The kind of modernization proposed by the TFA seems reasonable to me, though. The author makes some interesting points on this subject - namely, that the actual roof structure is never visible to anyone but work crews, and that it's apparently something of a centuries-long standard practice to replace burnt cathedral roofs using contemporary materials and technology.

Even beyond that, there's a practical argument to be made: Why go to great expense to install another disaster waiting to happen, when you can instead spend a lot less money on a roof structure that will more reliably and safely preserve the main structure and its contents?

>The kind of modernization proposed by the TFA seems reasonable to me, though.

No. Don't fall for this. This is the siren song that leads you down the dark path to Penn Station.

The problem with Penn Station is not that they razed it. It’s that they built an cramped and gross underground station to replace it. If they had put in a modern glass and steel station in the lobby of a skyscraper, only architecture nerds would be complaining.

It's an illustration of how the hit-ratio of contemporary architects (give or take half a century) is terribly low. It even seems to approach zero once you start factoring in longevity. Steel and concrete is notorious for failing to meet even embarrassingly low longevity expectations.

Use modern materials behind the scenes if it's unavoidable due to cost, but advertising them as a longevity upgrade would be pure hubris.

>Steel and concrete is notorious for failing to meet even embarrassingly low longevity expectations.

What? Low quality work, yes, as it's true for all other materials and methods. There are steel and concrete buildings that have lasted 100 years so far just fine.

> that have lasted 100 years so far just fine.

Which isn't terribly impressive, unless you assume zero maintenance conditions (which admittedly hit pretty much everything else harder than concrete)

It is impressive when you compare it to all the buildings built from wood framing.

But unlike Penn Station they're just suggesting modernizing the hidden sections the public doesn't see.

And they aren't suggesting tearing down anything.

Cathedrals are alive. At the scale of centuries, change is a constant for them. A great deal of Notre Dame is not "original" anyway. For instance, those famous gargoyles, I was surprised to read are actually pretty recent additions (relatively).

All that said, I do agree with you for the most part. Let's not have some arrogant hotshot architect do his flavor of the day on and add the "nosql" of architecture on there.

NoSQL has its use, but architects do ugly things to advance their personal brand and market themselves; old buildings that can't protect themselves are wonderful hosts for their agendas.

> Cathedrals are alive.

Perhaps still technically alive, but comatose and strangled. Buildings are manifestations of purpose, and France, given its post-Revolutionary secularism, no longer shares in the purpose that drove the life and development of the building. With the purpose gone, the cathedral, while technically still operating as a cathedral, has been drained of much of its life force and essential importance. French society values the building for its mere historical importance and so as with an ancient Greek ruin has preserved it like a cadaver, either resisting any changes so that nothing is lost (thus tacitly admitting its impotence), or, as some propose, wish to make changes that aren't rooted in any essential function or purpose of the building. Unable to repurpose it, they are left to superficial architectural infiltration. Still others may wish to abolish the building altogether.

> Let's keep the original style so that future generations can experience it the way it was originally intended.

This is a weird viewpoint. They used timber back then not out of "intent" but because it was the best they had. If they had concrete and steel, they would've used that instead.

Rome is proof that you can build with concrete and not wind up with a godawful fugly bunker. Likewise, the first skyscraper era shows that you can build with steel and produce things of beauty.

I'm not sure an eyesore can be avoided if you allow a modern architect within a hundred miles, though.

Did you read the article, or are you just responding to the title? It sounds like the latter.

> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

The problem (to me) is it's often impossible to truly match the "original". The different materials, building methods, etc often create something that is close but not quite right. See the Washington Monument as an example.

Using a contrasting architecture results in "yea it's different but we meant to do that" rather than a "we tried to make it the same but it's still different". See the Louvre's pyramid entrance as an example--and yes, I know that was controversial in itself, but I like it.

The historical roof cannot be preserved anymore. A newly-built roof made of concrete and steel has no more historical value than one made of wood. But the rest of the cathedral does. But it was damaged by the fire and can be damaged again. To protect and preserve the historical fabric of the cathedral, its artwork and artifacts, we should avoid fires in the future. By building a non-historical roof made of concrete and steel rather than an equally non-historical roof made of wood.

> No, let's not.

Honest question. Why are we so focused on making sure we rebuild/preserve just as it was in the past. If I am not wrong, this building has been through many such efforts in history, the building was rebuilt everytime with the influences of that time. Why are we as a civilization so focussed on preserving history as-is as opposed to creating history in accordance with our time.

I am neither strongly for nor strongly against this, just curious about what seems to be the general concern and consensus.

Agree 100%

Historic Preservation is very important

The "historic" roof cannot be preserved - it is now gone. The building will tell its history more honestly if the new structure is of the time. It should be sympathetic to the rest of the design, but not pretend to be anything it's not.

No it's not. It's stealing from the future, locking up prime real estate to be a monument to the past. Take a picture, raze the structure, and build something modern out of glass and steel. Then in 100 years we can do it all over again.

"It's stealing from the future, locking up prime real estate to be a monument to the past."

Stealing what from the future? Are you assuming that people from the future would rather have a shopping mall or something on the Île de la Cité rather than a monument to the past? Personally, I'm rather grateful that people in the past have taken the time to preserve buildings from their time and earlier so I and others in my time can appreciate them rather than tearing them down and building some disposable modern structure that would be gone now. Not only is Notre Dame in particular a great work of art and much more attractive than any glass and steel structure (of which we have far too many imho,) its connection to the past is something that becomes more valuable as time passes. If we were to tear it down today, you can bet that future generations of Parisians would be cursing our generation's arrogance and self-involvement.

Building a mall would be more in keeping with the original intent. Remember, Notre Dame is on prime Paris real estate because the church served a critical role in peoples' everyday lives back then. Today, Parisians are increasingly irreligious, so it no longer serves that purpose. So that prime land was dedicated to an important civic institution. Now, it's dedicated to what is primarily a tourist attraction.

"Stealing the land. If we built a shopping moll there, future generations could build something significant to their society."

They can still do that. Not tearing down a building today does not prevent future generations from doing so if need be. The only choice today that steals from the future is razing the structure because that's the one thing that cannot be undone.

You want Paris to become like Detroit? Those tourists pump an enormous amount of money into the local economy and help keep the city what it is. No one ever travels to cities like Detroit or Buffalo because there's nothing there worth visiting, and the local economies are terrible.

No they don’t. Tourism accounts for just 2% of the Paris region’s GDP. Their GDP probably would go up if they got rid of their historical preservation rules, allowing more productive use of existing space.

How is it stealing from the future? The future can raze it if they want. Razing it now is stealing that option from the future.

In another comment I quoted Roger Scruton who wrote about the desire of "all forward-looking architects from Le Corbusier to Richard Rogers, of razing Paris to the ground and rebuilding it in concrete, steel and glass" but I didn't expect to see someone actually arguing for the perspective Scruton was lampooning. I suppose he was not exaggerating as much as I had thought.

What does 'original style' means, though?

Notre Dame was refurbished and changed in the 19th century (and at various other times) . For example, the famous gargoyles are not 'original' at all but date from that time.

The 19th century restoration had a goal of restoring the original style and character of the church. The 19th century spire, for instance, was a replica of the one that had to be removed in the 18th century. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugène_Viollet-le-Duc

“Their project involved primarily the facade, where many of the statues over the portals had been beheaded or smashed during the Revolution. They proposed two major changes to the interior: rebuilding two of the bays to their original medieval height of four stories, and removing the marble neoclassical structures and decoration which had been added to the choir during the reign of Louis XIV [. . .] Instead, he proposed to rebuild the original medieval spire and bell tower over the transept, which had been removed in 1786 because it was unstable in the wind.”

I always like when people ignore the comment they are replying to...

If you want to restore the original style then we should remove the gargoyles, as mentioned, but also other elements that were added.

Even the spire was not a 'replica' as it was taller than the original.

There is no point seeking to restore "as it originally was" for an 800 years old building.

Certainly not using any lead anymore would be welcome. it's also debatable whether timber should be used at all as it's not even visible to anyone.

There's another very old building in Paris that was recently refurbished (collège des Bernardins). They remade the roof using steel and titanium tiles. It's lighter, does not burn, and will last centuries without any problem.

I was not ignoring you. My point is the 19th century changes were made in a spirit of restoring the church to its original design. The current gargoyles may have been carved in the 19th century but gargoyles were placed on cathedrals starting in the 13th century and certainly fit well with the medieval gothic style. The original gargoyles of Notre dame, according to Wikipedia, were removed in 1726 so again this is an example of the 19th century changes being a restoration to the original state.

Bolting on visible concrete, steel, transparent glass is a clear discontinuity from the medieval design.

Isn't the article mostly suggesting to replace not commonly visible roof structure with concrete/steel?

Yea the article is fine, replacing non-visible materials with improved modern materials is great I think.

This reminds me the outcry that followed the 'bolting on' of visible concrete, steel, and transparent glass in the middle of the Louvres... Which is now one of the most striking and famous view of the city.

> What does 'original style' means, though?

Classic 'this concept cannot be 100% unambiguously defined, therefore it is entirely meaningless and anything goes' argument.

There are no definite boundaries between colors - they blend into each other continuously, and there is never a sharp transition as you move from white to beige to red to blue in color-space. So why not paint your office and house, inside and out, bright red? After all, the current color has all sorts of pigments, so you can't really say the 'original' color wasn't retained!

Today's modern is the future's old school.

What you call original style is a "modern" modification from the 1800s :)

It was originally intended to be a place of indoctrination into the state religion of the local theocracy. We have, fortunately, moved on.