in front of ND may be right and more logic in this city context... but again, at least for my tastes, modern touches in this city were often wasted. Of course it could be liked in the futur, after all the metalic bridges in Venezia made by Viena architects after are beautifull, integration is a sucess. They didn t touch curchs and palaces though.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against evolutions and modern style nore classic modern of last century. But there are buildings where it makes sense as museums where the mix can hilight the whole result, concept and drawing. Not sure there is such a logic when it s about emblematic things. Of course one must introduce the techs involved when restorating.
I saw cool projects as one with glass roof and trees right under with paths for walkers. It s not this is ugly, but at the end you have the feeling that something is lost... first is unity. One likes to walk in a cathedral to have the feeling to be back at the same area than the builders. Emotions during the visit is a dive in the past and only old emblematic buildings can create this particular and marvelous feeling. It s good you can walk in it not like a museum or an Ikea where there is a list to see and follow. It s true for all the beautifull place, Angkor, Chicagos or NYC towers, pyramid, Kyoto, forbiden city and so on. Can we dream more in a place where there is a supermarket of styles? Less, imho.
Indeed a modern thing in front of ND may be right and more logic in this city context... but again, at least for my tastes, modern touches in this city were often wasted. Of course it could be liked in the futur, after all the metalic bridges in Venezia made by Viena architects after are beautifull, integration is a sucess. They didn t touch curchs and palaces though.
I always thought the fusion cuisine is a mixing of different cultures, not different times. Having said that, I'm not sure if your example of fusion cusine applies to ND rebuild / restoration. It's not like French architecture is to be mixed with that of another culture, say Japanese or Mexican. It's more like older French architecture mixing with newer French architecture.
Not many human creations in the world are ever original. Buildings are built upon previous knowledge and sometimes literally built upon previous building, especially in cities with long history. For projects taking so long to "complete", it's only natural to have different periods of technology mixed in. If you look at just about every significant buildings in Europe that took long time to build, you will see a lot of add-ons of different periods.
They are subject to supply & demand as well. Architectural ruins are what they are because there was not enough reason to fix / rebuild / restore.
You may get what you wish for soon. See the Ancient World Through Virtual Reality
|
Innovation
| Smithsonian
Wait till they add more realistic senses into the program such as tactile and smell. Imagine being a pedestrian in downtown of Ancient Rome as it was... oh, wait, you may not want the smell part. I've heard that the streets were basically open sewer.
