Hacker News Reader

Comment by jl6 | Hacker News Reader

Well, for what it’s worth, I like it. Old buildings aren’t always that old - they are added to over the centuries, with parts reflecting the tastes of their individual times. Why not add something reflective of our times?

I sometimes think there is an “English” approach to conservation in which history is something to be preserved with utmost fidelity - and a “French” approach, where history is something you are part of.

This idea seems very French.

View on HN

One objection might be that a church is probably supposed to be a different kind of architecture from everything else; and the modern glass roof is something we see a lot nowadays in buildings with different purposes.

> One objection might be that a church is probably supposed to be a different kind of architecture from everything else

There are certain design elements that Catholic churches in general (and cathedrals specifically) tend to have related to their specific function, but neither difference for the sake of difference nor anything particular that prohibits a glass roof is really called for; both original and renovation construction of churches (including cathedrals) tends to reflect a blend of architectural fashion at the time and place of construction and liturgical practice of the time (with renovations often blending current trends with the desire for harmony with the remaining constructions and a desire to evoke or pay homage to the replaced components even when not directly reproducing them.)

Funnily enough, the glass roof on the Gothic building is not exactly a modern idea. The earliest one i know of is Ruskin's oxford museum of natural history.

I also, perhaps perversely, quite like the idea of housing the remains of the church in much the same way.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/Pi...

Why not add something reflective of our times?

Because the value of such an old building is that is a reflection of their times. If you want to reflect your time, build something new.

You are calling for erasing history.

Yes, those ideas have been developed by Ruskin in the mid 19th century. He favored minimal restoration and letting buildings die when their time has come over a more continuous view of the life of buildings that can undergo deeper changes. That view was unsurprisingly espoused by none other than Viollet-le-Duc, one of many architects of Notre Dame (he was however very criticized even by the French, so it's a philosophical more than a nationalistic difference for sure).

> This idea seems very French

See also the glass dome over the Reichstag in Berlin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_dome#/media/File:Rei...

Hopefully they go with something this interesting. Moving forward while respecting the past seems like the right approach to me. Even rebuilding it exactly as it was isn't going to please everyone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com