News of the Notre Dame fire has been an ongoing topic as of last week. Despite the loss of one spire and a destroyed roof, the cathedral still stands. The public has expressed strong views and opinions regarding the amount of attention and proactiveness many have made towards its rebuild. Social media is littered with responses of sadness, irritation, anger, optimism, and criticism towards the 850-year-old building. Much of the opinionated discussion not only revolves around the structure's historical and religious ties, but the amount of attention and funding it has received towards its rebuild. Using the cathedral's casualty as an example, is this how the general public will react to future casualties towards architecture?
After President Macron announced a campaign to raise funds for the cathedral early last week, an outpour of funds were donated. In one day alone, three of the wealthiest families in France pledged $700 million. Upon hearing of the funds raised many were quick to criticize the amount of money donated. Following the news of wealthy supporters pledging, a design competition was also announced to help propel the cathedral's restoration plans. France's Prime Minister Édouard Philippe stated the competition would allow for the cathedral to have "a spire suited to the techniques and challenges of our time." President Macron shared his commitment to rebuilding Notre Dame stating it will be, "more beautiful than before."
From the immediate donating of funds to the unrivaled attention the cathedral has received in comparison to other places of worship that have also suffered damage, almost everyone has provided their two cents to the matter. Now design ideas are being thrown around in terms of how the cathedral should look. Will old designs be adopted or will this competition create an opportunity for this historic structure to be “ruined”? Many perspectives have been shared within various circles. However, this intense level of discourse regarding the cathedral's cultural and historical significance during its plan to rebuild is nothing new.
Samantha Herrick, an associate professor of history at Syracuse University, shares perspectives of the cathedral fire. Specializing in French architecture and history Herrick explains, "In some ways, this is a very medieval event. That is, fires were very common in the Middle Ages and often lay behind the creation of such treasured buildings. For instance, Chartres Cathedral as it stands was begun c. 1200 after a fire damaged the one built in the eleventh century, itself built in place of an earlier church that burned down. These buildings were in constant evolution. The irretrievable loss of the medieval material at Notre Dame is tragic, as is the loss it represents to so many people. But to be damaged and repaired is part of a medieval church's life cycle. That doesn't diminish the tragedy, but just fits it into the building's much longer history."
However debatable, many will always view the cathedral as a place tightly connected to religion, while others will view the cathedral as a structure merely experiencing another unfortunate reminder of its age and delicate nature. According to Taliesin School of Architecture president Aaron Betsky, the question is whether to re-create its classic design or "try to do a better job not only in reconstructing the roof but also in finishing the twin towers and other elements of the medieval design (at least as far as we can know it). If the choice, on the other hand, is to invent something new, what should that be?”
Betsky points out many factors that go into any rebuild of a historic structure. With today's social climate it would be almost impossible to make every group pleased. However, perhaps that is not the goal. What makes this rebuild different from any other Notre Dame reconstruction is time. This is a rebuild of the 21st century, not the 17th century — and with 21st-century approaches comes 21st-century discussion heightened by media and public opinion. Technology, intention, and money are what will shape the future of the structure. “We have to ask what not only Catholicism but the notion of an iconic object in a multicultural and therefore multi-religious city such as Paris means for architecture, and how current technologies and materials influence the development of form. If anyone can answer that knot of questions, they might come up with a design that continues the work of faith that has made Notre Dame such a majestic object, tested by time and now fire, that keeps acting as a symbol and a fact of faith,” he explains.
Is there a disparaging reaction to which social and economic issues are being addressed first? Yes. Are there current issues across the globe that have been pushed aside and tabled? Yes. However the endless debate over what the cathedral is and isn't will not stop the fact that it will be renovated. The cathedral's rebuild isn't merely a question of "social significance and popularity" but also a reaction to how the public responds to architecture in the news. Architecture at its core is both an art and a technique blended to create a built environment. Like most things, especially with buildings, there will always be a variance in value historically, culturally, and individually.
21 Comments
For comparison and consideration...
https://placesjournal.org/arti...
This is a great read Marc! Thanks for sharing. I was especially drawn to this point Mattern makes, "Maintenance may be a timely subject, but it isn’t new [...] we have to recognize that maintenance and repair have always been shaped by the political, social, cultural, and ecological contexts of technology (and, more broadly, techne or craft). More than that: we have to know the history of what we’re up against.
"Before maintenance can challenge innovation as the dominant paradigm, we’ll need to build a bigger public stage. The current discourse is tilted toward economists, engineers, and policymakers — and they’re a pretty demographically homogeneous group. 7 Given the degree of brokenness of the broken world (and the expense of fixing it), we need all maintainers to apply their diverse disciplinary methods and practical skills to the collective project of repair."
It's relevant because it gets to the heart of the issue- restore the to what point? Notre Dame is indeed a dynamic - resilient - structure that has seen a lot of change over time. Is the last image the most appropriate, or is it more appropriate to propose a "next chapter?"
Foster + has thrown his chapeau in the ring:
https://archpaper.com/2019/04/...
(I've been looking for confirmation this isn't a joke.)
I've been waiting for the inevitable egotistical asshole starchitect proposals to remodel Notre Dame in their own image.
I certainly didn't have to wait long.
this comment is not directed at the original article or any posts here, just a reaction to much of the coverage i've seen.
it seems a misuse of language to call this a tragedy. it's a shame, a waste, a misfortune. but no one died or even got hurt. the particular great things about buildings that makes work on them at times a respite from world affairs is that they are inert, material, and rebuildable. they have no internal will or spirit and only whatever meanings we project onto them.
the idea and most of the pieces of notre dame remain, that's plenty to move forward with. but maybe out of sensitivity to this instance as a record of history and focus of popular narrative they should just clean it up and leave it as is as a memorial, and build a copy nearby for experimental design.
When Violett-le-Duc rebuilt the spire and added other touches, he sought to make the cathedral even more beautiful than what was before. In other words, he sought to do what architects have done for centuries... and that's what's missing from ideas like Norman Foster's.
“In every case, the replacement used the most advanced building technology of the age...It never replicated the original."
But that was never the point. Only modernists have been infatuated with the idea of new work 'being of its time'. Historically, it wasn't about being original, it was about making the building more beautiful than before, because that's what people on the street respond to.
We don't train architects to create buildings that most people might find attractive because this implies we are nothing more than decorators. We're told beauty must be something more than what inspired the builders of Notre Dame or the Paris Opera. And then we wonder why there are so few jobs for architects in a period when building is happening all around us. Those responsible for 90% of what get's build don't want our theories and experiments, they want something people will love.
Let's rebuild Notre Dame as it was for the sake of all those who suffered seeing this beautiful gift to humanity engulfed in flames. Use aluminum, steel, and definitely sprinklers, but make it look the same as what was lost. There are acres of dross to remind us of what 'our time' is capable of. I hope the egotists just leave this one alone for the person on the street.
Take a look at his book "How to Build a House" 1873. Pure neo-gothic and quite nice if truth be said but no use of iron for the actual everyday buildings. Most people know the modernist cartoon version of these "Rationalists", not the actual person. Here's a telling quote... "To acquire taste is nothing more but to accustom ourselves to the good and the beautiful" He began loving the Gothic, and then came up with his rationalist argument for the builders of cathedrals, which any cursory view of them will tell you right away it wasn't about value engineering, but emotion.
I’m going to have to disagree...I don’t think replication or mimicry is the proper way to restore the building. I also don’t want some trendy starchitect to use this as an opportunity to dock their glass cock on the roof. Something of our time, that also responds to the old remains is imo the most appropriate/honest way to approach this project. Ive always liked this project in Madrid...
I've been to that place.
I've been there too. Nice place to cool off under the floating warehouse.
I thought the Foster proposal was a joke because obviously the roof won't let light in, unless he plans to remove the vaulted ceiling. Maybe there's a point in that: It's hard to tell the real thing from parody.
I'm guessing it's just a statement piece of some sort, but what is the statement? What's breathtaking is how quickly the firm came up with the solution. They must have spent a whopping 5-6 hours on the design and rendering. Surely, at the very least, the renovation presents a challenge that will require complex study and serious thought.
There's something blissful and blithe in the proposal, perhaps the most damning assessment of such architecture today.
At any rate, the competition should be interesting. It could be a testing ground for theory and design today, provided anyone takes it seriously. Or it may reveal how shallow the field is.
There are plenty of traditional church spires nearing a thousand years old, especially in the Alps, that have lines clean enough for any modernist. No need to reinvent the wheel here with a 'look at me' statement that will be outdated by the time it is constructed.
Re: Violett-Le-duc. I think the application of the example might be a little to simple given that he was recognized for his desire to make things that used technology of the time (as evidenced in his illustrations). The twist then is the fact that he could never attain this goal because he was thinking ahead of the curve. I'm not sure we are looking at proposals by architects and engineers that can't be built.
But that green wall is a thin proposal unless you're into pumping gallons of water laced with fertilizer through a fragile ecology of roots (not that that was the reference).
There's an irony in asking Aaron Betsky about this...
https://www.amazon.com/Architecture-Must-Burn-Aaron-Betsky/dp/1584230304
Le-Duc added really cool rationalist gargoyles.
What would Violett do? Structural rationalism of course.
This article makes the argument that all historic buildings should be adapted to fit modern times. Think LEED Gold and ADA (or the French equivalent), enhanced security with body scanners, cafes / bars / gift shops, etc.
Thus the race to determine who is going to cash in. A perfect (and pathetic) commentary on modern society. What's next - the Eiffel Tower, the Taj Mahal, Ise, the Colosseum, the Acropolis, the Great Pyramids?
Preservation? Bah. Think of the commercial opportunities lost.
Another perspective:
The Hidden Challenge of the Restoration of Notre-Dame
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.